My RSS Feeds
Hijacking Catastrophe! How Bush Took Advantage Of 9/11 To Take Over The World - Part 4B of 4: NEW AMERICAN CENTURY -RI10
Hijacking Catastrophe!
How Bush Took Advantage
Of 9/11
To Take Over The World -
Part 4B of 4:
NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
-RI10
Originally published December 31, 2005
Continued from Part 4A of 4:
NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
If you have not read Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4A of this
Series, please read:
Hijacking Catastrophe! How Bush Took
Advantage Of 9/11 To Take Over The World -
Part 1 of 4: WOLFOWITZ DOCTRINE
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/hijacking_catastrophe_how_bush_took_advantage_of_911_to_take.htm
Hijacking Catastrophe! How Bush Took
Advantage Of 9/11 To Take Over The World -
Part 2 of 4: SHOCK AND AWE
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/hijacking_catastrophe_how_bush_took_advantage_of_911_to_take_1.htm
Hijacking Catastrophe! How Bush Took
Advantage Of 9/11 To Take Over The World -
Part 3 of 4: HIJACKING CATASTROPHE
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/hijacking_catastrophe_how_bush_took_advantage_of_911_to_take_2.htm
Hijacking Catastrophe! How Bush Took
Advantage Of 9/11 To Take Over The World -
Part 4A of 4: NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/hijacking_catastrophe_how_bush_took_advantage_of_911_to_take_3.htm
AND GLOBAL DOMINATION
April 13, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS
FROM: WILLIAM KRISTOL
SUBJECT: Bolton: Character Assassination
The assault on John Bolton—a collaborative effort of Senate Democrats, the liberal media, and some quasi-Republicans resentful of his success—has now degenerated from an earnest (if misguided) critique of his views to a pathetic attempt at character assassination.
I worked with John Bolton in the first Bush administration. I know many people who have worked with him and for him in this administration. Carl Ford’s characterization of Bolton as a “kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy” is disingenuous. No, let’s call a spade a spade—it’s dishonest.
John Bolton is no “kiss-up.” Quite the contrary. Over the last four years, he was famously willing to challenge his bosses, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, at the daily 8:30 State Department senior staff meeting. He paid a price for this, especially by earning the enmity of Armitage. Carl Ford, the former State Department intelligence chief, was a close associate of Armitage.
Nor is Bolton a “kick down sort of guy.” In fact, Bolton has always had a reputation as a straight shooter, a good boss, and not a screamer—unlike, say, Armitage. (Not that Armitage’s screaming should disqualify him from a future appointment, either. Lots of able public officials have been screamers.) The fact is, John Bolton lost trust in a subordinate of Ford who had tried an end run around him and then asked, according to the subordinate’s immediate boss in the intelligence shop, only that he be “moved to some other portfolio.”
This character assassination of Bolton is repugnant. If people want to oppose him because of his views, they’re certainly entitled to do so. I and other Bolton supporters have welcomed such a debate (see my editorial, “Bolton’s the One,” in the April 18 Weekly Standard). But to impugn the character of someone who has served sixteen years in government, in four Senate-confirmed positions, and has been popular and respected (if disagreed with, at times) in each of these positions, is just plain wrong.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/bolton-20050413.htm
Tabacco: Why don’t they mention that John Bolton was or is a member of Project for the New American Century? This is called a “Lie of Omission”. And they did it on purpose. If John Bolton were to go on trial, no one from this organization would be allowed to sit on the jury – and with good reason: PREJUDICE! Would you expect the defense attorney to say his client, who pleaded “innocent”, is guilty? Would you expect the District Attorney, who is prosecuting the defendant, to tell the press he thinks the defendant is “innocent”?
John Bolton’s appointment by George W. Bush, surreptitiously indeed to bypass the Senate, is intended to give the United Nations a bad case of constipation, if not hemorrhaging (internal bleeding) and ultimately death.
Bush has corrupted the Supreme Court by packing it with conservatives or neocons. Making John Bolton Ambassador to the United Nations is equivalent to making the wolf your lamb overseer and protector. They have silenced the media, most of the Democratic leaders, misappropriated the Supreme Court, tricked the Rapture Right religious groups, and threatened the UN with loss of funds or worse. The only people left, who can and do tell the truth, are liberal bloggers such as yours truly. If they can find a way to silence us, there won’t be any avenue of communication, dissent or truth left in the United States.
