NATO’s air attacks on a sovereign Serbia in contradiction to Article 5 of the formerly defensive alliance’s founding treaty serve to highlight the fact that the single most important consequence of NATO enlargement was never addressed: enlargement has worked first and foremost to deliver an exponential increase in power to the office of the U.S. presidency.

Do Americans, whose Founding Fathers worried mightily over the danger of the presidency becoming a royal office, really want to continue providing a single individual de facto control of an international army?

If yes, then the costs will not be monetary alone. The first victim will be the feisty citizenship witnessed 13 months ago at the Columbus Town Meeting the Clinton administration organized — too hastily as it turned out — to drum up support for a massive bombing campaign against Iraq. It is enough to recall the stunned look on a decidedly rattled Madeleine Albright’s face when a 22-year-old substitute history teacher challenged her regarding the inconsistencies of American foreign policy to know just how inconvenient the U.S. Constitution is for the globalists’ big agenda.

In the course of the year since the Columbus Town Meeting, many Americans have been astonished at Clinton’s willingness to kill people by remote control in Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, whenever such diversionary activity suited his private legal interests. This time around in Kosovo, until called by Trent Lott, a similarly emboldened Madam Secretary had apparently planned on skipping the sticky part of public policymaking — gaining support and approval from both voters and their elected representatives — entirely, thereby putting the lie to the notion that an old dog can’t learn a new trick.

The truth lurking behind these precipitous events is that world courts, world investment agreements, world trade organizations, world environmental agreements, world bans on personal firearms, world struggles against terrorism and world edicts governing various UN-selected “victim” groups meant to function as dependent international constituencies and whose plight will be used to squeeze revenues from productive populations on “humanitarian” grounds, require a capability for coercion under a single authority. UN Peacekeepers, funded by donation rather than taxation, and deployed by consensus, are not presently a solution to the demands of global realpolitik.

Let us recall that once installed in office six years ago, Clinton was soon chafing under the hard fact that American public opinion has always restrained the use of the U.S. Armed Forces when he found himself stymied by the Balkan conflict. The president knew too that the American people were not willing to spill blood for Bosnia, most certainly not after his administration’s Somalian misadventure. However, the president’s appointment of a diplomatic amateur and KGB protege, former Time Magazine journalist and Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott, as his man at the State Department soon began paying dividends. A Harvard man, Talbott had had a moment of genius early in his tenure: Why not give the Treaty of Versailles a second shot and call it ‘NATO expansion?

Deputy Secretary of State Talbott soon cooked up a workable subterfuge on his home computer. The resulting Partnership for Peace program provided a framework for NATO troops to engage in war games at U.S. taxpayers’ expense with the shattered armies of the Warsaw Pact in locales once considered exotic, like Ukraine. In reality, the program laid the crucial groundwork for public acceptance of the routine movement of NATO troops outside the alliance countries’ national boundaries on the basis of a vague, post cold war gesture towards the defeated Soviet block. Later, when a still-frustrated president turned to NATO and other ally contingents, the U.S. army was set down in Bosnia like a porcupine in a wire mesh cage, it is worth noting that the only real debate was about the deployment of U.S. armed forces.

Having succeeded by incremental stealth, the Clinton administration next advanced their cause with a sterling example of Clintonspeak known as “The Founding Act.” The Founding Act is an agreement between NATO and Russia governing the two entities’ relations in light of an enlarged alliance, but it was designed to be an end run around the U.S. Constitution which requires Senate approval for a “Treaty,” but not for an “Act.” This semantic camouflage enabled an agreement with a foreign nation regarding the terms of a proposed and unauthorized expansion of a long-standing military alliance founded by treaty and governed by charter. Additionally, the ploy gave U.S. media shills and policy pundits plenty of time to escalate the alleged stakes dependent on the proposed treaty to the hyperbolic premise that “the prestige and international leadership of the United States” were on the line.

In late April 1998, 81 senators, their pockets stuffed with $33 million of defense manufacturers’ campaign contributions, authorized the “rolling expansions” of NATO enlargement. The Kosovo situation today gives citizens but a taste of what they can expect as a result of their government’s hubris. And what exactly are those likely results? First, bills. Big ones. And plenty of them. Having dumped billions into Russia and other CIS countries to develop market economies, those nations will inevitably re-order their national priorities to take into account the large, well-equipped, American-led-and-financed army at their borders. Eventually, Russia will find her footing and a new president independent of the West and most probably hostile to it as a consequence not only of NATO air attacks against a sovereign Serbia but also of the IMF-induced ruin Russia has suffered will emerge, thereby entailing yet further costs for US taxpayers.

Domestically, one hugely obvious result is the hollowing out of our national military. Again, Clinton demonstrated foresight; by saddling the armed forces with the burden of an amoral and untrustworthy commander-in-chief, with nonmilitary obligations and with a stepped-up program of gender-engineering, our national military is today a shadow of its former self. Add to that the reduction of funding for equipment and training and in short order the national army will be dependent upon the international one now being created. This is an essential development for any president who would be king, because a powerful hierarchy based on merit and codes of honor grounded in a tradition that includes civilian control amounts to alarming competition.

Since Americans no longer accept casualties as an inevitable consequence of military action, the international army will be ideal for the inattentive and self-absorbed citizenry the Clintons are so enthusiastically attempting to create via their boomer socialism. In the expanded NATO, officers will be Americans, Brits, and Germans mostly. The second tier of NATO forces will be composed of second tier EU alliance members and fighting troops will be drawn from those nations like Poland and the Czech Republic which were once Soviet satellites and which today aspire to EU membership. After the last group has achieved its goal, thereby putting in place the final bricks of Fortress Europe, it will be easy to close the final gap to creating a fully imperial army with the employment of mercenaries. Even better, the U.S.-led and IMF-funded empire of finance capitalism will insure a healthy supply of soldiers for hire; an imperial army will welcome a job program for “emerging economies” whose corrupt governments are routinely bound and gagged with large international loans.

That then will be the 21century’s brave, new world, created by a duplicitous political and financial elite who no longer view America as a nation, a culture or a civilization, but as an opportunity. Citizens need to understand that should NATO survive and prosper, what began yesterday in Serbia will conclude in several years’ time in Central Asia. From a future base most likely in Azerbaijan, NATO troops are destined to guard oil fields and pipelines under U.S. and Western control. Though America’s soccer moms today fail to see the danger of losing their sons to future NATO oil wars, the Russians surely are not so blind.

Anne Williamson has written for the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Spy magazine, Film Comment and Premiere. An expert on Soviet-Russian affairs, she iscurrently working on a book, “Contagion: How America Betrayed Russia.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.