The "Process Of Transformation"

By Jon Gold
Updated: 9/2/2007

I was taking a look at "Rebuilding America's Defenses" today, and I noticed the phrase, "Process Of Transformation" is mentioned SEVERAL times.

Page 12
In addition, the process of transformation must proceed from an appreciation of American strategy and political goals.

Page 13
Moreover, the process of transformation should proceed in a spirit of competition among the services and between service and joint approaches.


While it is certain that new technologies will allow for the closer combination of traditional service capabilities, it is too early in the process of transformation to choke off what should be the healthy and competitive face of "interservice rivalry."


Finally, it must be remembered that the process of transformation is indeed a process: even the most vivid view of the armed forces of the future must be grounded in an understanding of today's forces.


In general terms, it seems likely that the process of transformation will take several decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons system for a decade or more.


Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a two-stage process; first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation.

Pages 26 & 27
Moreover, the creation of middle-weight, independent units will begin the process of transforming the Army for future contingency needs.

Page 28
Most profoundly, such new units and concepts would give the process of transformation a purpose within the Army; soldiers would be a part of the process and take its lesson to heart, breaking down bureaucratic resistance to change.

Page 29
The process of transformation would be reinvigorated.

Page 37
A gradual increase in Air Force spending back to a $110 billion to $115 billion level is required to increase service personnel strength; build new units, especially the composite wings required to perform the "air constabulary missions" such as no-fly zones; add the support capabilities necessary to complement the fleet of tactical aircraft; reinvest in space capabilities and begin the process of transformation.

Page 38
Finally, the Air Force should use some of its increased budget and the savings from the cancellation of the Joint Strike Fighter program to accelerate the process of transformation within the service, to include developing new space capabilities.

Page 51
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.


The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment.


Any successful process of transformation must be linked to the services, which are the institutions within t he Defense Department with the ability and the responsibility for linking budget and resources to specific missions.

Page 58
Much has been written in recent years about the need to transform the conventional armed forces of the United States to take advantage of the "revolution in military affairs," the process of transformation within the Defense Department has yet to bear serious fruit.


Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring mission - the worthy of a constant allocation of dollars and forces - it will remain stillborn.

Page 59
Third, and perhaps the most telling, the process of transformation has yet to be linked to the strategic tasks necessary to maintain American military dominance.

Page 60
Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and "combat likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, "cyber-space," and perhaps the world of microbes.


This is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of transformation, not a precise prediction.


Indeed, these capabilities are sufficient to begin an "interim," short-medium-term process of transformation right away, creating new force designs and operational concepts - designs and concepts different than those contemplated by the current defense program - to maximize the capabilities that already exist.


Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission - worthy of a constant allocation of dollars and forces - it will remain stillborn.

Pages 60 & 61
This is especially debilitating to the process of transformation, which has become infected with a "lowest common denominator" approach.

Page 61
"Jointless" remains an important dimension of U.S. military power and it will be necessary to consider the joint role of the weapons, concepts of operations and organizations created through the process of transformation.


Yet, the process of transformation will be better served by fostering a spirit of service competition and experimentation.

Page 62
As argued above, the two-stage process of transforming the U.S. armed forces is sufficiently important to consider it a separate mission for the military services and for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.


Yet this initial process of transformation must be just the first step toward a more radical reconfiguring of the Army.

Page 63
While initiating the process of transformation in the near term, and while fielding new kinds of units to meet current missions, the Army must simultaneously invest and experiment vigorously to create the systems, soldiers, units and concepts to maintain American preeminence in land combat for the longer-term future.

27 times is the "Process Of Transformation" mentioned. Do you think it's something they cared about?

Do you think America's Defenses have undergone a "Process Of Transformation" since 9/11 happened? Considering America's military is now taking part in two wars, and are on the verge of a third, I think it's safe to say that they have.

Isn't it interesting that a lot of the individuals affiliated with the PNAC, like Dick Cheney for instance, are associated with those corporations that would benefit the most from a "Process of Transformation" in America's Military?

Don't you think we, as citizens of these United States, should REALLY take a look at 9/11? Especially when you consider that the very people that called for this "process of transformation" are still in office today, and have lied to us about everything else?

I think we should. Before it happens again, and the "Process Of Transformation" becomes the "Death Of America."

"Enduring Military Mission"...

Sound like any "War On Terror" you know of? The war that won't end in our lifetimes?

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

Is that redundant?

The "process of transformation"? Isn't "transformation" by definition a "process"?

Good call, though, Jon. I think this phrase comes from the Revolution in Military Affairs, something Rumsfeld and Andrew Marshall at the Pentagon were very much in favor of for a long time. Apparently, in the RMA debate there was some conflict over whether it should be a revolutionary or evolutionary (more gradual) change. Maybe your phrase points to a kind of thinking on this question? It's also interesting to note how RMA is connected to ideas about the failure of the nation state and the rise of globalization (world government).