And you still don’t believe the Bushites are Nazis? This is neither hyperbole nor exaggeration (OK, it may be redundancy). I admit that Bush will never send his “enemies” to crematoriums; that analogy would be too obvious, even for him. But consider Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo + all the other foreign prisons that he won’t admit to. These are modern day versions of Hitler’s Auschwitz. The analogy is complete.
This batch of names are people, who were with PNAC five years ago.
Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett Robert Kagan William Kristol Gary Bauer Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Aaron Friedberg Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen George Weigel
Steve Forbes, presidential candidate, publisher of Forbes Mag.
Jeb Bush Gov FL
Dick Cheney Vice President
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense
Dan Quayle former VP and miss-speller
Richard Perle presently serves as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Department of Defense, Chairman and CEO of Hollinger Digital, and Director of The Jerusalem Post. He is a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI). His research areas are defense, intelligence, national security, Europe, Middle East, Russian region. He has previously served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for international security policy (1981-1987), and on the U.S. Senate staff (1969-1980). He received his M.A. in political science at Princeton University, and his B.A. at the University of Southern California.
Elliott Abrams
Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs) most recently Director of National Security Programs at the Nixon Center (1995-2001). He is a former Senior Editor of National Review (1991-1999) and worked as a research and editorial assistant to Dr. Kissinger in the preparation of his memoirs.
Vin Weber, Vice Chairman of Empower America, is a former Minnesota Republican Congressman, lawyer and banker. He now lives in Virginia and is the new head of the private National Endowment for Democracy, and was formerly a Senior Fellow at the Bradley-funded Progress and Freedom Foundation (www.pff.org)
R. James Woolsey former director of the CIA, 1993-95, Mr. Woolsey is presently a member of the Board of Directors or Board of Managers of: Linsang Partners, LLC; BC International Corporation; Fibersense Technology Corporation; Invicta Networks, Inc.; DIANA, LLC; Agorics, Inc.; and Sun HealthCare Group, Inc. He is also a member of the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. He has served in the past as a member of the Boards of: USF&G; Yurie Systems, Inc.; Martin Marietta; British Aerospace, Inc.; Fairchild Industries; Titan Corporation; and DynCorp. Besides serving as Director of Central Intelligence, Mr. Woolsey has served in the U.S. government as: Ambassador to the Negotiation on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), Vienna, 1989-1991; Under Secretary of the Navy, 1977-1979; and General Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, 1970-73.
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, JR. Chairman Defense Science Board Commissioner (U.S. Senate Appointee)
Co-Chair, Aerospace Global Issues William Schneider is currently the Chairman of the Defense Science Board in the U.S.
Department of Defense. He is also President of International Planning Services, Inc (an international trade and finance advisory firm)
Robert B. Zoellick Bush Cabinet Member Robert B. Zoellick assumed office as the 13th U.S. Trade Representative on February 7, 2001. As U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. Zoellick is a member of President Bush's Cabinet, with the rank of Ambassador, and serves as the President's principal trade policy adviser and chief trade negotiator
Paula J. Dobriansky Dept. of State Under Secretary, Global Affairs Term of Appointment: 05/01/2001 to present
Francis Fukuyama is Dean of Faculty and Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University.
Info on people:
William Kristol, chairman of the Project, is editor of the influential Washington-based political magazine, the Weekly Standard. Widely recognized as one of the nation's leading political analysts and commentators, Mr. Kristol regularly appears on all the major television public affairs shows. Before starting the Weekly Standard in 1995, Mr. Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. Prior to that, Mr. Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the Bush Administration and to Secretary of Education William Bennett under President Reagan. Before coming to Washington in 1985, Mr. Kristol taught politics at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
Robert Kagan is co-founder with William Kristol of the Project for the New American Century. He is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a contributing editor at the Weekly Standard, and a columnist for the Washington Post. From 1985-1988, Mr. Kagan was Deputy for Policy in the State Department's Bureau of Inter-American Affairs. From 1984-1985, he was a member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff and principal speechwriter to Secretary of State George P. Schultz. In 1983, he served as foreign policy advisor to Congressman Jack Kemp and as Special Assistant to the Deputy Director of the United States Information Agency. In 1981, he was Assistant Editor at the Public Interest. Mr. Kagan holds a bachelor's degree from Yale College and master's degree in public policy and international relations from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Alexander Hamilton fellow in American diplomatic history at American University.
