From the section- "Is a World War Necessary-
First, the claim that "radical Islamism" intends to conquer America is vastly overstated. Some fanatics may want to seriously harm us, but conquer the United States? That is stretching paranoia beyond the imagination, worthy of the film Red Dawn , which depicts a Soviet invasion of the United States. The threat of the conquest of the homeland by heathen foreigners may help the World Warriors’ argument that we must be engaged in a planetary conflict—how else to confront an invader best than by mobilizing all our national resources and fighting him globally—but it is simply not credible to conceive of the United States under the control of "radical Islamism." Gee, don't we miss dori. I hope she's all right. This winter is going to be tough on her, what with the cost of fuel going up.
Second, while as an enemy to be defeated "radical Islamism" is more specific than "terror," it is still a very vague term, certainly less definable than ideologies (e.g., Communism, fascism, Nazism in the Cold War and World War II) or nation states (e.g., Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in World War I). We have a pretty good idea of who Osama bin Laden is, but who specifically is a radical Islamist? When does an Islamist become "radical"? When he wants to destroy the United States? But there conceivably are quite a number of people who want to destroy the United States who are not "radical Islamists."
Third, by calling our conflict with terrorists a world war, Cohen, Podhoretz & Co. are suggesting that all of the world is—or at least should be—engaged in it. True, we have "coalition forces" in Iraq, and foreign governments cooperate with us in eliminating terrorist threats. But many countries, including some of our oldest allies, in fact do not want to take part in the war on terror on our terms, and especially because of how it is being waged in Iraq. Indeed, our essentially unilateral action in Iraq has increasingly made our war on terror a non-World War. It’s an American, not a world, war.
Fourth, Cohen, Podhoretz & Co. use the World War concept to deny the possibility of using non-military means in their struggle to exterminate "radical Islamism," denying the possibility of diminishing its threat by increasing communication and mutual understanding with moderates in Muslim societies—a method which many foreign policy experts, including in the U.S. armed forces, realize is a key to winning "hearts and minds" and thereby preventing terror. Indeed, Podhoretz approves of what he calls the "Bush doctrine" because, for the president, to "move into the future meant to substitute preemption for deterence, and to rely on American military might rather than the ‘soft power’ represented by the UN and the other relics of World War III." To win WWIV, and somehow—in the process of killing Muslims—democratizing the Middle East, Podhoretz calls for the incessant application of American military might, for which he has enormous admiration, as is seen in his Dr. Strangelove praise of U.S. weaponry: "When the B-52’s and the 15,000 ‘Daisy Cutter’ bombs were unleashed [in Afghanistan], they temporarily banished the ghost of Vietnam and undercut the fears of some and the hopes of others that we were heading into a quagmire." Podhoretz has to admit one paragraph later, however, that "Osama bin Laden was not captured and al Quaeda was not totally destroyed."
Fifth, the analogies the World Warriors make among various historical periods do violence to what is history’s most important contribution to human understanding—that the past is complex and at best a tentative guide to action. Podhoretz’s efforts to link all terrorists acts since the 1970s into a broad, cohesive hate-America movement that culminated into 9/11 is especially unconvincing because it so unsubtly forces events into a pattern clearly conceived a priori . And just because we’ve had three world wars doesn’t necessarily mean we have to have a fourth one.
Sixth, the Warriors’ pronouncements that America’s conflict with terrorists is a World War probably fuels the latter’s ambitions more than it discourages them from attacking the United States. When an obscure anti-American fanatic inclined to terrorism hears about the proclamations of Cohen, Podhoretz and Co., won’t he be emboldened to act now that he’s been told (by the enemy, no less) that he’s playing a major role in history, challenging the most powerful nation on earth on a planetary scale? Haven’t disparate, minor terrorist groups throughout the globe been, thanks to the proclamations of our Warriors, "legitimized" (both in their own eyes and for others) by having been given the status of global jihadists against the Great Satan? Similarly, dictatorial regimes become acceptable to the U.S. because they are supposedly involved in eliminating "terrorists."
When we look at the PNAC agenda, we see this is part of their plans to start wars that involve friends, but a division of friendship as it becomes each to its own. They won't have a "Coalition of the willing" anymore because they will be forced to go it alone or with the help of those they can buy out- like Canada, Britain and Australia perhaps. A coalition of the white geosphere. Then the true nature of patriotism will be seen. A division by race, colour and religion. Good old standbys.[i]
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.
William Kristol, Chairman
How arrogant these monsters are. War upon war is not their agenda though.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
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 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.
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.
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.