In addition to PNAC, lately I've been looking closer at the Aspen Institute. Plenty of interesting stuff there. Wolfowitz's brother-in-law founded the thing, and it's dedicated to developing a refined global elite, real sharks among men. The emeritus members include Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Philip Zelikow (was a director), and Judith Miller.

Everywhere one looks in the 9/11 puzzle, one finds the same conglomeration of neocon elites.

I thought...

It was called the Aspen Strategy Group? When I first wrote this, someone on my site said, "Wow! If a schoolkid used the same phrase that many times in an essay they'd be told to go buy a Thesarus!"

Ever read about this? Here's more.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders


""“You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover—Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They're in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work—-and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers.”


That's one of my favorites.

It reminds me of the scene in Godfather II, when the mobster is about to testify and then his mafioso friends enter the court room with his family from Sicily. Suddenly, he has amnesia and doesn't testify.

"Remember our discussions at Aspen, Judy. Stay quiet. Libby will take the fall on this one, but he'll get pardoned. Everything's cool. Just don't say a word. We've got your back."

It changed its name

That's part of the genius of these globalists: They fund a bazillion "think tanks" and "policy institutes", and they keep changing up the names. It makes it difficult to identify factions.

I think Judith Miller is one of the coup faction on 9/11. Definitely. Her name is all over this stuff, and her work on Iraq suggests a high level of collusion with the administration. She was also a guest at Philip Zelikow's U Virginia forum in 1998 or 1999, where he outlined his ideas on "public myths."

There's also this bit of strangeness:

"On October 12, 2001, Judith Miller opened an anthrax hoax letter mailed to her New York Times office. The 2001 anthrax attacks had begun occurring in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, with anthrax-laced letters sent to ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and the New York Post, all in New York City, as well as the National Enquirer in Boca Raton, Florida. Two additional letters (with a higher grade of anthrax) were sent on October 9, 2001 to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy in Washington. Twenty-two people were sickened; five died. The crime has never been solved.

Miller was the only major U.S. media reporter, and the New York Times the only major U.S. media organization, to be victimized by a fake anthrax letter in the fall of 2001. Miller had reported extensively on the subject of biological threats and had recently co-authored a book on bio-terrorism, Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War, which had been published on October 2, 2001. Miller also co-authored an article on Pentagon plans to develop a more potent version of weaponized anthrax, "U.S. Germ Warfare Research Pushes Treaty Limits," published in the New York Times on September 4, 2001, weeks before the first anthrax mailings."

The current head of the Aspen Institute

is Walter Isaacson, former head of CNN and Time magazine.

The array of elites who populate its membership is mindboggling. There's a 2004 article at that says George H.W. Bush gave a speech on the New World Order at the Institute in 1990 before he gave his 1991 speech to congress. The administrative council includes or included Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan (aka Bandar Bush), Madeleine Albright, Michael Eisner, and Jack Valenti.

The Aspen Strategic Group has co-presidents in former National Security advisor Brent Scowcroft and Professor Joseph Nye of the Harvard Government School. The secretary's office was directed by Philip Zelikow, before his appointment as 9/11 Commission Executive Director.

This is interesting, though

accidental double post

This is interesting, though

This is interesting, though I am not sure what to make of it. Sounds to me that the word "process" indicates that this sort of "transformation" is to be overseen or controlled by someone.

Also, "Process Of Transformation" does = POT, which may represent a hidden neocon "call for help," a veiled rue from these creeps indicating that they now regret those days in college when they actually went to class and actually listened to Strauss, while their more intelligent friends stayed behind and expanded their horizons in more beneficial ways...


JFK on secrecy and the press

Great Research.

Great Research Jon. We should all try to understand what their definition of "transformation" is and what "process" they plan on using to achieve it. I doubt it was simply a short term goal, like the military alone. I'd assume these guys were thinking long term transformation of society as we know it, most likely based more on economic slavery and corporation based rule than anything else. Any way. Good research and spark for discussion.


Has attempted to "debunk" this article. Of course, they only addressed one question. Lackadaisically I might add.

I responded with...

Make sure everyone reads what the "process of transformation" is really about starting with "Chapter V: Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" pg. 50


So could someone please explain how this all has been significantly accelerated by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Part of the "process of transformation" called for a "constant allocation of dollars," and the only way they would achieve that is through an "Enduring Military Mission". Something like a war that won't end in our lifetimes, like say... the "War On Terror" perhaps? Gee, how much has been spent on the military since our invasions? What's the Iraq War estimated to cost the taxpayers? $1Trillion?

Get a clue.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

Revolving doors...

"The important thing is to not stop questioning" - Einstein
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - Einstein
Many hands make light work!
RRREMA=realize, recognize, reconcile, educate, motivate, activate


where did you find these images?

Don't tell me they are from somewhere as obvious as the ASG website.... :-)

Nice work!

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.