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 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

From a 2000 paper by them, 'Rebuilding America's Defenses', http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf,




"The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper
produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses:
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines
what is required of America to create the global empire they envision.
According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia
and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft,
submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a
strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic
product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.


Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the
American military. 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
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.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1665.htm

Read this article, http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf , it calls for the exploitation of a September 11th type event.

I wasn't finished.

And I'd assume your 2 liners after a 2 page article are hardly sufficient.

It tastes like chicken...chicken soup maybe...but definitly chickenish.


Anywho.
This information seems that it might help reinforce the so-called "Conspiracy Nuts" that are laughed at and ridiculed non-stop.

Excellent job Sir.

I have read and I agree with the principals of the PNAC.

What is the problem with PNAC in your opinion?

Personally, I've always seen it as extremelly "Imperialistic" - but then I'm guessing you've never heard of such words.

and as per usual, a dictionary definition to help out the neo-cons..
So I'm also assuming you've downloaded and read the report:
"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century" available from here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

it is quite a conspiracy thought that PNAC had some 'insight' into Sept 11...

If you studied history, you would know that all Empires eventually die.

Well, that is quite a statement there. Try this for that dribble on your chin. :tp:

So, I take it that in your "opinion" that America should not take action that will ensure that we are safe in the world? That is quite an attitude.

Perhaps we should allow our military to downsize to the point that we are no longer the worlds only super power and thus put our faith in the UN? :jerk:

Perhaps we should make Islam the national religion, thereby avoiding any possible Jihad from the MidEast?

Whatever went wrong with the neoconservatives? In the 1960s they were a rational group of liberals that sought to reduce the sort of foolish dogmas that were fouling up liberal domestic policy. Quite reasonable, in fact. Now they're a bunch of foreign policy fantasists, inconsistent and dangerously wrong.

How they hope to 'strengthen the ties' with their allies while following policies that include the strategic dominance of space and control of the interent is completely beyond me. They won't win any friends like that, because anyone can see that it isn't sensible to allow any country that kind of dominance if it can be helped, however good their intentions. They want to 'embrace the cause of American leadership,' but don't seem to realise that that requires the consent of those that they hope to lead. They actually talk about 'the preservation of a favourable balance of power in Europe.' I kid you not. Perhaps they think it's 1914. It isn't.

The essential mission is to shape the world as far as possible in their own image. The basic problem is that this cannot be done by military force, which is their primary tool for this. The USSR was not defeated by military force. Communism was overthrown there because Russians like Yeltsin thought that the Western way was better. If America is going to start using force aggressively then no one is going to think that. America has to retain, or possibly regain, its positive image. If people think of the US as a threat then that is a massive problem for the promotion of democratic values.

China.

Nothing is inevitable.

Then you are saying that some things are eternal?

Arty, what you seem to have missed in life is the lesson that counties do not do things because they "like" someone, or because they "hate" someone. Countries do what countries do, because it is in the BEST INTEREST of those countries to do so.

America has, over the last half century, allowed itself to become the big kid on the block who has not the will to fight for itself. Somehow, we have been convinced that it is "unseemly" to fight back if the aggressor is smaller than we are. As a result, we have seen more and more attacks on our ships, our embassies, and now, even our citizens that we thought were safe in the USA.

We have been pilloried by countries that at the same time are accepting huge payments from us in the form of foreign aid.

We have been spat upon by countries in which our own troops have died in war to save them from aggression by THEIR NEIGHBORS--when they asked us for help. Sound familiar Arty?

We have been told to go home, when we have kept troops in countries for the purpose of protecting those very countries (South Korea) for example, because the citizens in those countries are not of sufficient age to remember what or why they are being protected from.

I could go on and on, but why? If you don't see the picture by now, you never will.

PNAC--the Project for a New American Century--says to Hell with this racket. It ain't working. Piss on this bullshit, it is time to strike back at some of these cheap little bullshitters and if they don't like, tough shit! They don't like us anyway, so what do we have to lose?

I--personally--as a citizen of the good old USA, say Hallelujah!!

It is well past the time when we should have taken this attitude, and if the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can get in line, and when their turn comes, they can kiss our Yankee ass.

Some things. Not many. Nothing is certainly eternal, except, by definition, time. It's very unlikely that China or any other empire will last forever, but who knows? Historical determinism is bunk.

I, personally, as a citizen of the United States find this a disgusting and overall horrendous bit of information.

If it proves true then it would mean that a group within America wish to abuse the fact that they are able to take out any country in the world with minimal difficulty. We will destroy those who oppose us, we will have events occur which warp the thoughts of those who vote on who will lead us, and in the end we'll alter where the power is so that more people are out of the loop.

All in all a slight slide toward a Totalitarian, Dictatorship or Fascist State.

By the way, if that little group was around BEFORE 9/11 then it'll have a much larger impact.

Correct. But no one thinks it in their best interests to let the US, or any country, have total authority over space or cyberspace, and no one thinks it in their interests to have the US, or any country, trying to reshape the world by military force.

a) This article isn't about that. b) The solution that these people are putting forward will not work. No small part of the reason that people attack you, or us, is that they don't like us. These proposals will exacerbate that.

But you are implying that people's opinions should be bought by aid money. That would be corrupt. People have got to be free to say what they think.

Everyone is grateful for what the US did in WWII, but that has absolutely no bearing on the sitaution now. Friendship should not as far as to support countries in their mistakes.

You get pretty worked up about this. That's up to you, but it's no good going for the emotions when it comes to foreign policy, because you might just shoot yourself in the foot. I have no problem with the US acting in its own interest - we all do. I just don't think PNAC is in any way in the best interests of the USA.

JP - This lot have been saying this for years, since the mid-nineties.