The Daily Grasshopper

A couple of weeks ago, I told you about a right-wing, Washington-based think tank called "Project for a New American Century." It was a Saturday, and I was pretty busy that day, so I sent out a short message with a link to the organization's website and a link to an analysis of their agenda done by the same group that's been faithfully dissecting the Bush administration's case for war on Iraq. I'm not sure how many of you checked out the site - maybe not many, as I promised I'd be "quoting from it at length in the days to come."

The original essay, "The Method to the Madness, (2/22/03)" is here:

http://www.netway.com/~pkeaney/022203method.html

Well, it's time to start looking into PNAC. What if I told you it was an organization of prominent neoconservatives, focused on achieving "full-spectrum dominance" (global economic and military superiority, in other words), that was made up of the very same men who are now prominent members of President Bush's foreign policy team? What if I told you that way back in the mid-1990s, long before Bush was "elected," and when the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 were but a glimmer in some terrorist's eye, members of PNAC were lobbying for "regime change" in Iraq? What if I told you that, despite this organization's very public profile - including a website that prominently displays some of these items - the mainstream media seem almost completely unwilling to look into these facts? You'd think I was some kind of conspiracy nut, right?

Well, why don't you decide for yourself?

In yesterday's New York Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print"), they finally got around to writing about PNAC. Here we are, mere days away from a second invasion of Iraq, which people like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Donald Rumsfeld have been clamoring for since the first one ended, and the Times is finally writing about PNAC.

Well, not exactly. The organization is briefly mentioned in a profile of William Kristol, the editor of the "Weekly Standard" - in the "Arts" section.

You might think that the "liberal" New York Times might be interested in a story about an influential, right-wing organization whose members are now part of Bush's inner circle, particularly if those people were calling for ousting Saddam Hussein back when Bush's main claims to fame were owning the Texas Rangers and executing more death row inmates than the rest of the nation's governors combined. You'd be wrong.

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/arts/11WEEK.html

And here's their mention of PNAC:

"His magazine is not the only way that the younger Mr. Kristol's influence is delivered to the White House. In June 1997 he formed the Project for a New American Century, which issued papers supporting essentially unilateralist efforts to police the world. It was a call to arms that compelled neoconservatives, who say that America is best protected by exporting its values, but it also stirred people with allegiances to traditional conservatism, who have generally had more isolationist impulses and who have been wary about using American troops to patrol the world.

Signers at the time included many people who are now in a position of power, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, along with others with a more neoconservative impulse, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, who heads the Defense Policy Board, which advises the Pentagon."

So that's how the "liberal" New York Times assesses this group - "people who are now in a position of power" who support "essentially unilateralist efforts to police the world." Sounds sort of tame, right? Why don't we go directly to the source, and see how these guys envision this country's role in world affairs (the name "New American Century" should be a tip-off, but let's go to the tape, shall we?):

First of all, let's look at the list of people who signed on to the group's "Statement of Principles" back in 1997:

Elliott Abrams, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. Recognize a few of those names?

The full statement and list of signers is here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Here's how the statement wraps up:

"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."

It's basically a call to start building the American Empire. And check this out, from a letter that the group sent to President Clinton on January 26, 1998, concerning the latter's Iraq policy:

"The policy of 'containment' of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."

Signers of the letter included Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle. The letter is also posted on their website:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

So "regime change" has been in the cards for Saddam for quite some time. And you didn't miss the part about "a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil" being "put at hazard," did you? And, speaking of oil, and our need to protect and control the vast reserves in the Middle East, guess whose op-ed from the Washington Post, defending the "Doctrine of the 'Big Enchilada'" (seriously) shows up on the PNAC website? Our old friend, Max Boot, from the Council on Foreign Relations. For those who have just recently subscribed, the Daily Grasshopper took apart Max Boot's apologia for Bush's Oil War line-by-shoddily-argued-line a couple of weeks back (http://www.netway.com/~pkeaney/021303boot.html).

Here's Boot's article on the PNAC site, which ends with the claim that "we're all hegemonists now" (seriously):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-101402.htm

For an exceptional overview of the role PNAC and its members are playing in the Bush administration's drive for "regime change" in Iraq, as well as an investigation into what their ultimate goals are (will you really be surprised to find out that Iraq is just the beginning?), you should read this recent column by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's deputy editorial page editor, Jay Bookman. His article, with links to all the supporting documents, can be found here:

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

Here's how he concludes:

"The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?"

Based on what I'm seeing, I think my decision to rename the "Project for a New American Century" the "Planning for the Next American Conquests" is legitimate. You should tell your friends about this group, and what its connections to the White House are, and what it means for people who, in Jay Bookman's opinion, may not be "comfortable with themselves as a New Rome."