Invasion of Iraq

RW ONLINE: Raymond Lotta: Dissecting the Bush Doctrine
<H2>Dissecting the Bush Doctrine</H2>
<H3>U.S. Imperialism's Crusade for One World Empire</H3>
<P>by Raymond Lotta</P>
<P><I>Revolutionary Worker #1187, February 16, 2003</I>, <A HREF="http://rwor.org">posted at 
rwor.org</A></P>
<I>Note: The following article is based on talks and speeches given at antiwar teach-ins and 
seminars.</P>
</P>
</P>
</P>
</P>
</I>Why is the U.S. launching war against Iraq? What is driving the onslaught against this 
impoverished, decimated country?</P>
Behind the pretexts, lies, and pious rhetoric is cruel logic at work. The war on Iraq is the second 
phase of what can only be described as America's war on the world.</P>
Think of what has happened since the events of 9/11. The U.S. conducted a brutal war against 
Afghanistan that took more lives than were lost at the World Trade towers. By early 2002, the U.S. had sent 
troops into the Philippines, into Yemen, and Somalia. It had set up 13 new military bases in the oil-rich and 
gas-rich countries surrounding Afghanistan. And it had embarked on the biggest military build-up since the 
cold-war years of the Reagan administration.</P>
U.S. policy planners and strategists have spoken of a "war without boundaries." They tell 
us it will be a new kind of war--with new military doctrine and tactics. Vice-President Cheney tells us this 
war may last a generation--an "endless war." The joint chiefs of staff have quietly adopted a 
20- to 30-year military plan for waging warfare against different states and armed groups across the world. 
In March of 2002, the administration announced that it was prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons in first 
strikes.</P>
This "permanent war" has a home front. Again, think about what has happened since 
9/11: round-ups and detentions of targeted sections of immigrants, the vast expansion of police and 
surveillance powers, the creation of military tribunals, and a pervasive Big Brother atmosphere.</P>
The government says this is all about preventing new outbreaks of terrorism--that it's about our 
security, about democracy, about the preservation of civilization (as they define it!). But what's really 
going on is something else, and it is further and further removed from the events of 9/11. What's going on 
is about the needs of empire--the U.S. empire.</P>
Now when I say that the U.S. is an empire, I mean that the economy of the U.S. is the "home 
base" of a global network of exploitation and plunder. This empire is bound together by over $5 
trillion in overseas investments. It spreads its tentacles of influence and control through global institutions 
like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO that the U.S. dominates. This empire subordinates oppressed nations 
of the Third World to its economic needs and strategic interests, and enforces that subordination through 
the controlling mechanism of the neocolonial state.</P>
This is a capitalist-imperialist empire. It operates according to the imperatives of economic 
expansion, the pressures of competition, and the drive among contending world powers for strategic 
position and advantage--over regions, markets, and resources. And this empire rests on military might. U.S. 
imperialism has girdled the globe with more than 700 military bases and installations; stations over a half-
million troops overseas; and has constructed a high-tech military machine that has rained death and 
destruction on more people of the world than has any other power of the last 60 years. The rulers of the 
U.S. empire are now on a predatory offensive.</P>
Bob Avakian, whose insightful analysis of the current situation I am drawing on, describes the Bush 
administration's strategic perspective this way: "They have ambitions of essentially reshuffling the 
whole deck, reordering the whole situation--beginning with the strategic areas of central and south Asia and 
the Middle East that are more immediately involved now--but, even beyond that, on a world scale" 
(see "The New Situation and the Great Challenges"--<I> RW </I> special magazine section in 
<I>RW </I>#1143 [March 17, 2002] and at rwor.org).</P>
The essence of what is happening is this:<I> under the cloak of the war on terrorism, U.S. 
