Talk:Project for the New American Century

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Rory Bremmer??

That link points to a british comedian, are you sure your not refering to another Bremmer? Paul Bremmer perhaps?

That's Bremner. Looking at the citation it appears that the British comedian is indeed cited and all is okay. 71.57.34.186 11:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silverback.. re: Iraq regime change

Silverback, regarding this line you added:

The report makes no assertions about preemptively attacking Iraq or enacting regime change. Instead, it states ..

That is editorial commentary. Don't you think it best to let the reader decide what the quote says and means? BTW I was not the one who remove it originally, but can see some reason for doing so. Stbalbach 17:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a NOR content issue. Mentioning what is NOT in a document appears to be a useful service to the reader and if it is mere editorial opinion rather than fact it should be easily refutable. I don't think banning this is what the ban on NOR had in mind. Its supposed motivation was to prevent crackpot physics theories of individuals. My section in this arb case addresses the issue of argumentative refutation in an article, so perhaps the arb committee will shed some light there [1]. I am sure you will agree that argumentative refutation goes far beyond noting what is not in a document. I've also posted some of my thoughts on this issue to the wickien-l email list. I quote myself here:
    • A scientific case would be more helpful, because there is a more generally accepted concept of the truth being searched for and what constitutes facts and the most authoritative evidence. Therefore there is the opportunity to elaborate NOR beyond the every word must have been used by someone else straightjacket. Pointing out omissions or flaws that any peer reviewer or scientific literate would acknowledge, should be allowed. For example, this new study demonstrates this new variable is important, therefor that older study which did not account for that variable (by inspection, because no one else has said it YET) is now called into question. NOR should not ban simple things like counting, summarizing, drawing conclusions from inspection of an article, application of simple equations or principles to facts, etc.
I think this NOR-content issue is one which goes directly to the readability and usefulness of wikipedia. NOR is one of the most abused and destructive objections, but it also is admittedly sometimes quite subjective. Hopefully the community can deal conform to this standard without being throttled by it.--Silverback 17:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it reads like your taking sides in a debate, defending the PNAC report. It's a more fundamental neutrality issue. I'm not sure that is your intent, perhaps it could be re-phrased? Why did you deem it important to mention that the report does not mention pre-empt attacking Iraq? Stbalbach 05:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree it does look out of place now. There was a lot reading between the lines conspiracy theories citing this report in the article at one time. Perhaps that is one justification for keeping it, although they are no longer in the article, they are probably still out there in the community. The defense was put in the article at a time when there was a lot of debate here by persons who were reading the report and debating what it meant. So, in a sense, those statements have passed peer review. If not those familiar with the report would have shot them down if they were wrong, of course, the clincher was probably the quote from the report. It might need to be reworded now that the other side is no longer present in the article, but something should probably be retained so that newcomers would know we've read the report and have already been down that road. Thanx for pointing that out.--Silverback 05:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I hope this new more informational version addresses your concerns.--Silverback 14:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah looks fine now, thanks for the explanation and history, makes sense. Stbalbach 16:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I strongly oppose to the suggestion that the context in which the phrase about "a new Pearl Harbor" stands, would change what it might imply.

The chapter in which it stands is about "CREATING TOMORROW’S DOMINANT FORCE" and begins with the following statement:

"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs."

Hence, the general aim behind the wish to develop and use new technologies, was and remains global dominance.

Kind regards. Satuka.

Satuka, if you read the report, you will find that much of the "general aim" behind the wish to develop and use new technologies, is to save money, and to utilize existing expenditures more efficiently. Forward ground deployments are in the same vein, given the expense of projecting force with carriers. Freeing up carriers from Iraq by ground bases in Kuwait was also proposed for these reasons.--Silverback 00:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Silverback, Satuka is exactly right, if one simply reads the documents from the PNAC literally, without introducing their own biases. Firstly, to show that Silverback is wrong that their intent was to save money, the strategy proposal "Rebuilding