Bruce P. Jackson is president of the Project on Transitional Democracies. Mr. Jackson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London and on the Board of Advisors of the Center for Security Policy. He is the President of the U.S. Committee on NATO, a non-profit bi-partisan organization formed to promote the expansion of the NATO alliance. From 1979 to 1990, Bruce Jackson served in the United States Army as a Military Intelligence Officer. From 1986 to 1990, he served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in a variety of policy positions pertaining to nuclear forces, strategic defenses and arm control negotiations. Upon leaving the Department of Defense in 1990, Mr. Jackson joined Lehman Brothers, an investment bank in New York, where he was the chief strategist for the firm's proprietary trade operations. In 1993, he moved to Martin Marietta Corporation where he was Director for Strategic Planning and subsequently Director for Corporate Development Projects. In these positions, Mr. Jackson played a significant role in the execution of the Corporation's mergers and acquisitions strategy.
Dr. Gary J. Schmitt is executive director of the Project for the New American Century. His Background is described here
Daniel McKivergan is deputy director of the Project for the New American Century. Prior to joining the Project, Dan was legislative director for the Office of Senator John McCain of Arizona
Ellen Bork is deputy director at the Project for the New American Century and contributing editor of the New York Sun
Here's a list of signatories of a June 3, 1997 Statement of principles. This is worth reading. Here's an excerpt:
"The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."
and
"we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values.."
They seem to have forgotten about the first half of this one. Our democratic allies, other than Britain, have been distanced.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
Here's a list of signatories of a January 23rd 2003 letter on the defense budget on the website.
William Kristol Gary Bauer Max Boot Frank Carlucci Eliot Cohen Midge Decter Thomas Donnelly Frank Gaffney Daniel Goure Bruce P. Jackson Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Lewis E. Lehrman Tod Lindberg Rich Lowry Daniel McKivergan Joshua Muravchik Danielle Pletka Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen Gary Schmitt Randy Scheunemann William Schneider, Jr. Richard Shultz Henry Sokolski Chris Williams R. James Woolsey
Signatories of a letter on Hong Kong dated Nov 25, 2002
William Kristol Dick Thornburgh Morton Abramowitz Mark A. Anderson Andrew Y. Au Gary Bauer Robert L. Bernstein Max Boot Ellen Bork Steven C. Clemons Helle Dale Midge Decter Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Robert Edgar Amitai Etzioni Hillel Fradkin Sam Gejdenson Merle Goldman Bruce Jackson Robert Kagan Max M. Kampelman Adrian Karatnycky Penn Kemble Craig Kennedy Harold Hongju Koh Tod Lindberg Bette Bao Lord Connie Mack Mary Beth Markey Martin Peretz Danielle Pletka Norman Podhoretz John Edward Porter Gary Schmitt Sin-Ming Shaw Paul Simon Stephen Solarz Leonard Sussman John J. Sweeney John Tkacik Arthur Waldron Jennifer Windsor Larry Wortzel
Letter To President Clinton Advocating Removal of Milosevic from Office.
Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrahms, Richard L. Armitage, Nina Bang-Jensen, Jefrrey Bergner, George Biddle, John R. Bolton, Frank Carlucci, Eliot Cohen, Seth Cropsey, Dennis DeConcini, Paula Dobrianski, Morton H. Halperin, John Heffernan, James R. Hooper, Bruce P. Jackson, Zalmay K Halilzad, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Peter Kovler, Mark P. Lagon, Peter Rodman, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, William Howard Taft the 4th, Ed Turner, Wayne Owens, Dov S. Sakheim,
Letter Advocating taking a strong stand on behalf of Taiwan
Edwin J. Feulner, Jr. William Kristol Elliott Abrams Richard V. Allen Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett John R. Bolton William F. Buckley, Jr. Midge Decter Robert Kagan Jeane J. Kirkpatrick I. Lewis Libby Edwin Meese III Richard Perle Norman Podhoretz William Schneider, Jr. Arthur Waldron Malcolm Wallop James Webb Caspar Weinberger Paul Weyrich R. James Woolsey Paul Wolfowitz
Letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott May 29, 1998 advocating removal of Saddam... discusses weapons of Mass Destruction
Elliot Abrams William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John R. Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter Rodman Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
Letter to Bill Clinton outlines the Vision of the Project for a New American Century.