imperialism is seeking to achieve world domination on a whole new level </I>. This is the "dirty little 
secret" of the "war on terrorism." This "war on terrorism" is being used as a 
blank check to attack any opponent the U.S. imperialists choose, including genuine revolutionary 
movements such as the Maoist people's wars in Nepal and the Philippines. The "war on 
terrorism" is a political-military-ideological offensive to accomplish many different things in pursuit 
of empire. It is extreme and dangerous in its methods and goals.</P>
<B><FONT FACE="Arial Narrow">A GRAND STRATEGY FOR EMPIRE</P>
</P>
</P>
</P>
</P>
</B></FONT>In this article, I want to explore the nature and underlying objectives of the Bush 
Doctrine. These are some of the main points I will be making:</P>
1) The moves the U.S. is making in the world flow from a "grand strategy." This grand 
strategy (the Bush Doctrine) is an attempt by U.S. imperialism to restructure international power relations 
and geopolitical realities in key regions of the world to its long-term advantage.</P>
2) To understand this grand strategy, we have to go back to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 
effect this had on world politics and world economics.</P>
3) There are four interconnected elements to this grand strategy.</P>
A) U.S. imperialism is seeking to make permanent its military-political-economic superiority over 
potential rivals; to prevent any potential rival or adversary from building up forces to match or surpass 
those of the U.S.; and to reassert its global dominance in relation to other imperialisms and regional 
powers.</P>
B) U.S. imperialism is operating according to a new military doctrine of preemption: of launching 
attacks and waging wars before there is any provocation or threat to it.</P>
C) U.S. imperialism is seeking to impose new forms of control and governance in the Third 
World.</P>
D) U.S. imperialism is breaking out of the restraints of international laws, institutions, and 
alliances.</P>
4) Right now Iraq is a major focus and stepping stone of this grand strategy. In Iraq, there is a 
coming together of regional and international interests of empire.</P>
5) U.S. imperialism is on a roll. But the Bush doctrine and what the U.S. is setting in motion are 
fraught with contradictions and uncertainties. The people must act to bring about a different political 
alignment, one that can stop this juggernaut.</P>
<B><FONT FACE="Arial Narrow">BACKDROP: THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION 
AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE U.S. AS SOLE SUPERPOWER IN THE WORLD</P>
</P>
</P>
</P>
</P>
</B></FONT>To understand what is going on, we have to go back a decade or so. The collapse of 
the Soviet Union in 1990-91 marked a sea-change in international relations.</P>
From the mid-1970s until 1991, world politics was deeply shaped by the rivalry between the U.S.-led 
and Soviet-led imperialist blocs. The Soviet Union had been a socialist society. But in the mid-1950s a new 
bourgeois class came to power and restored capitalism and set out to build an empire. The Soviet Union 
emerged as a superpower competitor, with comparable military capability, to the U.S. The global rivalry 
between the two superpowers was leading towards war in the 1980s.</P>
But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. was now the sole superpower in the world. The 
U.S. pummeling of Iraq in 1990-91, and their display of raw power in the region, was a factor in the 
collapse of the Soviet Empire. No other imperial power could match the combined military, economic, and 
political strength of the U.S. No other power was in a position to mount a sustained global challenge to 
U.S. imperialism. Never before in history has military power been so disproportionately concentrated in the 
hands of one state.</P>
This was the situation as the first Bush presidency was ending and the Clinton team was taking over. 
Now during the Clinton years, various ruling class "think-tanks" and policy planners were 
arguing that U.S. imperialism under Clinton was not capitalizing on the new situation.</P>
Clinton, it should be noted, was doing nothing other than advancing the global interests of U.S. 
imperialism. But in the eyes of a certain grouping within the U.S. ruling class, things were not right. Bob 
Avakian characterizes their thinking this way: "`Look, we had this great victory in the Cold War. 
