[eDebate] nazi PNAC losers close after iraq disaster

Jake Stromboli infracaninophile
Wed Jun 14 11:03:27 CDT 2006


core-cock's nazi wetdream unsustainable:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0613-05.htm

Published on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 by the Inter Press Service
"New American Century" Project Ends With A Whimper
by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Is the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which did 
so much to promote the invasion of Iraq and an Israel-centred "global war on 
terror", closing down?

In the absence of an official announcement and the failure since late last 
year of a live person to answer its telephone number, a Washington Post 
obituary would seem to be definitive. And, sure enough, the Post quoted one 
unidentified source presumably linked to PNAC that the group was "heading 
toward closing" with the feeling of "goal accomplished".

In fact, the nine-year-old group, whose 27 founders included Vice President 
Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, among at least half a dozen 
of the most powerful hawks in the George W. Bush administration's first 
term, has been inactive since January 2005, when it issued the last of its 
"statements", an appeal to significantly increase the size of the U.S. Army 
and Marine Corps to cope with the growing demands of the kind of "Pax 
Americana" it had done so much to promote.

As a platform for the three-part coalition that was most enthusiastic about 
war in Iraq -- aggressive nationalists like Cheney, Christian Zionists of 
the religious Right, and Israel-centred neo-conservatives -- PNAC actually 
began breaking down shortly after the Iraq invasion.

It was then that the group's predominantly neo-conservative leadership -- 
Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, PNAC director Gary Schmitt, and 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace analyst Robert Kagan -- began 
attacking Rumsfeld, in particular, for failing to deploy enough troops to 
pacify the country and launch a true nation-building exercise, as in 
post-World War II Germany and Japan.

It was the first of a number of policy splits that, along with the deepening 
quagmire in Iraq itself, have debilitated the hawks, forcing 
neo-conservatives in the group to reach out to liberal interventionists with 
whom they sponsored a series of joint statements extolling the virtues of 
nation-building and a larger army, or calling for a tougher U.S. stance 
toward Russia and China.

PNAC was launched by Kristol and Kagan in 1997, shortly after their 
publication of an article in Foreign Affairs magazine entitled "Toward a 
Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy", in which they called for Washington to 
exercise "benevolent global hegemony" to be sustained "as far into the 
future as possible".

While critical of then President Bill Clinton, the article was directed more 
against a Republican Congress which, in their view, had grown increasingly 
isolationist, particularly after the precipitous U.S. withdrawal from 
Somalia in 1994 and strong Republican opposition to intervention in the 
Balkans against Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.

It was in this spirit that the two co-founded PNAC, whose charter was signed 
by leading neo-conservatives, including Cheney's future chief of staff, I. 
Lewis Libby; Rumsfeld's future deputy, Paul Wolfowitz; Bush's future top 
Middle East aide, Elliott Abrams; his future ambassador to Afghanistan and 
Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad; Rumsfeld's future top international security 
official, Peter Rodman; American Enterprise Institute (AEI) fellow and 
neo-cons impresario Richard Perle, and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; as well as 
Cheney and Rumsfeld themselves.

The charter's few specifics, as well as follow-up reports published by PNAC 
-- "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and "Present Dangers", both published in 
2000 to influence the foreign policy debate during the presidential campaign 
that year -- were based to a great extent on an infamous "Defense Planning 
Guidance" (DPG) draft produced under Cheney when he served as secretary of 
defence under President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

That paper, which was developed by then-Undersecretary of Defence Wolfowitz, 
Libby, Khalilzad, and the current deputy national security adviser, J.D. 
Crouch, with assistance from Perle and other like-minded defence 
specialists, called for the "benevolent domination by one power" (the U.S.) 
to replace "collective internationalism" and for Washington to ensure that 
domination, particularly in Eurasia, in order to prevent the emergence, by 
confrontation if necessary, of any possible regional or global rival.

It was PNAC's role to sustain and propagate these ideas through its reports, 
its periodic letters and statements signed by right-wing notables, and a 
steady flow of opinion-pieces and essays, that acted as part of a larger 
neo-conservative "echo chamber" that included Kristol's Weekly Standard, Fox 
News, the Washington Times, and the editorial pages of the Wall Street 
Journal, to frame debates in official Washington and the mainstream media.

In this sense, PNAC was more of a "letter-head organisation" that acted more 
as a mechanism for developing consensus on issues among different political 
forces -- in its case, Republican hawks -- and then pushing them in public, 
than as a think tank.

Indeed, the fact that several of its half-a-dozen staff members -- most 
recently, PNAC director Schmitt -- have taken posts at the much-larger AEI 
located just five floors above PNAC's offices helps illustrate the 
incestuous nature of the larger network. Nonetheless, PNAC was the first to 
call publicly (in 1998) for Washington to pursue "regime change" in Iraq by 
military means in conjunction with the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad 
Chalabi, who would later play a key role in the propaganda campaign against 
Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.

But perhaps its most notable letter was sent to Bush Sep. 20, 2001, just 
nine days after the 9/11 attacks. In addition to calling for the ouster of 
the Taliban and war on al Qaeda, the letter called for waging a broader and 
more ambitious "war on terrorism" that would include cutting off the 
Palestinian Authority under Yassir Arafat, taking on Hezbollah, threatening 
Syria and Iran and, most importantly, ousting Hussein regardless of his 
relationship to the attacks or al Qaeda.

"It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the 
recent attack on the United States," it said. "But even if evidence does not 
link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of 
terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam 
Hussein from power. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an 
early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."

The letter was signed by 38 members of the predominantly neo-conservative 
Washington echo chamber, many of whom -- especially Kristol, Kagan, Defence 
Policy Board members Perle, Woolsey, Eliot Cohen, Centre for Security Policy 
president Frank Gaffney, former Education Secretary William Bennett, 
syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, and Foundation for the Defence of 
Democracies director Clifford May --would emerge, along with Woolsey, as the 
most ubiquitous champions of war with Iraq outside the administration.

Seven months later, PNAC issued another letter signed by many of the same 
people urging Bush to step up preparations for war with Iraq, sever all ties 
to the Palestinian Authority under Arafat and give full backing to Israeli 
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's efforts to crush the Palestinian intifada.

"Israel's fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel's victory is an 
important part of our victory," the letter noted. "For reasons both moral 
and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism." 
Bush complied two months later.

That period -- Sep. 20, 2001, to the run-up to the Iraq war in early 2003 -- 
marked the high-water mark of PNAC's existence. Since then, things have 
generally gone downhill, as the hawks they represented, including the 
group's dominant neo-conservatives, have fallen prey to internal 
disagreements: over Rumsfeld's stewardship of Iraq and the Pentagon; over 
the wisdom of democratic "transformation" in the Arab Middle East; over 
Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan; over China; and even over the latest 
administration moves on Iran.

All of which has made it far more difficult to forge consensus -- and 
compose letters -- in these areas.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/





More information about the Mailman mailing list