FORCE MULTIPLIERS

THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF IMPERIALISM

BY
M AXIMILIAN C. FORTE

Overview

In the drive to accumulate ever more global power for the US state
and its allies, both political and corporate, the quest for totalization
confronts the challenge of overreach. To operate using smaller
efforts to carry larger loads, US strategists have devised what they
call force multipliers. Force multiplication is about leverage:
using partners and proxies in an expanding network. Forces are
conceptualized in multi-dimensional terms. Anything in the world
of cultural systems, social relationships, and material production can
become force multipliers for imperialism: food security, oil,
electricity, young leaders, aid, social media, NGOs, womens rights,
schoolgirls, democratization, elections, the G8, the European Union,
NATO, the IMF, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum,
AFRICOM, development, policing, borders, and epidemics, among
others.

THE SCIENCE OF CONTROL

US hegemony is reframed in terms of science and rationality. Thus,
The US Department of State declares: smart, effective
American leadership (DoS, 2010, p. 14)
The US Army proclaims the science of control (US
Army, 2008a, p. 6-1)
The building blocks of this thinking involve ideas of
TIME, ENERGY, MASS, & VELOCITY
which spawns an array of euphemisms and buzzwords:

SMART
STEALTH
LEVERAGE
HYBRID WARS
INTEROPERABILITY
ASYMMETRIC WARFARE

FULL-SPECTRUM OPERATIONS
THREE-DIMENSIONAL WARFARE

Many other nations

will face greater peril
as the US leans more
than ever on social
and cultural forces
internal to those
nations in order to
advance its political
and corporate
interests.

However, what hides beneath an ambitiousif

not desperateplan for deepening US
intervention on a global scale, is muddled policy
sold as science.

For example, it is not clear that either the US

Department of Defense or the US Department
of State has a clear idea of what is a force
multiplier.
First, the concept was borrowed from physics:

Force multipliers: Machines

which allow a small effort to
move a larger load are called
force multipliers. Some examples
of force multipliers include: a
crowbar, wheelbarrow,
nutcracker, and bottle opener.
The number of times a machine
multiplies the effort is called its
mechanical advantage. The
mechanical advantage of a
machine is the number of
times the load moved is
greater than the effort used.
Mechanical advantage (MA) =
load/effort. (Avison, 1989, p.
109)

US military writers then began to expand on the

force multiplier idea in the following ways:

Force Multiplier. A
capability that, when
added to and employed
by a combat force,
significantly increases
the combat potential of
that force and thus
enhances the probability
of successful mission
accomplishment. (US
Department of Defense
[DoD], 2007, p. GL11)

Observation Number 9, cultural awareness is a force multiplier, [sic]

reflects our recognition that knowledge of the cultural terrain can be
as important as, and sometimes even more important than,
knowledge of the geographic terrain. This observation acknowledges
that the people are, in many respects, the decisive terrain, and that
we must study that terrain in the same way that we have always
studied the geographic terrain. (General David H. Petraeus, 2006,
p. 8)

Gender issues arent just

personnel issues. They are
intelligence issues! Gender is a
force
multiplierif
you
understand how gender works
in a particular society, you can
control that society much
more effectively! (A senior
US military lawyer speaking at
a workshop on gender and
international
humanitarian
law, in 2007. Quoted in
Orford [2010, p. 335])

...even states of mind became force multipliers:

perpetual optimism is a force multiplier

(Ret. US General Colin Powell, 2006)

Force multipliers has become the new code phrase for:

US intervention, everywhere, at all times, using anything and
anybody as a tool to maintain US domination.
But why force multipliers?

SEVEN THESES ON FORCE MULTIPLIERS

Thesis #1: Scientific-sounding language masks deep

insecurity, doubt, a fear of rising instability, and mutes
aggression.
the resort to the language of science (linguistic scientism) betrays
a need for conceptual security on the part of political and military
leaders
attempts to provide assurance of clear thinking and successful
outcomes to deeply fatigued and disgruntled masses at home
creates an aura of order and neutrality, which helps to mask
much uglier realities.

Everything, at home and abroad, is cast in terms of

overt or implied destabilization:
US strategists and policymakers do abroad what they fear at
home
protests are not about free speech or free assembly, but about
destabilizationthus protests are repressed at home, yet
encouraged abroad
The fear of the masses, at the heart of democratic elitists, is
now projected externally and turned into policy as democracy
promotion
Fear at home is conveyed by an all-threats, all-hazards
philosophy of enhanced national security awareness, with calls
for more community policing and even the use of conservation
officers as force multipliers in counterterrorism (Carter &
Gore, 2013, p. 285)

The language of force multiplication refuses to reject or

deflect conspiratorial views of power; instead, it actively
promotes such views, thereby validating them.

