project for the new american century

[kobayashi]

a 1997 neo-conservative group begun by the following: Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman,
Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber,
Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick

interesting pieces, in part, from the people advising president bush today. some insightful publications from their site.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq, January 26, 1998
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War

Rebuilding America's Forces: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad' and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

the paper proposes 'Four Essential Missions': homeland defense, large wars, constabulary duties and transform U.S. armed forces.

perhaps most chillingly in Section V, 'Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force ', the group urges a fundamental transition in 'larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets...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.'

documents like these are liable to be looked at in one of two ways: the left will see them as evidence of present government authorities long standing intentions to attack iraq, apart from any circumstances. the right will see them as an insightful perspective that had it been taken up at the time, perhaps some of what we've witnessed in the time since could have been averted.

 

[melon]

Sounds like they took their cues from Marx and Trotsky involving global revolution, but, obviously, putting an American capitalist twist in it.

Indeed, all along, the plan has been to undermine the U.N. A multinational framework inevitably will challenge these goals of American economical and cultural global dominance. Perhaps most ironically, Bush's accusations that a lack of a war resolution on Iraq would show its "irrelevance," really proved how flawed the U.N. really is. As it stands, the U.S. wished to change the U.N. into a rubber stamp for U.S. whims--but it isn't like they didn't have this before. It's permanent position on the Security Council allows it to be obstructionist when it sees fit.

The "war on terror" is a broader war that encompasses everything that doesn't fit inside their New World Order that they wish to foster globally. "Terrorism" has just been the perfect guise in which to mask their agenda. I do not doubt that there is a sincere desire to end terrorism, but, at the same time, it is a convenient time to enact an agenda that otherwise would never go through without severe opposition.

Indeed, Bush stated that the "war on terror" would be indefinitely long, and how convenient. I have a feeling that, if unchecked, this next century will, sincerely, be the century of global revolution--both literally in "anti-terrorist" campaigns and metaphorically with economical and cultural changes.

Of course, times change and regimes change. Term limits ensure that.

Melon

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I think all this proves is that the policies of the current US adminstration were determined long before the events of September 11th, and in fact long before Mr. Bush ever took office.

And I agree with melon's comments: the "war on terror" is a very convenient cover for the Bush agenda, in a similar way that the "Cold War" was an ideal cover for some abhorrent foreign policy decisions in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.