Project for the New American Century

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a neo-conservative US think tank based in Washington, DC. Co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, the group was established in early 1997 as a non-profit organization. The PNAC is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a 501(c)(3) organization that has been funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.[1]

PNAC was a major advocate for the United States' 2003 invasion of Iraq. The invasion formed a centerpiece of the group's neoconservative agenda. Complications with the invasion have contributed to PNAC's decline, along with the decline of the larger neoconservative foreign policy movement. PNAC now only has one employee and is seen as nearly defunct.[2]

Critics allege that the controversial organization proposes military and economic space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish and maintain a Pax Americana, a US dominance in world affairs. Some have argued the US-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans.

Contents

[edit] Members

Many of the organization's ideas, and its members, are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC, at one point, had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors. It now has one full-time staffer.

Current members include William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Bruce P. Jackson, Mark Gerson, Randy Scheunemann, Ellen Bork, Gary Schmitt, Thomas Donnelly, and Reuel Marc Gerecht.[3]

Former members include prominent members of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.

Other former members include:

[edit] Core views and beliefs

The PNAC web site states the group's "fundamental propositions":[4]

  • "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world."
  • "such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle"
  • "too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

The PNAC also made a statement of principles at their 1997 inception.[5]

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent 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?

The PNAC advocates "a policy of military strength and moral clarity" which includes:

  • A significant increase of US military spending.
  • Strengthening ties with US allies and challenging regimes hostile to US interests and values.
  • Promoting the cause of American political and economic power outside the US.
  • Preserving and extending an international order friendly to US security, prosperity and principles. .[6]

The PNAC has long called for the United States to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the US and the former Soviet Union, from which the US withdrew in 2002. It also proposes controlling the new "international commons" of outer space and "cyberspace" and paving the way for the creation of a new military service — U.S. Space Forces — with the mission of space control. .[7][citation needed]

[edit] PNAC report: Rebuilding America's Defenses

In September 2000, the PNAC issued a 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For A New Century,[8] proceeding "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." The report has been the subject of much analysis and criticism.

The group states that when diplomacy or sanctions fail, the United States must be prepared to take military action. PNAC argues that the current Cold War deployment of forces is obsolete. Defense spending and force deployment must reflect the post-Cold War duties that US forces are obligated to perform. Constabulary duties such as peacekeeping in the Balkans and the enforcement of the No Fly Zones in Iraq have put a strain upon, and reduced the readiness of US forces. The PNAC recommends the forward redeployment of US forces at new strategically placed permanent military bases in Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia. Permanent bases ease the strain on US forces, allowing readiness to be maintained and the carrier fleet to be reduced. Furthermore, PNAC advocates that the US-globalized military should be enlarged, equipped and restructured for the "constabulary" roles associated with shaping the security in critical regions of the world.

[edit] Position on the Iraq invasion and occupation

In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.

The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning. The report states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".

One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;"[9] After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan because Osama bin Laden had taken refuge there and the administration held him responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks. In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq citing multiple grounds. 2003 invasion of Iraq


[edit] Controversy

The PNAC has been the subject of considerable criticism and controversy, both among members of the left and right. Critics dispute the premise that US "world leadership" is desirable for the world or even for the United States itself. The PNAC's harshest critics claim it represents a disturbing step towards total world subjugation by the United States, motivated by an imperial and globalist agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance. Critics of the United States' international relations take issue with the PNAC's unabashed position of maintaining the nation's privileged position as sole world superpower. Some critics even assert that the fall of the Soviet Union indicates an end to the era of 'superpowers' and therefore any concept of military hegemony or ascendancy is overrated. Military might is not power in itself, say the critics; it requires huge financial commitments, strong domestic and international support, plus skillful management to be considered worthwhile.[10][11] PNAC position papers and other documents contain few references on building or maintaining any of these requirements.[12]

Supporters of the project reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different from past conservative foreign policy assessments. US conservatives have traditionally favored a militarily strong United States, and advocated the country take aggressive positions when its interests are threatened. Supporters thus see the PNAC as the target of conspiracy theories, mainly motivated by the left.[citation needed]

A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000) famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor (PDF)".[13] This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts”.[14] The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor." Some have used this quote as evidence for their belief the US government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. (See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories for further information on this topic.)

