While I was reading through your uninformed comments and views against PNAC, i realize many of you probably have never looked at what they stood for. The PNAC people have been pushing for a shift in our military and national defense since the end of the cold war. The first sign of this was in 1991 when Paul Wolfowitz wrote the original draft the the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance. That was the first time the word "pre-emption" was used as a strategy for national defense. News of this was leaked to the media in 1992, and because of it being an election year, along with the liberal, fore-sight-lacking media blowing it out of the water, pre-emption was dropped fromt he 1992 DPG. The original 1992 DPG outlined possible hotspots that could become dangeous in the future. Some of those areas of intrest named were: Russian involvent in the Baltics or Caucasus region, North Korean invasion of the south, Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait (again), and smaller-scale interventions in Panama or the Philippines.
This document was written in 1992, and look what has happened in the world since then. Chechnya has revolted against Russia and Russia has moved a large part of their military into Chechnya. Chechnya boarders Georgia and with Georgia currently in a civil war, it is possible they could throw support toward the rebels. A very dangerous situation there. PNAC got it right.
Since the document was written, North Korea has attained nuclear weapons, at least 12 holes under the DMZ into the south large enaugh for tanks and trucks to drive in have been discovered, and DPRK has shot long range missles over Japan. I guess PNAC got that one right also.
Since 1992, a Saddam led Iraq kicked out and hassled inspectors more times to count and continued to oppress the Shia and Kurds of that country. No Iraq invasion of his neighbors ever happened though, but it was only a matter of time.
Finally, PNAC forcasted a "small-scale intervention" in the Philippines. PNAC was correct with the US commiting Special Forces and Marines to combat terrorism in that country.
Out of the four scenerios invisioned by PNAC, three actually became reality. Not a bad track record. I wish I could see 10 years into the future. Also, the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance called for an increase in military spending from 3% to 3.6%.
Since all of you have probably never done any research on the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, I suggest you check this out.
Do not pay attention the the commentary of the article, just read the excerpts.
from the website above
In particular, the document raises the prospects of "a unilateral U.S. defense guarantee" to Eastern Europe, "preferably in cooperation with other NATO states," and contemplates use of American military power to preempt or punish use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, "even in conflicts that otherwise do not directly engage U.S. interests."
"While the U.S. cannot become the world's 'policeman,' by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations."
The document's pledge, on its first page, is to "continue to support and protect those bilateral, multilateral, international or regionally based institutions, processes and relationships which afford us opportunities to share responsibility for global and regional security."
Like I said in my opening sentence, you may want to educate yourself before you bash PNAC.