Then we had this whole period when we had Clinton in there, and we didn't really take advantage of the 
victory in the Cold War. We didn't `roll up' the whole world the way we could have, and should have. We 
let things drift, and it's time to get in there and follow up the victory of the Cold War with this whole new 
world realignment that we're going to bludgeon into being.' " (<I> The </I><I> New Situation and 
the Great Challenges </I>)</P>
As these ruling-class forces read the situation, and their thinking was first formulated in a 1992 
briefing paper titled the Defense Planning Guidance draft, the U.S. should have pursued a more aggressive 
post-Cold War strategy. It should be using its military, political, and economic strengths to reshape the 
world in ways that would entrench the U.S. as the dominant world power through the 21st century.</P>
The ruling-class forces that have been pushing for a new post-Cold War strategy are now in 
command. They are the heart of the Bush foreign policy team--people like Vice President Cheney, Defense 
Secretary Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser. Secretary of State Colin Powell 
is a key architect of the U.S. "bully on the block" strategy. And they have forged a certain 
consensus within the U.S. ruling class around an aggressive course of global action.</P>
Listen to Condoleezza Rice: "The international system has been in flux since the collapse of 
Soviet power. Now it is possible--indeed probable--that that transition is coming to an end. If that is right, 
then this is a period not just of grave danger, but of enormous opportunity." These ruling class forces 
see opportunity in the current balance of world power, which gives the U.S. more freedom to impose its 
will. They see an opening to radically change the political landscape in the Middle East, now that the 
Soviet Union is out of the picture.</P>
But these ruling class forces also believe that the U.S. must act decisively--because this favorable 
moment may pass.</P>
9/11 created a new mix of necessity and opportunity for U.S. imperialism. The attack may have been 
a case of "blowback." The U.S. had organized, financed, and armed reactionary fundamentalist 
forces as part of its efforts to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan and weaken it elsewhere. But angered by 
the Persian Gulf war and the U.S. presence in the Middle East, these forces have turned on their U.S. 
sponsors.</P>
9/11 presented U.S. imperialism with a certain necessity. As the world's dominant power, it had to 
hit back, and hit with a vengeance--to let the world know that the U.S. would not tolerate any such acts 
against it, especially on its home soil. At the same time, the events of 9/11 presented the ruling class with a 
political-ideological opening: they would cast their quest for global dominance as a "war on 
terrorism."</P>
<B><FONT FACE="Arial Narrow">A NEW HEGEMONISM* IN PURSUIT OF EMPIRE</P>
</P>
</P>
</P>
</P>
</B></FONT>*When I speak of hegemony, what I am referring to is the dominant position and the 
leading-directing role of an imperialist state in the world imperialist system. This dominance is exercised 
over the world market, the international state system, and the military order. The U.S. ruling class is 
seeking to enforce a new hegemonism over the world system.</P>
The U.S. imperialists are setting out to restructure international relations. What is this restructuring 
about? It's about the balance of power among the imperialists, spheres of influence, the restructuring of 
military alliances, trade relations, and forms of control in the Third World. The U.S. imperialists are 
operating according to a global calculus and agenda. Their aim is to impose a new world order that will 
secure U.S. dominance through the 21st century--a new world order that will even more starkly serve the 
interests of the U.S. empire. We can identify four key elements of this "grand strategy."</P>
<I>First, this grand strategy's starting point is an overriding commitment to make permanent U.S. 
military and economic superiority over potential rivals and to reassert U.S. hegemony and dominance in 
the world imperialist system</I>.</P>
The U.S. is taking more aggressive measures to preserve its position as an unrivalled superpower. It 
wants to prevent any imperial power--Western Europe, Russia, Japan--or possible coalition of imperial 
powers and regional powers, like China, from challenging its interests in strategic regions of the world and 
from gaining the ability to challenge its position as the dominant power of the world capitalist system. It 
aims to prevent the emergence of what is called a "peer competitor."</P>
In pursuit of this goal, the U.S. is seeking to widen its military-technology lead. It is committing to a 
permanent arms race in order to prevent any power from building up forces to match it, and to threaten 
potential rivals and to crush any forces that it regards as hostile to its global interests.</P>
At the same time, the U.S. is seeking to keep other imperialist powers in more subordinate and 
restricted junior-partner positions: a coalition of the coerced. Here we can look at Western Europe and 
Japan.</P>
The U.S.-led political-military alliance with Western Europe is under strain. Economic rivalries and 
economic tensions between the U.S. and Western Europe are growing. And there has been a trend of these 
other powers to go more their own way. The U.S. is using the "war on terrorism" to reshape 
NATO (the U.S.-Western European military alliance that the U.S. leads) and the whole U.S.-led military-
security framework that these imperialisms have operated in.</P>
The U.S. is both strong-arming and cajoling other imperialisms. We see this at work in how the U.S. 