America's Defenses" states in the introduction that expense was intentionally not considered. Secondly, to substantiate Satuka's assertion, the document states all over the place "military preeminence", and states it explicitly as one of the suggested goals in the introduction. I couldn't write a paper more obviously about military dominance and not about cost efficiency if I tried - mostly because I consider it bad form to repeat oneself so often in a literary work. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am biased, or just distrustful of PNAC's conclusions, or perhaps it is original research to consider statements like the following as evidence that expense was considered, although, in PNAC's defense, perhaps it is not "intentional":
"CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation."
"In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary of making large investments in new programs – tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example – that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to come."
"In sum, new capabilities will open up new ways of conducting missions that will allow for increased naval presence at a lower cost."
"The slight increase in the shipbuilding rate is achieved by purchasing less expensive auxiliary cargo ships, which typically cost $300 to $400 million, compared to $1 billion for an attack submarine or Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyer, or $6 billion for an aircraft carrier."
"The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment."
"With the rationalization of ground-based U.S. air forces in the region, the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed."
And I found these just by searching the text for carrier and looking in those immediate paragraphs.
Note the last quote is in reference to Iraq, evidently the Iraq war was not the first major step in their program.--Silverback 02:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
You have certainly demonstrated that at points cost and commitment have been used rhetorically, however, this says nothing about the aim/purpose of the proposal. The statement of purpose of the proposal is most likely where the authors stated, in clear and direct terms, what the purpose of the proposal is. Duh. No offense, but I'm going to take the authors' word over yours on this one. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the document is certainly about transformation into tomorrow's force, but the expense arguments are legitimate and not merely rhetorical. How does any of this legitimize taking the Pearl Harbor phrase out of context as Satuka argues, or that the Iraqi war was part of the plan as some conspiracy theorists claim? With the exception of attempts to export the "Drug War", there could hardly be a more benign or sacrificial military dominance than that posed by the United States. Given how the tiny Iraqi conflict bogs down the US military, the US military would have to have a lot more domininance to be a threat to any but the most petty nations.--Silverback 03:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great sentences of the article

“Some proponents of the war claim it was not a foregone conclusion unless one assumed that Saddam would continue to be intransigent and that France, Russia, Germany and China would continue to block unanimity on the UN security council.”

That's a great sentence. Oh, you mean all of the other four members with veto power are “blocking” unanimity? Who's doing the blocking? A citation would be welcome here, so it would possible to tell whether the wording is from the source or the writer. 149.169.20.229 05:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Concerning a 2 sentences in "Contreversy"

"Military might is not power in itself; it requires huge financial commitments, strong domestic and international support plus skillful management to be considered worthwhile. PNAC position papers and other documents contain few references on building or maintaining any of these requirements."

Okay, I'm new to this, but here goes: While I agree with the first sentence, it sounds like an assertion. Is there a way to make it seem a little more neutral? The second one sounds like it's making a point, or sounds like a criticism. Is there a way to convey the same information while still maintaining an impartial ... um voice? :)

Also, the section that mentions that some feel the PNAC is an unfair victim of conspiracy theories, wouldn't it be fair to include some of the quotes that have fueled the theories? Garden Stater 04:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Part of the sentences you are concerned about are in italics. You might want to review they history and past versions to see what their origin is. They may be actual quotes, the cites for which have been lost in the article, or perhaps were posted here on the talk page.--Silverback 09:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, wrong document

I mistakenly quoted from this document that was from the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf. Thanks for catching my error. --JWSchmidt 02:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] New US Air Force mission statement

Someone might want to consider adding a comment about the U.S. Air Force's new mission statement that reads: "The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace." You can find a press release on that on the Air Force's website. The New American Century's website has a document that made mention of US plans in this area from September 2000.

[edit] Changes to 'Criticisms of position on Iraq'

Clarified 'be intransigent' and removed '...continued to block unanimity..' for reasons given by 149.169.20.229 above (05:35, 27 September 2005). The previous sentence did not make sense - the point of those who believed that the war was a foregone coclusion, and would go ahead irrespective of the result of a vote on a further resolution, is that US policy was clearly not contingent on Great Power unanimity, as the war DID go ahead despite the prospect of being vetoed by the Security Council. Hippo43 07:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Pearl Harbor

Shouldn't the paragraph quoting this line go under controversy instead of Iraq policy criticism? --BohicaTwentyTwo 20:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned Alumni of Princeton material