Thesis #2: Needing a smaller effort to move a larger load,

involves recognition of limits, but also threatens further
expansion.
Anxiety, its official.
success will increasingly depend on how well
our military instrument can support the other
instruments of power and enable our network of
allies and partners (DoD, 2015, p. i)
control of escalation is becoming more difficult
and more importantand that as a hedge
against unpredictability with reduced resources,
we may have to adjust our global posture
(DoD, 2015, p. i)

Thesis #3: Imperialism,

now more than ever, works
through
partners
and
proxies. Force multipliers
are the virtual territorial
possessions of the new
imperialism.

Shifts struggles for power from the international arena,

between states, to the domestic arena within states.
(Anti)imperialist violence becomes domestic, not
international.

Thesis #4: Use of local force multipliers and covert operatives

is part of a chain of escalating force. As the first fails or
weakens, more direct force becomes necessary.
The force multiplier idea would thus appear to be a perilous,
deceptive means of making a down payment on future US
aggression against another nation, without wishing to
telegraph such intentions too far in advance.

Thesis #5: As there are force multipliers, so there are force

diminishers. The way of thinking summarized by George W.
Bush as, youre either with us or against us, is repackaged and
polished in the terms of Newtonian physics.

Thesis #6: The real message of

force multipliers is not
partnership, it is domination.
Otherwise,
the
language
misdirects uncritical readers to
believe in scientific fakery.

The misdirection deflects questioning US

assumptions about the nature of humans,
the nature of its allies, and the potential for
contradictions and reversals, let alone
potential harm to human proxies.

Thesis #7: Force multiplication is another form of capital

accumulation, namely, extraction.
The need to multiply plus the need to reduce energy
expended, are both meaningful as an expression of cost
The US seeks to minimize the cost of any intervention in
the affairs of another nation-state, by passing those costs
onto others
Using others as strategic resources, and by using more of
them and at the least possible expense, signifies a relation of
extraction
Power itself is thus transferred to the US
The trick for an overstretched empire is how to minimize
financial burdens by instead using cultural meansshared
valuesto win allegiance, acceptance, and acquiescence.

FORCE MULTIPLIERS, GLOBALIZATION,

& US DOMINANCE:
The Official Narrative

No nation should be better positioned to lead in an

era of globalization than Americathe Nation that
helped bring globalization about. ~ Barack Obama
(White House, 2010, pp. ii, iii)

An Imperial Vision of Globalization

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

protecting our interests and projecting our leadership in the

21st century (DoS, 2010, p. iv)
American global leadership resting on our global military
advantage (DoS, 2010, p. 8)
commitment to shaping the international order to advance
American interests (DoS, 2010, p. 9)
We will support democratic institutions within fragile
societies, raise human rights issues in our dialogues with all
countries, and provide assistance to human rights defenders
and champions (DoS, 2010, p. 10)

The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American

shoulders aloneindeed, our adversaries would like to see America
sap our strength by overextending our power. In the past, we have
had the foresight to act judiciously and to avoid acting alone. We
were part of the most powerful wartime coalition in human history
through World War II, and stitched together a community of free
nations and institutions to endure a Cold War....we will be steadfast
in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well....As
influence extends to more countries and capitals, we will build new
and deeper partnerships in every region.

2010 National Security Strategy (White House, 2010, p. ii)

 Encouraging partner nations to assume lead roles in

areas that represent the common interests of the United
States and the host nation.
Encouraging partner nations to increase their capability
and willingness to participate in a coalition with U.S.
forces.
Facilitating cooperation with partner militaries and
ministries of defense.
Spurring the military transformation of allied partner
nations by developing multinational command and
control, training and education, concept development and
experimentation, and security assessment framework.

