Project for the New American Century (World Domination?)

Project for the New American Century ^ | June 3rd 1997

[listenhillary]

June 3, 1997

Project for the New American Century Statement of Principles

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's 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 achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: 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.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. 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.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an

international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

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

[listenhillary]

I was pointed to this page by a fence straddler. I feel that for the most part it makes sense. but I can see how a leftist could interpret it as conservatives plan for world domination.

What say you?

People on the Board of Directors?

[Sangamon Kid]

...I can see how a leftist could interpret it as conservatives plan for world domination.

True conservatives can see the same thing. Only neo-cons are blind to the obvious empire-building it espouses.

[bobi]

we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an

international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

OUR Security

OUR Prosperity

OUR Principles

can only be acheived by:

Providing THEIR In-Security

Preventing THEIR Prosperity

Disregarding THEIR Principles

[SunStar]

I guess the real question is, do you want the New World Order led by the Socialists, or by the Americans and our allies?

[shrinkermd]

"Sounds like world liberation to me"

I agree. What is fascinating is the names on the list.

[AirmanAlaska]

I would rather lead the world than fall into obscurity, my beliefs forgotten.

With so many powers on the move in the world, to sit idle and let it all slip away is at best childish and more than likely fatal to American influence and power.

And only a fool would not want to maintain and build on his country's influence and power. Otherwise what's the point? Peaceful co-existence doesn't work, human history is proof enough of that. Until the nature of humanity changes, the power struggle will remain as it is, and peace is a nice thought, but not one that is feasible for any great length of time without serious repercussions.

People who have no conquest in thier hearts really don't understand human nature.

[listenhillary]

I totally agree with you.

There is no other valid nation with the resources or restraint to lead.

I still cringe when I read their mission statement. They are just a think tank which pushes boundaries of "what if" thinking.

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

Read This and weep.

[listenhillary]

Nothing has POUNDED the point home to me that the war on Iraq is a just and noble cause than this mans writing. He has a ping list on FR if you haven't seen his writing before.

www.ejectejecteject.com

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

I guess the real question is, do you want the New World Order led by the Socialists, or by the Americans and our allies?

How about we "Just say NO" to the NWO!

[u-89]

I was pointed to this page by a fence straddler. I feel that for the most part it makes sense. but I can see how a leftist could interpret it as conservatives plan for world domination.

Below are a couple of paragraphs from Sunday past's Guardian, a British newspaper.

"In 1992, just before Bush's father was defeated by Bill Clinton, Wolfowitz wrote a blueprint to 'set the nation's direction for the next century', which is now the foreign policy of George W. Bush. Entitled 'Defence Planning Guidance', it put an onus on the Pentagon to 'establish and protect a new order' under unchallenged American authority.

The US, it said, must be sure of 'deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role' - including Germany and Japan. It contemplated the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry pre-emptively, 'even in conflicts that do not directly engage US interests'.

Wolfowitz's group formalised itself into a group called Project for the New American Century, which included Cheney and another old friend, former Pentagon Under-Secretary for Policy under Reagan, Richard Perle.

*In a document two years ago, the Project pondered that what was needed to assure US global power was 'some catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor'. The document had noted that 'while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides immediate justification' for intervention, 'the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein'."

At a graduation speech to the Military Academy at West Point, Bush last June affirmed the Wolfowitz doctrine as official policy. 'America has, and intends to keep,' he said, 'military strengths beyond challenge.'

And add to this some quotes from your article above:

- increase defense spending significantly

- challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values

- America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order

Now if one is a conservative one has to ask if all this above will lead to smaller, limited government? lower taxes? Are our defense forces really being used for defense?

For years I heard conservatives worry about global government and the UN - is all that stuff OK now? How does this square with free trade with all and entangling alliances with none that our founders believed in? Is it all about peace and safety? If so does that mean we will war, war, war till the entire world is subjugated? Will that lead to peace and safety or to more war and more terroism and coalitions forming against us abroad and expanded government and higher taxes domestically and even globally?

So you stated: but I can see how a leftist could interpret it as conservatives plan for world domination

Does that critque really sound leftist or just merely an accurate reading of their stated intentions?

[u-89]

Sounds like world liberation to me.