has been pressuring France and Germany into supporting the assault on Iraq--making it clear that they will 
be cut out of the spoils of war in Iraq, especially any post-Saddam oil deals, if they do not endorse and join 
in action.</P>
The U.S. is also reasserting its great power interests in East Asia. East Asia is the most rapidly 
developing source of superexploitable labor in the world and the center of world manufacturing. There are 
large oil reserves in the South China Sea. The United States, Japan, Russia, and China are jockeying for 
position in this region. Japan in particular has been seeking to forge an economic bloc in East Asia under its 
leadership. China, even though it is dominated by imperialism, has become a major East Asian regional 
power with growing influence.</P>
The threats to North Korea and its inclusion in Bush's "axis of evil" have to be seen in 
this light. On the one hand, the U.S. threatening North Korea, telling it that the U.S. is calling the shots on 
the Korean peninsula and that no regime can defy American power and dictates. But the U.S. is also 
sending an indirect warning to Japanese imperialism about who's on top in the region, and telling China 
that it must keep within the U.S. orbit.</P>
<I> Second, this "grand strategy" calls for the preemptive use of force to forge a new 
world order.</P>
</I><I> </I>In Bush's speech at West Point in June of 2002 and in the National Security Strategy 
document released in October, the administration announced a new doctrine of preemption.</P>
Preemption means you strike first, to beat someone to the punch who is planning to strike you. But 
the U.S. is taking this to a new level. It is giving itself the right to attack countries and forces before any 
hostile actions have been taken, before any threats have been made, before any threats have presented 
themselves as major problems. All the U.S. has to do is to allege that a country harbors terrorists or that it 
might possess, or want to possess, weapons of mass destruction--and these are grounds for preemptive 
attack. The U.S. will determine what the potential threats might be and how they will be dealt with.</P>
Now throughout its history, the United States has invaded and attacked other countries when it saw 
fit. But what's new is this: the U.S. is threatening preemption on a global scale and declaring that 
preemption will be a norm of U.S. conduct. The U.S. is saying that it has the right to attack and destroy 
anywhere on this planet it wills--without even the pretext of a provocation.</P>
Preemption requires the ability to strike quickly and anywhere. This doctrine is served by continuing 
innovations in war-fighting: expanded air- and sea-lift capabilities to rapidly move troops and armor; 
further advances in satellite and computer-guided bombing and missile systems, and in electronic 
communications and reconnaissance; and further development and deployment of special operations forces. 
The Bush administration is spending a quarter trillion dollars over the next five years to upgrade such 
capabilities, which are very much targeted for regions of the Third World.<U></P>
</U><U> </U><U><I></U>Third, this "grand strategy" involves a global onslaught 
against the Third World and the imposition of new forms of control<U> </I></U>.</P>
The U.S. is threatening to carry out "regime change" in the Third World. This is not 
about democratization--it's about taking out regimes that defy U.S. authority, that stand in the way of U.S. 
designs in strategic regions. Iraq and Iran are singled out because they stand in the way of an even tighter 
U.S. grip on the Persian Gulf and because the U.S. wants to carry out big changes in the Middle East.</P>
At the same time, the U.S. is facing a larger problem of control and governance in the Third World. 
As a result, the U.S. is not just seeking "regime change" (putting new folks in charge) but a 
certain kind of "regime transformation" as well. Let me explain.</P>
Economically and socially, there is great and growing instability in much of the Third World--as 
imperialist globalization, wrenching turns of the world economy, and chaotic urbanization tear at economic 
structures and the social fabric.</P>
Politically, there is a growing crisis of the neocolonial state. The neocolonial state is an instrument of 
neocolonialism: a form of colonialism in which a country is formally independent but effectively under the 
economic, political, and military control of imperialism.</P>
The political and military structures of the dependent neocolonial state are under great strain. The 
alliances of local exploiting and privileged classes that serve imperialism are under great strain.</P>
In a country like Pakistan, the neocolonial state is highly centralized, with the military running 
things, but this state is driven by competing power centers. In Saudi Arabia, the royal family networks and 
the secret police are the glue of power--but the narrow base of rule is fueling anti-Americanism even 
among sections of the upper strata of business owners and technocrats. In Latin America, savage austerity 
and adjustment programs ordered by the IMF, rampant corruption, the flight of capital out of these 
countries, the economic ruin of the middle classes have created problems of governability in many 
countries. In much of Africa, the end of the Cold War (and with it a "declining interest" of 
imperialism in aiding client regimes) and economic crisis have produced great instability.</P>
Imperialism's mechanisms of control in the Third World have grown shakier and more unreliable. 