Critics will often quote another excerpt from the document, "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool", as evidence of a violently racist lean[citation needed]; since certain populations (i.e. Iranian Muslims vs. Saudi Arabs) will carry higher frequencies of a certain genotype[15], a biological weapon that is only active in that particular genotype will target one race over another. This occurs via "race-specific elicitors" produced by the pathogen which are only operational in certain host genotypes.[16][17] Both Israel[18] and South Africa before the end of apartheid also researched such race-specific biological weapons, without success.

[edit] Criticisms of position on the Iraq invasion and occupation

Many critics of the US-led invasion of Iraq claim the US' "bullying" of the international community into supporting the 2003 Iraq war, and the fact that the war went ahead despite much international criticism, stem from the positions of prominent conservatives in the Bush administration. Some critics of the Bush administration see the 1998 letter to President Clinton as a "smoking gun",[19] showing that the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz's and Richard Perle's opinions, five years prior to the Iraq invasion. Other signatories of the letter include John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilzad, as of this writing the United States' ambassadors to the United Nations and Iraq, respectively. Rory Bremner, citing the letter, said "that's what they want — regime change — and nothing, not Blair, not the UN, not Hans Blix, not France, Germany, Russia, China, not the threat of terrorism, or Arab reservations, or lack of evidence, or the Peace March, not even our own brave Jack Straw is going to stand in their way."[20] George Monbiot, citing the letter, said "to pretend that this battle begins and ends in Iraq requires a willful denial of the context in which it occurs. That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to suit itself."[21]

[edit] Bush administration

After the 2000 election of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC's members were appointed to key positions within the new President's administration:

Name Department Title Remarks
Elliott Abrams National Security Council Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
Richard Armitage Department of State (2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of State Disclosed Valerie Plame's identity (Plamegate scandal).
John R. Bolton Department of State U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Previously served as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs in the first administration of GWB.
Richard Cheney Bush Administration Vice President
Seth Cropsey Voice of America Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau
Paula Dobriansky Department of State Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
Francis Fukuyama President's Council on Bioethics Council Member Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University
Bruce Jackson U.S. Committee on NATO President Former Lockheed Martin VP for Strategy & Planning[22]
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Embassy Baghdad, Iraq U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from November 2003 to June 2005
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Bush Administration (2001-2005) Chief of Staff for the Vice President Resigned October 28, 2005. On March 6, 2007, Libby was found guilty on two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to the FBI.
Peter W. Rodman Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Donald Rumsfeld Department of Defense (2001-2006) Secretary of Defense Former Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, the firm that developed Tamiflu®

Resigned from office December 15, 2006
Randy Scheunemann U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute Member Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz Department of Defense (2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of Defense Became President of the World Bank in 2005
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller Former V.P. of System Planning Corporation[23]
Robert B. Zoellick Department of State Deputy Secretary of State Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001-2005);

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=1
  2. ^ Reynolds, P. (2006). "End of the neo-con dream". BBC News, December 21, 2006.
  3. ^ http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm
  4. ^ http://www.newamericancentury.org/
  5. ^ http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
  6. ^ http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
  7. ^ http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
  8. ^ http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
  9. ^ http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
  10. ^ http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000992.php
  11. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/shoulders/report011204.pdf
  12. ^ http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
  13. ^ Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 51
  14. ^ Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 50
  15. ^ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/population-genetics/
  16. ^ http://www.springerlink.com/content/?mode=boolean&k=doi%3a(BF00871954)&sortorder=asc
  17. ^ http://www.springerlink.com/content/gjw86146823005rk/
  18. ^ "Israel planning 'ethnic' bomb as Saddam caves in", The Sunday Times, 1998-11-15. Retrieved on 2006-07-11.
  19. ^ http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
  20. ^ http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/images/bremner_transcript_5.doc
  21. ^ http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/03/11/a-wilful-blindness
  22. ^ http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1233
  23. ^ http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS

[edit] External links

[edit] Analysis of PNAC

  • In November 2003 a private worldwide initiative was launched to interfere with the PNAC neo-conservatives. For example: Indymedia-Washington ; Indymedia-Italy; Indymedia-Japan. And many more.
  • The PNAC website Welcome to the Project ... today (March 2006) does not seem to be in operation anymore. (1. last article placed, dates back to December 19, 2005; 2. sending an E-mail triggers a ‘mail delivery failure/mailbox is full’ message; 3. the search engine is out of order).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Project_for_the_New_American_Century_a924.html"