Power projection, in a strategic sense, is the capability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power—military, economic, informational, or diplomatic—to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, contribute to deterrence, and enhance regional stability. It is fundamentally about a state's ability to exert influence, project strength, or assert its will far outside its own territory. The core elements and components include military logistics, strategic mobility, forward basing, joint operations, and sustainable force projection. To achieve all that, the United States maintains a vast global network of approximately 750 to 800 military bases in at least 80 countries. Key concentrations are in Japan, South Korea, Germany, and the Middle East, serving to project power, purportedly protect allies, and secure regional interests.

The strategic goals of power projection are deterrence, crisis response, compellence, security cooperation/stability, and the noble-faced humanitarian assistance. There are mainly two types of power projection: one, hard power projection (involves the direct application or threat of military force, including “show the flag” demonstrations, punishment or active intervention); and two, soft power projection (military and intelligence diplomacy, use of military assets for non-combat roles, such as peacekeeping, non-combatant evacuations or humanitarian aid). However, in the 21st century, the definition of power projection is expanding to include indirect, networked and hybrid means, such as leveraging financial and informational tools to shape the security environment. Besides many other countries, has Pakistan not been facing all forms of American power projection for a long time?

I was lucky to get an opportunity to study the above-defined subjects more than three decades ago (1992–1994), along with members of NATO countries and a variety of military officers from all over the world. The main threat from Warsaw Pact countries led by the former USSR had vanished by 1992, and NATO was in desperate search of a new global threat for its survival as a potent Western military alliance led by the USA and for keeping the defence industrial complex thriving. That led the NATO HQ in 1994 to draw up a target list of Muslim-majority countries with reasonable economic potential (resource-rich) and countries with significant military capabilities. The wars of narratives, creation of Islamophobia, associating Islam/Muslims with terrorism, creation of proxies like AQ, ISIS, ISKP, TTA/TTP, BLA, and many more all over the world, and exploitation of the biggest fault line among Muslims, i.e. the Sunni–Shia divide, took place as part of the overall power projection stratagem. It obviously went through a long period of planning and preparation until 9/11, 2001, happened, which paved the way for the US-led NATO to commence the invasion of Afghanistan, followed by Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and now Iran.

The names of some of the countries selected, destroyed, captured, plundered, and kept under Western control have also been confirmed by retired US General Wesley Clark, who, in an interview divulged how he was informed about the decision to “take down seven countries in five years”, while Afghanistan was still under US invasion. Obviously, other countries like Pakistan, Turkiye, Egypt, CARS and resource-rich African and Middle Eastern countries on the hit list prepared in 1994 have so far been handled differently through a combination of the above-stated various ways of power projection, e.g. sponsored regime changes, military takeovers, coloured revolutions, covert warfare, civil wars, the launching of well-armed proxies, unleashing wars of narratives and coercive manipulation through enslavement by IMF, WB and other IFIs’ loan traps. Readers who wish to dive deeper may read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. In my personal experience, for the realisation of Western power projection, the invested and compromised political leadership and top bureaucracy in the targeted countries play the most disgusting and perfidious role.

Nevertheless, the wars of world domination necessitate maintaining control over the global lines of communication, i.e. land, sea, air, cyber, and outer space, with a technological edge. Some of the contemporary challenges being faced by the USA during its invasion of Iran may include: one, contested environments (modern adversaries possess advanced Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities, such as long-range precision fires and cyberattacks on logistics, designed to disrupt deployments); two, logistical vulnerability (the reliance on vulnerable supply chains means that securing sea lanes of communication is critical, e.g. the Strait of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb); three, “come as you are” warfare (the need for instantaneous, high-readiness response to crises, which may not allow time for building up forces); four, digital attack surface (the increased use of AI and IT in logistics expands the risk of cyberattacks, requiring cyber-secure logistics systems); and last but not least, the cost of war and the complexity of keeping coalitions and alliances intact.

In an attempt to take down Iran, particularly its clergy/IRGC leadership, its naval, nuclear, and missile capabilities, and to bring about regime change, US Senator Lindsay Graham has termed it a war of religion, and POTUS Trump has reinforced it by calling faith leaders for prayers in his Oval Office. Will Muslim countries finally demonstrate that “United we stand, divided we fall”?

Saleem Qamar ButtThe writer is a retired senior army officer with experience in international relations, military diplomacy and analysis of geo-political and strategic security issues.

© The Nation