Sounds like Lenin and Trotsky type desire to remake the world in their own image. Oh wait, the neocons who wrote this above policy are ex-Trotsyites, sons of ex-Troskyies or apostles of those ex-Troskyites. Seems like they never lost the old global revolutionary zeal when they became "conservatives".

[caltrop]

Unfortunately, the world's a complex place and the US shouldn't assume it can end ancient ethnic and religious hatreds simply by throwing a few GIs into the mix. Our first rule should be that unless we're confident our intervention will do no harm we shouldn't intervene and play policeman to the world. Our intervention in the Balkans, for example, should be ample evidence that good intentions aren't enough. When our arrogance replaces sound judgment we not only spend valuable resources making matters worse but weaken our own defenses at the same time.

Reagan's policies were clear and resolute. He set out to defeat the Soviet Union which threatened the US with nuclear war at home and fought us conventionally in every corner of the globe. That's a far cry from running around the world clumsily looking for dragons to slay.

[u-89]

They are just a think tank which pushes boundaries of "what if" thinking.

With Chenney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Abrams on that list above this are not just some thnk tank - they are forming policy and you are seeing it unfold every day in the news.

[listenhillary]

Would you rather China lead? Russia? A gaggle of Muslim states? Shall the U.N lead with Iraq and Libya heading up the human rights commission?

I'm uncomfortable with the NWO with US as the lead, especially if Hillary is the President and Bill heads up the UN.

I'm not sure what other options exist.

[mars32]

This was an interesting article, a person could spend some time breaking things down. 2 things I noticed. A conquering nation maintains bases in countries and taxes them heavily to support that and the ruling nation. The bases we have in Japan and Germany, we pay them for that as well as employ the local population. 2nd, this isn't the Roman empire. George Bush cannot be in power for 15-30 years, as potentially the Caesar's could be (if they could avoid assasination). The idea of spreading Americanism by the military would never work, even if this was their goal, and I'm not sure it is, because there are term limits, and if the job of president is not done to satisfaction, he gets voted out. Highly unlikely that his successor and competitor for office would continue on this policy. If this was the policy of Bush, he should have started right after he got into office. It's already 2003, in under 2 years there will be another election. If the economy has not turned around, and the impending war goes badly, he will lose the election. Then where will this theory be? Or better yet, what if by some miracle there is no war? Then where will a lot of these theories be? (Going to war for daddy, for oil, etc, etc...)

[ScholarWarrior]

Reagan's policies were clear and resolute. He set out to defeat the Soviet Union which threatened the US with nuclear war at home and fought us conventionally in every corner of the globe. That's a far cry from running around the world clumsily looking for dragons to slay.

Bush's policies are clear and resolute. He seeks to defeat the radical Islam that threatens the US with nuclear, biological, chemical and other forms of terrorism at home and in every corner of the globe. What dragon slaying are you talking about?

[ExSoldier]

"Sounds like world liberation to me."

"Sounds like," doesn't necessarily mean IS. I think the key to any scheme for liberty is to ask what place our Constitutional freedoms will have...like especially the 2nd Amendment. If the ownership of firearms by the general populace is allowed, indeed encouraged..the society is free in every sense. Otherwise it's tyranny by any other name.

[ggekko]

"Only neo-cons are blind to the obvious empire-building it espouses...."

I happily identify myself as a neo-con. I am convinced that the neo-con foriegn policy thinkking is consistently misinterpreted particularly by libertarians.

We have just seen the end of 8 years of feckless multi-lateralism under Clinton. It was a disaster from a security perspective as potential hot spots were allowed to fester while Clinton was signing all of his treaties. UN multilateralism, lacking a credible military threat, cannot be enforced in the real world.

What, then, are the alternatives? US unilateralism has some things to recommend it but is is not practical from an economic or logistical point of view (the military needs forward bases). There is a third possibility as described in the post: benign hegemonic US multi-lateralism.

The model for this sort arrangement can be copied from Star Trek: The Federation. Under this model friendly countries could offered membership in a "commonwealth" type of organization. In recognition of this offer, members would be obligated to contribute to a commond defense strategy and would be obligated to open their markets for broader free trade. Such a commonwealth would be a lot more useful than our current gaggle of dysfunctional treaty organizations.

In the post-cold war environment we need to review all our current commitments: UN, NATO, GATT . Some of them should probably be euthanized and replaced with something better.