Goals of the US Army, from FM 3-07 (US Army, 2008b, p. 1-12)

The US Militarys Brave New World

Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell

Lieutenant Colonel Steven M. Leonard

The forces of globalization and the emergence of

regional economic and political powers are
fundamentally reshaping the world we thought we
understood. Future cultural and ethnocentric conflicts
are likely to be exacerbated by increased global
competition for shrinking natural resources, teeming
urban populations with rising expectations, unrestrained
technological diffusion, and rapidly accelerating climate
change. The future is not one of major battles and
engagements fought by armies on battlefields devoid of
population; instead, the course of conflict will be
decided by forces operating among the people
of the world. Here, the margin of victory will be
measured in far different terms than the wars of our
past. The allegiance, trust, and confidence of
populations will be the final arbiters of success.
(Caldwell & Leonard, 2008, p. 6)

FORCE MULTIPLIERS, GLOBALIZATION,

& US DOMINANCE:
Hybrid
&
Asymmetric
Wars,
Interoperability,
Destabilization & Infiltration
In 1987, the US created the
Special Operations Command,
based in Tampa, Florida. The
Assistant secretary of Defense for
Special Operations and Low-Intensity
Conflict (SOLIC) is responsible
for the Special Operations Command

In 1991, the US Congress Section 2011, Title 10, authorized the

Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) program, allowing the
Pentagon to send Special Operations Forces on overseas exercises
with military units of other countries, so long as the primary
purpose of the mission was stated to be the training of our soldiers,
not theirs (Johnson, 2004, p. 72).

By 1998 the Special Operations Command had established JCET missions in

110 countries (Johnson, 2004, p. 72).

During 1998 alone, Special

Forces
operations
were
carried out in each of the
nineteen countries of Latin
America and in nine Caribbean
nations (Johnson, 2004, p. 73)

JCET missions fulfill espionage functions:

They return from such exercises loaded with information
about and photographs of the country they have visited, and
with new knowledge of its military units, terrain, and potential
adversaries (Johnson, 2004, p. 72)

In 1990 the US Army published

Doctrine for Special Forces Operations
(Field Manual No. 31-20) which
described one of the principal
activities of Special Forces on JCET
missions as training foreign militaries
in what the Army calls Foreign
Internal Defense (FID)

SF can conduct a UW [Unconventional Warfare] mission to support an insurgent

or other armed resistance organization. The United States may undertake longterm operations in support of selected resistance organizations that seek to
oppose or overthrow foreign powers hostile to vital US interests. When
directed, SF units advise, train, and assist indigenous resistance
organizations. These units use the same TTP [tactics, techniques, and procedures]
they employ to conduct a wartime UW mission. Direct US military involvement is
rare and subject to legal and policy constraints. Indirect support from friendly
territory will be the norm. (US Army, 1990, p. 1-17)

The United States cannot afford to ignore the resistance potential

that exists in the territories of its potential enemies. In a conflict situation
or during war, SF can develop this potential into an organized
resistance movement capable of significantly advancing US
interests.the objectives may range from interdicting foreign
intervention in another country, to opposing the consolidation of a new
hostile regime, to actually overthrowing such a regime. (US Army,
1990, p. 9-5)

We in the West are facing a seemingly new form of

warhybrid war. Although conventional in form, the
decisive battles in todays hybrid wars are fought not on
conventional battlegrounds, but on asymmetric
battlegrounds
within
the
conflict
zone
population, the home front population, and the
international community population (Colonel
John J. McCuen, 2008, p. 107)
Success will depend on effective surrogates
(General Robert Scales, 2006)

THE US DEPARTMENT OF STATE & CIVIL SOCIETY:

Force Multipliers to Diminish the Sovereignty of Others
The potential of civil society
organizations around the world to
advance common interests with us
is unprecedented.... Civil society,
universities, and humanitarian
organizations can often act in
areas or in a manner that a
government simply cannot: as
neutrals or aid providers in
conflict zones; as thought-leaders;
and as intermediaries between
states or between states and
peoples. They are indispensable
partners, force multipliers, and
agents of positive change. (DoS,
2010, p. 14)

We will reach beyond governments to offer a place at the table to

groups and citizens willing to shoulder a fair share of the burden. Our
efforts to engage beyond the state begin with outreach to civil society
the activists, organizations, congregations, and journalists who work
through peaceful means to make their countries better.many groups
share common goals with the United States, and working with civil
society can be an effective and efficient path to advance our foreign
policy. (DoS, 2010, pp. 21-22)

Youths & Women: Targeted by the State Department

as Ideal Force Multipliers

In the Middle East and North Africa, for example, large youth
populations are altering countries internal politics, economic prospects,
and international relations. The United States must reach out to youth
populations to promote growth and stable democratic government
(DoS, 2010, p. 13)

The State Department officially announced that the protection and

empowerment of women and girls is key to the foreign policy and
security of the United States.women are at the center of our
diplomacy and development effortsnot simply as beneficiaries, but also
as agents of peace, reconciliation, development, growth, and stability
(DoS, 2010, p. 23).