Under the signboard of the war on terrorism, the U.S. imperialists are seeking to restructure neocolonial 
rule, to tighten their rule. And they are speaking a more openly <I>colonial </I>language. They are talking 
about global military action and direct and long-term military occupation to bring order, stability, and 
"civilizing norms" to "failed states" and societies that are "breeding grounds 
for terrorism."</P>
<I> Fourth, this is a strategy of breaking out of the constraints of international treaties 
institutions.</I><U> </P>
</U><U></U>The U.S. does not want to be hemmed in by international laws and agreements (even 
those it helped craft!). It does not want its freedom of action limited in any way.</P>
Already, the U.S. has removed itself from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty and the Kyoto 
Protocol on global warming. It has opposed the International Criminal Court and forced the United Nations 
Security Council to give it temporary immunity from the UN's jurisdiction in punishing war crimes. It has 
refused to honor the Geneva convention on the treatment of POWs--since that would interfere with its 
denial of rights and mistreatment of prisoners at Guantánamo in Cuba. It has rejected verification 
measures for the Biological Weapons Convention, since the U.S. does not want inspectors learning too 
much about its military-biological laboratories and programs--which of course is the height of hypocrisy 
since this is the demand the U.S. is making on Iraq.</P>
With respect to military alliances and cooperation with other powers, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld 
has famously set down that the U.S. will enter into coalitions when that is possible and serves the 
effectiveness of military action--but will not be deterred from its agenda of conquest by alliance relations or 
international bodies like the United Nations: "the mission determines the coalition."</P>
The U.S. is formulating a doctrine of empire that declares that the rest of the world has limited 
sovereignty, and countries may even lose their sovereignty to U.S. interference if the U.S. so decides. 
Meanwhile the U.S. has unlimited global sovereignty to act against other states. It can exempt itself from 
international agreements and treaties when that suits it, or ram through UN resolutions when that best 
serves U.S. interests.</P>
<B><FONT FACE="Arial Narrow">IRAQ AS PRIZE AND STEPPING STONE</P>
</P>
</P>
</P>
</P>
</B></FONT>This "grand strategy" that I am talking about is at play in Iraq. It is part of 
the reason that the U.S. is so intent on going to war against Iraq. In Iraq, there is a strategic convergence of 
regional and international interests of U.S. imperialism.</P>
The U.S. is not going into Iraq because Iraq may possess weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. 
intends to oust Saddam Hussein fundamentally for other reasons. The U.S.'s aim is to impose its will and 
authority over the people and resources of Iraq and to turn Iraq into a platform from which to reshape 
political and economic relations in the Middle East. To underscore the scope of its ambition, the U.S. has 
floated out that it is prepared to occupy Iraq, for years if necessary, and to install a U.S. military 
administration under General Tommy Franks.</P>
Clearly, oil is a goal here. Iraq's oil reserves are the second largest in the world (and Iraq and Saudi 
Arabia together account for close to 50 percent of the world's proven oil reserves). A direct U.S. beachhead 
in the heart of the Middle Eastern oilfields would have enormous regional and international implications. It 
would radically affect the internal politics of OPEC. It would give the U.S. a freer hand to alter 
arrangements with other oil-producing states of the region. And control over Iraqi oilfields would 
strengthen U.S. leverage over Western Europe and Japan, which rely heavily on Middle Eastern oil. A 
direct U.S. presence would also hamper Russia from pursuing its own imperial agenda in the region.</P>
But oil is only part of the picture. Other natural resources loom large, including control of Iraq's 
huge rivers and the fresh water resources of the region.</P>
A U.S. occupation of Iraq or the installation of a pliant pro-U.S. regime would allow the U.S. to shift 
its major military forces away from an increasingly unreliable Saudi Arabian ruling class. It would put 
pressure on neighboring Iran. And a pro-U.S. Iraq would serve as a launching pad for political and 
economic "reordering" in the region.</P>
Politically, the U.S. power structure wants to develop more dependable ruling elites with broader 
bases of support in the middle classes. This is especially so in countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, 
and Egypt--where the influence of anti-American, Islamic-fundamentalist forces is quite strong. 