The following was deleted by User:163.1.231.234 for the reason that "They were factually innacurate, openly opinionated, politically motivated, and badly written." I don't know anything about this particular subject, but any large deletion by an anonymous user on a politically sensitive article like this deserves a bit more justification IMO so I've moved it here. Anyone want to comment on this stuff? Bryan 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Increasingly there is concern that the policies of the group are best represented by a group called the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, or CAP. CAP was organized at Princeton in the 1970s in order to work against the rights of women and minorities to have equal opportunities to the portals of entry into the nations elite represented by attendence at Ivy league colleges such as Princeton.
Undoubtedly the opportunity to network with other upwardly mobile young professionals, and gain access to the grants and scholarships and guidance and reccomendations into positions of power in academia, law, banking, commerce, politics and the media whereby they might help shape America into a society friendly to the tenets of the neo-conservative elite.
Looking at the boards and foundations of the Project for the New American Century as represented by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, there are many well known concerned alumni of Princeton including Donald Rumsfeld, judge Samuel Alito, Bill Frist, and Andrew Napolitano of FOX news, Shelby Cullom Davis as well as several prominent members of the Republican Party and Bush Administration, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the wife of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. A large number of its ideas and its members are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC has seven full-time staff members, in addition to its board of directors.

[edit] PNAC, Conservatism, and Foreign Policy

Under the heading "Controversy" is says that "[s]upporters of the project reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different from other conservative foreign policy assessments of the past". However, the view of PNAC differs greatly from that of, say Pat Buchanan, who opposes interventionist foreign policy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan). Buchanan is often regarded as an archetype of a traditional conservative, today known as Paleo-conservative. And as the article on Paleo-conservativism also points out "[a] central pillar of paleoconservatism is a foreign policy based upon non-interventionism or isolationism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservative#Paleoconservatism.27s_foreign_policy_concerns). Thus, although the supporters claim that their policy is in line with assessment of other conservatives, this statement is incorrect. And in order to fulfil the Wikipedia principle of being informative, this ought to be pointed out, in my opinion. PJ 15:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what your definition of conservative is. Are there only two types of conservatives these days? Paleo- and neo-? --BohicaTwentyTwo 16:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
There are several types of conservativism, but Paleo-conservatism certainly is a major one. (In fact, neo-conservatism and paleo-conservatism are most likely the two major types.) For example, both the The American Conservative and Chronicles are oulets for paleo-convervatism. With that, the claim by PNAC seems to me incorrect. Furthermore, there are other major conservative figures, such as William F. Buckely Jr., founder of National Review, who has expressed criticism of the neoconservative agenda, such as the Iraq war, and further even arguing that Bush — who should be regarded as a neo-conservative, in my view — is not even a conservative (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley%2C_Jr.). It seems wrong, therefore, to say that there is no difference between neoconservatives and other conservatives. PJ 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fukuyama, Neocons, and PNAC

Given Fukuyama's heavy-weight status within the neocon intelligensia, I definately believe that his critique of the PNACs policies ought to be mentioned in this article. (Se e.g. "After Neoconservatism", http://www.champress.net/english/index.php?page=show_det&id=2405; and "Fukuyama’s moment: a neocon schism opens", http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-election2004/article_2190.jsp#.) PJ 14:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fukuyama's article belongs on the Neoconservatism page, not here. Good luck adding it there. The edit war there is pretty intense. --BohicaTwentyTwo 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion?

Project for the New American Century concerns me very much and when I looked it up on wikipedia I would have thought it would have had more information. This is a bigger threat than terrorism (I know a lot of people won't agree with me, especially as this is US based (I am Australian)) but gets next to zilch media coverage... c'mon wikipedians, expand, expand! Timeshift 05:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support for liberal democracies

I think this section should be deleted. It is basically non-cited possibly anti-semetic POV.