"-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power"
signatories: 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
a who is search at register.com shows that the person who registered the domain is
New Citizenship Project
Gary Schmitt
1150 17th St. N.W. Suite 150
Washington, DC 20036
202 293-4983 fax 4572
project@NEWAMERICANCENTURY.ORG
hosting at ns.cais.com ns2.cais.com
The website is registered to the
New Citizenship
Project. (NCP)
Gary Schmitt, the executive director,
Here is a social network diagram for Gary Schmitt from www.namebase.org (a fascinating site, one that spies and political researchers will find useful.
Namebase suggests a CIA connection. http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?Na=Schmitt%2C+gary
funding sources for NCP is listed at http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?258
Repeated sources of funding for NCP include these major conservative sources of funding for think tanks and other conservative causes. These include some of the most wealthy, powerful conservative bastions of power on the planet.
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc. .... more:
It's big, with over $700 in assets
Another Source of funding is Sarah Scaife Foundation run by Richard Melon Scaife
The Man Behind the Mask; Richard Melon Scaife
Social Network Diagram for Scaife
info on The John M. Olin Foundation and their own website http://www.jmof.org/
an excerpt from an article written for the NY Times, October 25, 1999 by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, listed among the archives of the Project for the New American Century:
The Clinton Administration has placed itself squarely in the tradition of Presidents Wilson and Carter, and never more so than in Mr. Berger's speech, entitled "American Power: Hegemony, Isolationism or Engagement." Mr. Berger is opposed to American hegemony and decries Republican calls for increased defense spending. The true test of leadership, he argues, is not whether the United States remains militarily powerful, but whether it signs onto international conventions such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Climate Change Treaty, provides enough money to global poverty programs and supports the United Nations.
It is on these matters, Mr. Berger argues, "that our most fundamental interests are at stake." Mr. Berger derides those who worry about the threat posed by China or Russia as "nostalgic" for the cold war. In the Clinton Administration's world, there are no enemies or even potential enemies. There are only potential partners in the search for what Mr. Berger calls an international "common good."
This is the kind of utopian internationalism that the Democratic Party rejected under the hardheaded leadership of Harry Truman and Dean Acheson but embraced again after Vietnam. It is the internationalism of Jimmy Carter, squeamish and guilty about American power and content to base America's security, and the world's security, on arms control agreements rather than on American arms. This is the internationalism, which in the late 1970's and early 1980's favored the SALT II agreement and the "nuclear freeze" and opposed the Reagan arms buildup and the Strategic Defense Initiative.
Republicans in the coming election will likely propose a very different kind of internationalism. In the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, they will argue that the United States can and should lead the world to a better future, one built around American principles of freedom and justice -- but only if it has the power and the will to use that power.
Republicans will argue that American security cannot be safeguarded by international conventions. Instead, they will ask Americans to face this increasingly dangerous world without illusions. They will argue that American dominance can be sustained for many decades to come, not by arms control agreements, but by augmenting America's power and, therefore, its ability to lead."
http://www.opednews.com/new%20american%20century.htm
'Rebuilding America's Defenses' and the Project for the New American Century
by Bette Stockbauer
June 18, 2003
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site
"Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)" is a policy document published by a neoconservative Washington think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Its pages have been compared to Hitler's Mein Kampf in that they outline an aggressive military plan for U.S. world domination during the coming century. And just as Hitler's book was not taken seriously until after his catastrophic rise to power, so it seems that relatively few Americans are expressing alarm at this published document that is a blueprint for many of the present actions of the Bush administration, actions which have begun to destabilize the balance of power between the nations of the world.