Economically, the U.S. ruling class wants to batter down barriers to penetration and control by corporate 
capital. It wants to modernize the social and economic conditions for capitalist exploitation in these 
countries. From this perspective, a "restructured" pro-U.S. Iraq would serve as a testing ground 
and model for restructuring elsewhere.</P>
The overthrow of Saddam would also aid Israel, America's most trusted client in the Middle East. It 
would provide Israel with a more favorable regional framework within which to suppress Palestinian 
resistance and fortify occupation and control.</P>
Finally, a successful war against Iraq would be a demonstration of brute power. It would show allies 
and foes alike what happens when a regime defies the new Roman Empire. It would serve as a precedent 
for preemptive military strikes in other parts of the world. In these ways, the ouster of Saddam Hussein 
bolsters the U.S.'s regional and world agenda.</P>
<B><FONT FACE="Arial Narrow">A CAULDRON OF CONTRADICTIONS, A 
RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT</P>
</P>
</P>
</P>
</P>
</B></FONT>Let me sum up. Under the banner of the "war on terrorism," U.S. 
imperialism is utilizing its political, military, and economic strengths to restructure relations in key regions 
of the world and to entrench and fortify its position as the hegemonic power over the world economy and 
the international state system. U.S. imperialism is widening its military superiority. It is seeking to secure 
monopolistic control over the world's sources of oil--in the Persian Gulf, Caspian Sea, and the South China 
Sea. It is seeking more privileged access to markets and raw materials. This is a quest to create the 
conditions for the unchallenged exploitation of hundreds of millions of laborers throughout the world.</P>
The Bush team sees a window of opportunity in the world situation to pursue its agenda. They also 
see a necessity to move decisively. In their own perverted way, they have a sense of history, of rising and 
declining empires.</P>
The U.S. emerged from World War 2 with unparalleled strength. By the 1960s, a storm of national 
liberation struggles in the Third World--supported by Maoist China--challenged U.S. neocolonialism. By 
the early 1970s, the U.S. was facing its first military defeat, at the hands of the Vietnamese people, and 
being challenged on a world scale by a superpower rival, the Soviet Union. Japan was the rising economic 
power of the world system. In the 1990s, the Soviet Union had collapsed, Japan was fading economically, 
and the European Union had emerged as a formidable economic power. The distribution of power in the 
world imperialist system has changed dramatically over the last 40 years. The U.S. imperialists are acutely 
aware of this.</P>
U.S. imperialism has considerable initiative right now. But their global juggernaut is fraught with 
complex and dangerous contradictions. It is forcing many countries and already fragile regimes into the 
madness of the "war on terrorism." It is intensifying tensions and instabilities in the Middle 
East...on the Indian subcontinent...on the Korean peninsula. America's new hegemonism is shaking 
alliances in Europe and elsewhere. Other imperialist powers are being compelled to stake out their claims 
and fight for their great-power interests in a more uncertain international arena. This war on the world is 
dragging people in the imperialist countries into political life--with literally millions taking to the streets. 
U.S. intervention and war in the Middle East have the potential to ignite firestorms of resistance and 
upheaval that could rock and topple regimes in the region.</P>
Bob Avakian describes this situation as a "cauldron of contradictions." In this context, he 
points out: "the alignment that [the U.S. imperialists] are trying to bring into being, and even the 
alignment that now exists, is not the only way things can turn out." The people must work to bring 
about a different alignment, one that can stop this juggernaut and advance the struggle against the 
system.</P>
Here in the U.S., the antiwar movement is developing. Growing numbers are taking up the task of 
organizing powerful resistance to this juggernaut of war and repression, and making common cause with 
the people of the world. Right now our focus must be to stop a cruel and unjust war in the making against 
Iraq. The challenges are enormous. But people must rise to them, because what is ultimately at stake is the 
kind of world we are going to live in: a world of empire, or a world free of exploitation and 
domination.</P>
<HR>
<P><P>This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Online<BR><a 
HREF="http://rwor.org">rwor.org</a><BR>
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654<BR>
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
Category:Second Cold War