PNAC

The Project for the New American Century issued on June 3, 1997 the following principles.  (Thanks to http://gasdocpol.wordpress.com for alerting me to where to find this.  Read this and think about its proposals and then look at the signatures.  The Weekly Stamdard’s William Kristol heads this Project group now and he is in fine neoconservative company.

This group are intelligent, articulate, and well versed people who seem to seemingly suffer from a lack of common sense.  Since they think it to be so, so should it be.  They leave little room for views other than there own and at least in this document, fail to make any case for why it is necessary to use military intervention.  There is a clear indication that the US’s position as the singular world power presents both the means and the justification for imposing our views on the world.

Also worrisome is the lack of any tangible reason to worry about Iraq.  For sure Sadaam Hussein was a “bad” person but surely he was only one of many bad people running governments around the world.  And most likely Hussein’s Iraq did pose a risk to Middle East peace at some time in the future, but again what about Libia, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Russia, etc.  Surely no sensable person thinks that the US can match into one country after another for reasons we may see as justified.

Without more specific justifications, one is left with only three possible reasons.

1. Economic – War is good business.  There is money for armaments and then there is money for reconstruction.  Banks and corporations all get a piece and key shareholders do quite handsomely.

2. Natural resources, namely oil – With the rise of China and the worldwide increase in oil demand, there could be concern about supply.  In addition if the US could exercise greater influence over oil availability, it would have a powerful weapon against countries who do not embrace the US point of view.

3. Israel – Most all Americans support the right for Israel to exist and live in peace.  This is fair in an American’s eyes.  But for Israel that is not good enough since they are constantly bombarded with rockets and subjected to terrorist attacks.  So Israel and its highly effective and powerful US lobby want to make sure the scales of justice are tipped in their favor.  Through the Israeli Lobby’s influence over the US media and plain and simple hard cash (read political donations), Iraqi regime change was what they wanted, full stop.

Look again at these signators and think how they have benefited from one of these three reasons.  Then ask yourself, what will the next President do? 

June 3, 1997

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 BushDick Cheney    Eliot A. Cohen    Midge Decter    Paula Dobriansky    Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg    Francis Fukuyama    Frank Gaffney    Fred C. IkleDonald Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad    I. Lewis Libby    Norman PodhoretzDan Quayle

   Peter W. Rodman    Stephen P. Rosen    Henry S. RowenDonald Rumsfeld    Vin Weber    George Weigel    Paul Wolfowitz

Explore posts in the same categories: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Blogroll, Democratic Party, Dick Cheney, Fred Thompson, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War, Israel, Joe Biden, John Edwards, John McCain, Middle East, Mit Romney, Neoconservatives, Politics, Republican Party, Rudy Giuliani