There is, indeed, much reason for alarm because PNAC is not an ordinary think tank and "RAD" is not an ordinary policy paper. Many PNAC members now hold key positions in the White House, Defense and State Departments, among them Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Lewis Libby, and John Bolton, along with others in lesser positions. William Kristol, writer for the conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, is chairman of the group.
Some of these men have been advocating for a strong military posture since the ending of cold war hostilities with the Soviet Union. Wishing to capitalize on the fact that the US had emerged as the world's preeminent superpower, they have lobbied for increases in military spending in order to establish what they call a Pax Americana that will reap the rewards of complete military and commercial control of land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. This, they said, would be accomplished by the waging of "multiple simultaneous large-scale wars" and one of their first orders of business was always the removal of Saddam Hussein, thereby giving the US a toehold in the oil-rich Middle East.
During the Clinton presidency, when the Republicans were out of power, this militaristic wing in American politics became highly organized and efficient. They formed the PNAC in 1997 And published "RAD" in September 2000. Determined to have their world empire, they offered an eerie prophecy on page 52 of that document about how it might be accomplished, "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." Their dream of a catalyzing event could not have been better actualized than in the events of 9/11.
Although there could have been many responses to the tragedy of 9/11, the Bush administration seized upon that event to mold public opinion into accepting many ideas embodied in "RAD". The overthrow of Saddam Hussein, was being proposed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz one day after 9/11, even before anyone knew who was responsible for the attacks. As soon as the war against Afghanistan was completed, the focus of US policy became regime change in Iraq, with all of the tragic consequences we are now seeing in that country.
Policies advocated in "RAD" are being enacted with terrifying speed, such as denigration of the UN, importance of Homeland Security, abrogation of international agreements, revamping of the US nuclear program and the spread of American military power into all corners of the globe by preemptive engagement. In Iraq we have seen the embodiment of "RAD" directives that call for the subjugation of regimes considered hostile to US interests and the prevention of military build-up in countries that may challenge US power. Bush's "Axis of Evil" nations Iraq, Iran and North Korea are mentioned numerous times as potential trouble spots and there is repeated insistence that the US establish military outposts in the Middle East and East Asia.
Most frightening is its complete isolation from any ideas of world unity and cooperative action. The authors appear to be intent on waging war as an answer to the problems of our planet, tragically imagining that peace can be won by enforcing American values on every other nation. A more chilling statement of the PNAC devotion to militaristic domination cannot be found than in Richard Perle's concept of "total war". "No stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
This article is a summarization of "RAD." I believe it is of importance to become familiar with this document because it is determining US policy decisions, which will have far reaching repercussions for decades to come. Subject areas are arranged under three topics: A. Pax Americana, outlining the rationale for global empire, B. Securing Global Hegemony, pinpointing regions that are considered trouble spots for US policy, C. Using the Military to Gain Empire, outlining military plans for complete world domination. My personal comments are in italics; page numbers are from the original document. See URLs at the end for further reading.
A. Pax Americana
The building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD," because the fall of the Soviet Union gave the United States status as the world's preeminent superpower. Consequently the US must now work hard, not only to maintain that position, but to spread its military might into geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to its influence, waging "multiple simultaneous large-scale wars" to subdue countries that may stand in the way of US global preeminence. Rationales offered for going to war with other nations are the preservation of the "American peace" and the spread of "democracy."
On Preserving American Preeminence
"It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace" (p. 76).
"The Cold War world was a bipolar world; the 21st century world is – for the moment, at least – decidedly unipolar, with America as the world's 'sole superpower.' America's strategic goal used to be containment of the Soviet Union; today the task is to preserve an international security environment conducive to American interests and ideals. The military's job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the 'zones of democratic peace;' to deter the rise of a new great-power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of war made possible by new technologies" (p. 2).
Four Vital Missions
"RAD" lists four vital missions "demanded by US global leadership":
"Homeland Defense. . . . the United States . . . must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter US military action by threatening US allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for US armed forces, this must have priority.
"Large Wars. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces.
"Constabulary Duties. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conducting major theater campaigns. . . . These duties are today's most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations.
"Transform US Armed Forces. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called 'revolution in military affairs,' sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets" (p. 6).