As women are increasingly playing critical roles as agents of change in

their societies, the US would, harness efforts and support their roles by
focusing programs to engage with women and expand their opportunities
for entrepreneurship, access to technology, and leadership (DoS, 2010,
p. 58)

Even while US diplomats tout their support for women

and children in numerous international foraeven if it
is a structurally adjusted, neoliberal vision of women
and youths fetishized as individualists, consumers, and
US agents of changein numerous other cases US
actions display quite the opposite, as when

Drone operators refer to children as fun-size terrorists

and liken killing them to cutting the grass before it grows
too long, according to Michael Haas, a senior airman in
the US Air Force and former drone operator (The
Intercept, 2015/11/19).

For its part, the CIA proposed

using
Afghan
women
for
propaganda purposes to influence
European electorates to support
NATOs military occupation of
Afghanistan:

Afghan women could serve as

ideal messengers in humanizing the
ISAF role in combating the Taliban
because of womens ability to
speak personally and credibly
about their experiences under the
Taliban, their aspirations for the
future, and their fears of a Taliban
victory. Outreach initiatives that
create media opportunities for
Afghan women to share their
stories with French, German, and
other European women could help
to overcome pervasive skepticism
among women in Western Europe
toward the ISAF mission. (CIA,
2010, p. 4)

The CIA thus advanced the idea that, media events that feature
testimonials by Afghan women would probably be most effective if
broadcast on programs that have large and disproportionately female
audiences (CIA, 2010, p. 4)

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS:
Neoliberal Force Multiplication

THE STATE DEPARTMENT

The problems we face today will not be solved by
governments alone. It will be in partnerships
partnerships with philanthropy, with global
business, partnerships with civil society
By combining our strengths, governments and
philanthropies can more than double our impact.
And the multiplier effect continues if we add businesses, NGOs,
universities, unions, faith communities, and individuals. Thats the
power of partnership at its bestallowing us to achieve so much more
together than we could apart. (US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
2009)

The Secretary of States Office of Global Partnerships, instituted in

2009, is officially described as, the entry point for collaboration between
the U.S. Department of State, the public and private sectors, and civil
society (DoS, 2015)

The partners listed for the State Departments GPI include

philanthropic foundations, universities, airlines, weapons
manufacturers, software companies, Google, Yahoo, soft drink
manufacturers, retail giants, entertainment, banks, and oil
companies (DoS, 2014b, pp. 30-31), the core corporate sectors of the
contemporary US economy. Among the US universities working under
GPI are, as listed in 2014: University of Kansas, University of
Massachusetts Boston, University of Washington, Northwestern
University, and the University of California system (DoS, 2014b, p.
31)

The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist
McDonalds cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of
the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valleys
technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and
Marine Corps. (Thomas Friedman, 1999/3/28)

Since the creation of the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) in

1985 under the Reagan administration, the State Department has been
involved in security cooperation with US private sector
interests worldwide.
More than 3,500 US corporations, educational institutions, faithbased institutions, and NGOs are OSAC constituents. Current
members include Northwestern University, the University of
California system, McGraw Hill, and a range of the most familiar
names in US entertainment, software, weapons manufacturing, financial
industries, from Monsanto to Raytheon, Boeing, Microsoft, Walt
Disney, Wal-Mart, Target, VISA, joined also by the Pentagon, FBI,
and the Department of Homeland Security.

The US Militarys Force Multipliers:

Corporations, Academics, NGOs
Connected Capitalism, a concept promoted by Coca-Colas CEO,
Neville Isdell, involves the basic idea of corporate alliances with state
institutions, to improve the image of corporations and to further US
domestic and foreign policy goals. Connected capitalism has attracted
the attention of military strategists in the US.

Admiral James Stavridis was the

Supreme Allied Commander
Europe
(SACEUR)
and
Commander of the US European
Command (EUCOM); Evelyn
N. Farkas was his Senior Advisor
for Public-Private Partnership.
The two reminded readers that the most recent National Security Strategy
at the time, calls on the executive branch to work with the
private sector, repeatedly referring to public-private
partnerships (Stavridis & Farkas, 2012, p. 7). It was under that banner
of public-private partnershipsfor which they single out Coca-Cola and
Isdells connected capitalismthat they explained collaboration as a
force multiplier. It is a force multiplier, they maintain, because it
permits the state to share the resource burden.

the
U.S.
Southern
Command, U.S. European
Command, U.S. Northern
Command,
U.S.
Pacific
Command,
U.S.
Special
Operations Command, and
U.S. Africa Command all have
full-time personnel dedicated
to garnering efficiencies and
fostering effectiveness for
DOD by collaborating with
the
private
sector
businesses,
academic
institutions,
and
nonprofits. (Stavridis & Farkas,
2012, p. 9)

I had no hint that, as a

student of Asia, I would
become as much a spearcarrier for empire as I had
been in the navy. (Johnson,
200 4, p . xx v i)
Chalmers Johnson, former
Chair of Political Science at
Berkeley (1962-1988), Chair of
the Center for Chinese Studies,
and, consultant to the CIA
(1968-1977).