I agree it should be deleted. It adds nothing to the article as a whole, which I think is pretty good otherwise. If no-one objects, I'll delete it in a week. --BobFromBrockley 09:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bork

I think that the information on Ellen Bork is incorrect... The article says she is Robert Bork's wife, but her wiki page and his both say she is his daughter... (I changed it originally but then changed it back, thinking maybe those other two articles were wrong and this one is right)


[edit] media

This article is linked to by Prisonplanet.com [2]. --Striver 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New World Order

These are the evil architects of the war machine to march into a New World Order. Leo Strauss trained Trotskyites looking for a compliant American citizenery to pay the blood and tresure for an American/Israeli Empire. They are the sofa samaurais that will send your children to war in foreign lands while allowing illegal immigrants to invade the homeland to take your job. Backed by Rupert Murdoch they were able to brainwash the public into a connection of 9/11 to Iraq, then onto Syria, then Iran, then a compliant Egypt. This dillusional group has no loyalty to America or it's Founding Father's Constitution, it's Zionist agenda gives a bad name to Jews everywhere.


Yeah, thanks for the meth-induced astral space trip, but here on Wikipedia we deal in facts and not fantasy. Jtrainor 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yo Jtrainor, you are the one who is living a fantasy thinking your leaders are saints who would do no wrong! You are a people hijacked and made blind to the reality; your government is not of the people, but of the AIPAC,Christian zionists,christian fundamentalists(who think the USA is mentioned in the bible and all sorts of other crap).The hidden agenda of the true powers operating within the white house and capitol hill are apparent from the foreign policies of the US.This is a dangerous game they play and it will end with the fall of the American Empire.(I fear you are as naive as the romans were!).MEanwhile you can go about all smiles and totally ignorant to what is going on and make it known to others that ignorance by making fun of those who are trying to expose the truth...

What makes you think I'm an American? Also, sign your posts by adding four tildes (~) afterwards as it is not considered polite to post anonymously. Jtrainor 06:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be yet another instance of the time honored game: When you don't know what you are talking about, blame the Jews. This is not helpful.47.230.0.45 16:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This whole article percolates with hints of paranoia and conspiracy mongering. "Some people" think neocons are responsible for 9/11? So what? "Some people" think the Pope is the anti-Christ. Does that mean it belongs in the text of a Wikipedia article? This whole article badly needs a neutrality-check. DesScorp 00:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh great, here come the NWO conspiracy theorists. The biggest hole in any conspiracy theory is that they assume the government (weather controlled by liberals or conservatives) is competent. Yes PNAC is bad, but do you really think, (given how the events in Iraq have unfolded), that they will be able to conquer the world and set up some worldwide fascist government? Even some hardline neo-cons like Richard Perle now say they regret advocating for the invasion of Iraq. You can stick a fork in PNAC and the neo-cons cause they're done. --Jml4000 23:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sidestepping the issue

The issue which should be dealt with in this article is the project for the new american century. The issue of the PFTNAC's stance on the war on iraq seems to be overshadowing the actual project its self. This should not only be reformatted, but possibly completely re written as well...


As for that conspiracy theorist...I wonder what his DU (democratic underground) name is?

72.25.77.134 02:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC) ~RJH www.thatpoliticalblog.com

[edit] Pax Americana

I'm just curious about one thing, why is Pax Americana listed in the opening paragraphs as one of the claims of the critics of PNAC? They have on their website very blatant claims that it is precisely what they want, take for instance this pdf, which is titled "Preserving Pax Americana". So how is this an allegation of critics alone as implied? --Paul Barkley 03:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

quoting from the second paragraph in the article, Pax Americana, "The term Pax Americana is used by both supporters and critics of United States foreign policy, and as such, it carries different connotations depending on the context." The next sentence in that paragraph refers to the "rebuilding america's defenses" document, where the term is also used. Maybe you can help to clarify this somewhere, somehow in this article also. Umeboshi 23:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction needed:

this section does not display properly:

|I. Lewis Libby |Bush Administration (2001-2005) |Chief of Staff for the |Vice President |Indicted by Grand Jury on charges of Obstruction of Justice, False Statements, and Perjury and resigned October 28, 2005.

All you see is Vice President, instead of Chief of Staff for the Vice President

Ok, I fixed the problem with the link. I'm not sure that it should still be listed as such, or if it should be former CoStotheVP. Umeboshi 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Talk%7EProject_for_the_New_American_Century_d6b0.html"