". . . the failure to provide sufficient forces to execute these four missions must result in problems for American strategy. And the failure to prepare for tomorrow's challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an early end" (p. 13).
On Usurping the Power of the UN
"Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than traditional 'peacekeeping' missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations, as the failure of the UN mission in the Balkans and the relative success of NATO operations there attests. Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality. . . . American troops, in particular, must be regarded as part of an overwhelmingly powerful force" (p. 11).
B. Securing Global Hegemony
"RAD" takes the posture that only the US should manipulate international relations and points out "trouble spots" that may cause future problems, like all of East Asia, and Iraq, Iran, and North Korea (now labeled by George Bush as the "Axis of Evil"). There is concern that several nations might come together to challenge US interests. Consequently any nation that produces nuclear weapons or engages in significant arms buildup will be viewed as a potential threat.
"America's global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy-producing region, and East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other 'non-state actors.'
"A retreat from any one of these requirements would call America's status as the world's leading power into question. As we have seen, even a small failure like that in Somalia or a halting and incomplete triumph as in the Balkans can cast doubt on American credibility. The failure to define a coherent global security and military strategy during the post–Cold War period has invited challenges; states seeking to establish regional hegemony continue to probe for the limits of the American security perimeter" (p. 5).
Axis of Evil
"The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself. The blessings of the American peace, purchased at fearful cost and a century of effort, should not be so trivially squandered" (p. 75).
Iraq and the Persian Gulf
"Although the no-fly-zone air operations over northern and southern Iraq have continued without pause for almost a decade, they remain an essential element in US strategy and force posture in the Persian Gulf region. Ending these operations would hand Saddam Hussein an important victory, something any American leader would be loath to do" (p. 11).
"The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for US military strategy, and the United States should consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and regional concerns about US presence" (p. 35).
East Asia
"Raising US military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great power status.
"The prospect is that East Asia will become an increasingly important region, marked by the rise of Chinese power….A similar rationale argues in favor of retaining substantial forces in Japan. In recent years, the stationing of large forces in Okinawa has become increasingly controversial in Japanese domestic politics, and while efforts to accommodate local sensibilities are warranted, it is essential to retain the capabilities US forces in Okinawa represent. If the United States is to remain the guarantor of security in Northeast Asia, and to hold together a de facto alliance whose other main pillars are Korea and Japan maintaining forward-based US forces is essential" (p. 18).
"Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the US fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia" (p. 39).
Europe
"Despite the shifting focus of conflict in Europe, a requirement to station US forces in northern and central Europe remains. The region is stable, but a continued American presence helps to assure the major European powers, especially Germany, that the United States retains its longstanding security interest in the continent. This is especially important in light of the nascent European moves toward an independent defense 'identity' and policy; it is important that NATO not be replaced by the European Union, leaving the United States without a voice in European security affairs" (p. 16).
Regime Change
"American military preeminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintain sufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and hostile regime when necessary" (p. 61).
"America's adversaries will continue to resist the building of the American peace; when they see an opportunity as Saddam Hussein did in 1990, they will employ their most powerful armed forces to win on the battlefield what they could not win in peaceful competition; and American armed forces will remain the core of efforts to deter, defeat, or remove from power regional aggressors" (p. 10).
C. Using the Military to Gain Empire
One stated objective of "RAD" is "to outline the large, 'full-spectrum' forces that are necessary to conduct the varied tasks demanded by a strategy of American preeminence for today and tomorrow" (p. 5). Much of the document is an elucidation of those missions and includes specific recommendations about weaponry, deployment patterns, increased personnel and defense spending. It envisions a future in which the United States is in complete control of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace of planet Earth and urges a new rendition of Reagan's "Star Wars" defense shield program.
"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" (p. 60).
"If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned US military preeminence" (p. 4).
"In sum, the 1990s have been a 'decade of defense neglect'. This leaves the next president of the United States with an enormous challenge: he must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership, or he must pull back from the security commitments that are the measure of America's position as the world's sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic freedoms and individual political rights" (p. 4).