The US military has been very interested in utilizing

non-governmental organizations.
In 2005 then President George W. Bush signed National
Security Presidential Directive 44 (NSPD-44), instructing US
forces to coordinate USG [US government] stability
operations with foreign governments, international and regional
organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and private
sector entities (US Army, 2008b, pp. 1-13-1-14). Referring to
NGOs in particular, the US Army noted with interest, their
extensive involvement, local contacts, and experience, which
make NGOs valuable sources of information about local and
regional governments and civilian attitudes toward an
operation (US Army, 2008b, p. A-10).

US Secretary of
State
Colin
Powell, declared
to leaders of
NGOs at a
foreign
policy
conference
in
2001:

I am serious about making sure we have the best relationship

with the NGOs who are such a force multiplier for us, such
an important part of our combat team (Powell, 2001).

NGOs are increasingly working in tandem with the military

on mutually agreed projects and objectives across the globe,
with some projects that symbolically and literally support U.S.
and NATO operations. (Stavridis & Farkas, 2012, p. 10)

LIBYA, 2011-2015:
THE SPECTACULAR CHAOS OF FORCE MULTIPLICATION

In 2014, virtually nobody noticed a formal admission by the Obama

administration that the US had been responsible for creating failed states:

We know from hard-learned experience that it is better to

encourage and support reform than to impose policies that will
render a country a failed state (White House, 2014)

onetheless, Obama spoke as if the use of force

multipliers produced success in Libya:

Were going to continue investing in our critical partnerships

and alliances, including NATO, which has demonstrated time
and againmost recently in Libyathat its a force multiplier
(Obama, 2012).

On Libya, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that,

building a multilateral coalition to deal with foreign conflicts actually
strengthens the hand of the United States. The support of the United
Nations Security Council and the Arab League for the NATO mission in
Libya was a force multiplier, and she advised using the responsibility
to protect principles essentially for propaganda to build military
coalitions, thus lessening US military and political expense (however
nominally) (Landler, 2013/7/23).

However, rather than prevent the creation of a failed state, the use of
force multipliers in Libya (local insurgents, terrorists, and human rights
activists) instead destroyed a state. This unleashed years of civil war, social
chaos, economic ruin, religious persecution, torture, abductions, and racist
lynching.

Now, many and perhaps most of the US Libyan proxies, openly regret
having served as the US force multipliers in regime change.

And the US glimpsed its own first blowback with the killing
of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other US agents in
Benghazi in 2012:

Outcomes?

Increased chaos from fighting a global war among the worlds

populations produces new mixes and imbalances of power.
Some force multipliers turn on their sponsors when agendas
and interests diverge. As a result, citizens in Europe and North
America are made to live under the constant fear of impending
terrorist attacks.

The nastiest, ugliest, and bloodiest wars to be fought this century will be
between states opposed to continued US dominance, and the force
multipliers of US dominance.
Sovereign self-defense programs will take diverse forms: banning foreign
funding for NGOs operating in a states territory; controlling mass media;
arresting protesters; shutting down CIA-funded political parties; curtailing
foreign student exchanges; denying visas to foreign academic researchers;
terminating USAID operations; expelling US ambassadors, and so forth.
There will be more open warfare between governments and armed
rebels backed by the US, or more indirectly (as the force multiplier
principle mandates) backed by US allies.
US intervention will provoke and heighten paranoia, stoking repression,
and create the illusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy that US interventionists
can further manipulate. There will be no discussion, let alone admission, that
US covert intervention helped to provoke repression, and that the US knowingly
placed its force multipliers on the front line.

Within the pseudo-science of force multipliers, there

is a dangerous statement of intent:
to use humans as a form of drone, being less expensive
yet more precise and in less need of constant guidance,
than their mechanical counterparts.
The threat to sovereignty is an insidious one.
Though the confrontation with local collaborators of
empire is not by any means new, the current phase
of struggles against US domination will require more
intensified efforts, beginning at home, given that an
overreaching empire relies ever more on local proxies.

For a list of the sources used for this

presentation, see the Introduction in the
book at:
http://www.alertpress.org/vol-5-ebook.html