[i]But this isn't what their policies really entail. No, they wish to bring others down to their knees that are supposed allies.http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm
Even today, the Bush manipulators, led by Karl Rove, continue to utilize fear and hyped-up patriotism and a permanent war on terrorism as the basis for their policy agenda, the top item of which, at this juncture, consists of getting Bush elected in 2004. This, in order to continue to fulfill their primary objectives, not the least of which domestically is to roll back and, where possible, decimate and eliminate social programs that the far-right has hated since the New Deal/Great Society days. So AmeriKa can no longer hide its intentions through covert operations in small remote countries as they have become wise to their tricks. Started in the Phillipines and Cuba and then through South and central America, moving to the Far East, the Middle East and Africa. They used the CIA and secret financial teams to install their puppet leaders, but now that has been stopped and they are now out in the open. They don't have the allies and are seen for the liars and greedy bastards they always were. The only ones dumb enough to fall for their lies seem to be the 40% of Americans that still support him.http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1665.htm
By and large, these long-established programs are popular with Americans, so Bush&Co. can't attack them frontally -- but if all the monies are tied up in wars, defense, tax cuts, etc., they can go to the public and, in effect, say: "We'd love to continue to fund Head Start and education and environmental protection and drugs for the elderly through Medicare, but you see there's simply no extra money left over after we go after the bad guys. It's not our fault."
So far, that stealth strategy has worked. The Bush&Co. hope is that the public won't catch on to their real agenda -- to seek wealth and power at the expense of average citizens -- until after a 2004 victory, and maybe not even then. Just keep blaming the terrorists, the French, the Dixie Chicks, peaceniks, fried potatoes, whatever.
the U.S. now lacks moral stature and standing in much of the world, revealed as a liar for all to see (no WMDs in Iraq, no connection to 9/11, no quick handing-over the interim reins of government to the Iraqis as initially promised), destruction of a good share of the United Nation's effectiveness and prestige, needlessly alienating our traditional allies, infuriating key elements of the Muslim world, providing political and emotional ammunition for anti-U.S. terrorists, etc.
The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security The reasons and motives are there for all to see. Bush and corporations are in this to monopolize on the worlds wealth and power. By controlling resources, money and through the use of military might they can squeeze even supposed allies into submission. This is a seriously dangerous game AmeriKa has embarked upon and the stakes are "all in or Bust" This could be a losing hand they hold, and when AmeriKa loses it will be total.It seems that the people are not being fooled by this agenda and are standing up with such force as to actually make the media and the government answer to their questions. It is working and AmeriKa's grandiose plans are not being accepted carte blanche in the one place that they least expect it- at home. Of all the places where it is most important to stand up and fight for democracy, it turns out to be right here in the USofA. Don't despair. It is working. Although the world doesn't see it yet, the message is getting out that many Americans don't believe in Bush and the PNAC agenda. You realise that sacrifices must be made and life will change for us all, but with new necessities will come new answers beyond the warmongers pathetic cry, and the destroyers will be vanquished- peacefully.
environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.
In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could? Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.
PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the
Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza
Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi.
On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.
Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.
Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.
Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a
central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for
American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The
American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America
defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.
The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."
Former allies will turn on us. Germany, France and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are fully aware of this game plan. They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire, lest they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush. Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American ally.
As the eagle spreads its wings, our rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous.
Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease. At home, the social fabric will be torn in ways
that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison.
This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now
control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For
them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.
The plan was running smoothly until those two icebergs collided. Millions and millions of ordinary people are making it very difficult for Bush's international allies to keep to the script. PNAC may have designs for the control of the "International Commons" of the Internet, but for now it is the staging ground for a movement that would see empire take a back seat to a wise peace, human rights, equal protection under the law, and the preponderance of a justice that will, if properly applied, do away forever with the anger and hatred that gives birth to terrorism in the first place. Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more justice in the world."
The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required. The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it must not cease. These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail.
No, friends, the PNAC boys are dangerous ideologues playing with matches, and the U.S. is going to get burned even more in years to come, unless their hold on power is broken.
We don't need an emperor, we don't need huge tax cuts for the wealthy when the economy is tanking, we don't need more "pre-emptive" wars, we don't need more shredding of constitutional due process. Instead, we need leaders with big ideas who are capable of creative thinking. We need peace and justice in the Middle East (to help alter the chemistry of the soil in which terrorism grows), we need jobs and economic growth at home, and we need authentic and effective "homeland security" consistent with our civil liberties. In short, we need a new Administration, which means that we need to get to serious work to make all this change happen. Organize!, organize!, organize!