Army
"American land power remains the essential link in the chain that translates US military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence. . . . Regimes are difficult to change based upon punishment alone. If land forces are to survive and retain their unique strategic purpose in a world where it is increasingly easy to deliver firepower precisely at long ranges, they must change as well, becoming more stealthy, mobile, deployable and able to operate in a dispersed fashion. The US Army, and American land forces more generally, must increasingly complement the strike capabilities of the other services. Conversely, an American military force that lacks the ability to employ ground forces that can survive and maneuver rapidly on future battlefields will deprive US political leaders of a decisive tool of diplomacy" (p. 30).
Air Force
"Because of its inherent mobility and flexibility, the Air Force will be the first US military force to arrive in a theater during times of crisis; as such, the Air Force must retain its ability to deploy and sustain sufficient numbers of aircraft to deter wars and shape any conflict in its earliest stages. Indeed, it is the Air Force, along with the Army, that remains the core of America's ability to apply decisive military power when it pleases. To dissipate this ability to deliver a rapid hammer blow is to lose the key component of American military preeminence" (p. 37).
Navy/Marine Corps
"The end of the Cold War leaves the US Navy in a position of unchallenged supremacy on the high seas, a dominance surpassing that even of the British Navy in the 19th and early parts of the 20th century. With the remains of the Soviet fleet now largely rusting in port, the open oceans are America's, and the lines of communication open from the coasts of the United States to Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia. Yet this very success calls the need for the current force structure into question. Further, the advance of precision-strike technology may mean that naval surface combatants, and especially the large-deck aircraft carriers that are the Navy's capital ships, may not survive in the high-technology wars of the coming decades. Finally, the nature and pattern of Navy presence missions may be out of synch with emerging strategic realities. In sum, though it stands without peer today, the Navy faces major challenges to its traditional and, in the past, highly successful methods of operation" (p. 39).
Overseas Bases to Advance American Geopolitical Interests
"There should be a strong strategic synergy between US forces overseas and in a reinforcing posture: units operating abroad are an indication of American geopolitical interests and leadership, provide significant military power to shape events and, in wartime, create the conditions for victory when reinforced. Conversely, maintaining the ability to deliver an unquestioned 'knockout punch' through the rapid introduction of stateside units will increase the shaping power of forces operating overseas and the vitality of our alliances. In sum, we see an enduring need for large-scale American forces" (p. 74).
"As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United States should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces. Not only will such an approach improve the ability to project force to outlying regions, it will help circumvent the political, practical and financial constraints on expanding the network of American bases overseas" (p. 19).
Nuclear Expansion
"…of all the elements of US military force posture, perhaps none is more in need of reevaluation than America's nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons remain a critical component of American military power but it is unclear whether the current US nuclear arsenal is well-suited to the emerging post–Cold War world. . . . there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries" (p. 8). If the United States is to have a nuclear deterrent that is both effective and safe, it will need to test." (pp. 7–8).
"But what should finally drive the size and character of our nuclear forces is not numerical parity with Russian capabilities but maintaining American strategic superiority – and, with that superiority, a capability to deter possible hostile coalitions of nuclear powers. US nuclear superiority is nothing to be ashamed of; rather, it will be an essential element in preserving American leadership in a more complex and chaotic world" (p. 8).
Space Command – Control of the "International Commons"
". . . control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element of our military strategy" (p. 55).
"The ability to have access to, operate in, and dominate the aerospace environment has become the key to military success in modern, high-technology warfare. . . . How well the Air Force rises to the many challenges it faces – even should it receive increased budgets – will go far toward determining whether US military forces retain the combat edge they now enjoy" (pp. 38–39).
"Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new 'international commons' be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the 'infosphere' will find it difficult to exert global political leadership" (p. 51).
"As Space Command also recognizes, the United States must also have the capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space platforms for military purposes in times of crises and conflicts. Indeed, space is likely to become the new 'international commons', where commercial and security interests are intertwined and related. (Pp. 54–55).
Star Wars
"Building an effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defenses is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence" (p. 54).
". . . effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection of US military forces abroad. Without it, weak states operating small arsenals of crude ballistic missiles, armed with basic nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction, will be in a strong position to deter the United States from using conventional force, no matter the technological or other advantages we may enjoy. Even if such enemies are merely able to threaten American allies rather than the United States homeland itself, America's ability to project power will be deeply compromised" (p. 12).
Cyberspace or 'Net War'
"If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then 'cyberspace', and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new 'global commons'.
"Although many concepts of 'cyber-war' have elements of science fiction about them, and the role of the Defense Department in establishing 'control', or even what 'security' on the Internet means, requires a consideration of a host of legal, moral and political issues, there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks. Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner.
"Taken together, the prospects for space war or 'cyberspace war' represent the truly revolutionary potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure. But, it is also clear that for the US armed forces to remain preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power they must be sure that these potential future forms of warfare favor America just as today's air, land and sea warfare reflect United States military dominance" (p. 57).
Future Forms of Warfare, Including Biological
"Future soldiers may operate in encapsulated, climate-controlled, powered fighting suits, laced with sensors, and boasting chameleon-like 'active' camouflage. 'Skin-patch' pharmaceuticals help regulate fears, focus concentration and enhance endurance and strength. A display mounted on a soldier's helmet permits a comprehensive view of the battlefield – in effect to look around corners and over hills – and allows the soldier to access the entire combat information and intelligence system while filtering incoming data to prevent overload. Individual weapons are more lethal, and a soldier's ability to call for highly precise and reliable indirect fires – not only from Army systems but those of other services – allows each individual to have great influence over huge spaces. Under the 'Land Warrior' program, some Army experts envision a 'squad' of seven soldiers able to dominate an area the size of the Gettysburg battlefield – where, in 1863, some 165,000 men fought" (p. 62).
"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. Air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers' pockets. Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but from land and space based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater. Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants and noncombatants – will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for US enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool" (p. 60).
For further reading, see "Rebuilding America's Defenses" on the PNAC website at:
http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.
There is a website devoted exclusively to articles and information about PNAC at:
http://pnac.info/
Truthout and Information Clearing House have many enlightening articles about the PNAC. See especially "Blood Money" by William Rivers Pitt at:
http://truthout.org/docs_03/022803A.shtml.
See "Global Eye-Dark Passage" by Chris Floyd at:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2326.htm.
This article is followed by a long list of links to published articles about the PNAC.
Also see article by John Pilger at:
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759.
A longer summary of "RAD" (including more extensive quotes than here) can be found at http://gvtc.com/~mpingo/pnac.html.
comments on this article?
send them to backtalk!
[visit backtalk!]
Bette Stockbauer is a writer, activist and conservationist, who lives in central Texas. She has been working for issues related to peace and justice since the Vietnam era.
Back to Antiwar.com Home Page | Contact Us
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac_neo-con_artists.html
PNAC Members/Former Members Now inBush Administration
Dick Cheney .....Donald Rumsfeld ....Paul Wolfowitz
Vice President Secretary of Defense Deputy Secy Defense
Richard Perle .........John Bolton Defense Policy UN Ambassador Advisory Board (recess appointment
Resigned 2/26/04 until Jan. 2007)
....Richard Armitage
Deputy Secy of State
Eliot Abrams ....Zalmay Kahlilzad ...Douglas Feith
Special Assistant Special Envoy to Iraq ...Under Secy of
to President & Afghanistan .......Defense for Policy
Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff to James Woolsey
Vice President Cheney .....Pentagon Defense
(Currently under indictment) Policy Board
Signatories to PNAC Mission
Statement, 1997:
Gary Bauer ......Jeb Bush Rapture Right, Tax ...Florida Governor Cutter, Social ....President’s
Conservative ......brother
........Steve Forbes Flat Tax Con Game
Dan Quayle ................William J. Bennett
Reagan VP
“potato” speller
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac_neo-con_artists.html
WMDs? What WMDs? Iraq Nukes & bio/chem weapons were the reason we were given for invading Iraq. Well, the US has all the weapons it needs to destroy itself. All you have to do is blow up a local chemical plant or a nuclear reactor and you kill millions. We were told that the greatest threat to the US was Iraq, and we fell for this nonsense.
Lice Of Mass
Destruction:
Searching In All The
Wrong Places
LOOK FOR THE 3RD & FINAL PART OF
THIS ARTICLE - PART 4C OF 4.
IT WILL BE PUBLISHED VERY SOON!
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)