Project for a New American Century: noble cop or evil empire?

Great Debates
1

Okay, so apparently there’s an organization called the Project for a New American Century that advocates global dominance of the United States. This organization advocates the following:

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
–defend the American homeland;
–fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
–perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security
environment in critical regions;
–transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”

———

… 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.

———

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

—————

The above citations are from the Project for a New American Century’s web site, and date from September 2000. They seem eerily prophetic, to say the least.

The Project for a New American Century’s statement of principles, written in 1997, was signed by such austere signators as:

Bill Bennett
Dick Cheney
Jeb Bush
Steve Forbes
Francis Fukuyama
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Gary Bauer

Frankly, it freaks me out that such an organization has members so highly placed in our government. Further, it’s freakier still that some of what they have advocated has come to pass. President Bush’s 2002 doctrine stated much of the above, holding that the United States should essentially stand astride the world as a colossus and shut down anyone who would challenge us.

So: anyone out there advocate this? Does anyone out there see American military and economic dominance of the world as a noble undertaking? Or are you, like me, petrified that that the United States (my country) is overtly trying to establish itself as the master of the world?
(Props to Tom Tomorrow for bringing this to my attention. The above quotes were selected by Mr. Tomorrow and are excerpted on his web site. There’s no shortage of other freaky stuff on the Project for a New American Century’s web site, though. God help us all.)

2

My criteria for the Pax Americana would be:

Safeguarding the US and its allies.

Stopping genocide, crimes against humanity, humanitarian crises, brutal despots, and those who seek to conquer other nations. Note: you cannot try to stop all genocide, crimes against humaity, etc., but to justify a non-defensive intervention those seem like good reasons.

We should always seek to work through the international community. Russia, the UK, and a smattering of Euros will suit me just fine. If Syria opposes the use of force, why should I care?

My main beef is with the term “constabulary” duties. I don’t like the idea of using buzzwords to determine major policy issues like going to war. We have constitutional processes for that.

3

I tried to find the four Core Missions on the New American Century web site, but I didn’t see the wording quoted in the OP. I did find

These points don’t sound outrageous.

I think the terrorist attacks indicate that we unfortunately may need to spend more on the military. The second and third points look non-controversial. The fourth point looks pretty obvious, too. I wish the UN or NATO or the EU or somebody would take care of international order, but they aren’t stepping up to the plate. If the US doesn’t do it, nobody will.

4

Erh… sure, december, those points aren’t terribly outrageous. But look around the site some. I can’t see how anyone who supports democracy wouldn’t be outraged. Treating the attack on the U.S.S. Cole as “an act of war”? What the hell? War on whom? That wasn’t carried out by a nation! It was terrorists! That’s like declaring war on the Mafia, f’Chrissakes.

The United States should play an active role in world peace, yes. But we should do it through coöperation with our allies. This is brazen empire-building, and runs contrary not only to American principles, but to the principles of democratic governments everywhere.

5

Not to speak for december [sub]although someone should, I kid[/sub], al Qaeda? They hit the Cole.

No, we do not conquer every nation with an al Qaeda operative in it. But, if the nation cooperates with al Qaeda, that is different. Obviously the Taliban cooperated.

6

The greatest danger with a pax Americana is that for the most part, people don’t like being ruled by others. The leaked contingency for the forthcoming Iraq conquest is that there is to be a US military government ruling the country for several years. If people feel that they’re under an imperialist yoke, however benign that ruler feels themselves to be, and absent the ability to mount a large-scale rebellion, they will tend to employ the only means necessary to attack their ruler: terrorism.

7

As did who knows how many Pakistanis. And Chechnyans. And Syrians. And Saudis.

World domination justified by presumptions of self-defense is not distinguishable from imperialism in any meaningful way. Very few people look into mirrors and see cynics, they see hard headed and realistic people who are compelled to do what they must. Sincere Communists sought world domination under Stalin, as evil and paranoid a human who ever set foot on Earth. They did so in the name of Revolution and Justice. The Nazis only sought to assert the Odin-given right of the Nordic race to rule.

America seeks only to protect herself from evil conspirators, and to project the blessings of democracy and freedom to the world. It rather hurts our feelings that the expected outpouring of gratitude is not forthcoming.

8

Which brings us back to the main point, Beagle: how do you declare war on Al Qaeda if it’s an organization, rather than a government? I’m all for hunting down these guys and stopping them, but that’s no more a war than arresting prominent Mafiosos.

The “war” on terror is ridiculous, too. Terrorism is a strategy of activism that is perceived by many to be legitimate. Even though Americans mostly don’t feel sympathetic to that point of view, the fact is you can’t fight a “war” against something so abstract. The “war” on drugs is more logical. Even the “war” on poverty was. You can’t declare “war” on terror.

jjimm, you hit it right on the head. (Well, that’s not too hard, since the Bush foreign policy has more heads than a hydra.) The head you hit upon was the one about how Iraqis will likely resort to terrorism against the occupying American forces. I’m sure this is the most overlooked aspect of the Bush/New American Century plot.

9

Of course the way to attempt to prevent widespread terrorism in a country one is ruling, is to rule it with an iron fist. Qv. the watchtowers, Saracens, and fortress-style police stations in Northern Ireland (now, happily, being slowly dismantled).

And when you’re ruling a country with an iron fist in the name of democracy, what have you become?

10

Few would argue that US politics – especially US foreign policy – is (at least) heavily influence by corporate USA; policy reflects the needs / desires of US businesses – which is, IMHO, in large measure how we got to this unfortunate juncture apropos ‘terrorism’.

With that in mind, I think there is a new political ‘philosophy’ unfolding on the world stage that through this year will become a media buzz issue, one that will be better identified and better defined. Fwiw, I think this new ‘philosophy’ should be termed the ‘Cheney Doctrine’ – it’s the harbinger of even greater amorality into US foreign policy yet, to folks like Cheney (for whom unbridled capitalism is a religion), that’s the way free markets work so it’s the way they will work.

I believe to Cheney, politics and business are one, and market domination / monopoly is just a natural conclusion / consequence of amoral, dominant and unregulated capitalism – what this philosophy represents, IMHO, is a corollary to the mergers, acquisitions and takeovers we now see in public companies in most first world countries; this is (now) one global market with (now – post Cold War) one dominant player.

In this context, the Saddam / Iraq issue is just about tying up a supplier – it can’t be sensible for the main market player to not better control its power supply. It’s a takeover / acquisition of a market supplier – it’s sound business.

All very alien to your traditional Euro mixed economy / political tradition – and even dangerous to people used to regulating capitalism (and thus imbuing it with some vestiges of old-fashioned socialism).

It looks more and more likely this philosophy – the ‘Cheney Doctrine’ - is what’s underpinning US foreign policy in this Texan era; No negotiating, the idea is to state the terms of your engagement else you’ll go elsewhere: UN, Kyoto, ICC, WTO, World Bank, etc., etc….

IMHO, we’ll be reading a lot more of this in the coming months……

11

This is an excellent summary of one POV in this debate. I disagree. Just ask the East Germans and the West Germans. Or, compare the France to Czecholslovakia under the USSR.

12

…or ask the Hawaiians living around Pearl Harbor when the Japanese made their preëmptive strike.

It’s not necessary to dominate the world in order to strive toward creating a better one. I don’t see why the East Germans and the West Germans would necessarily disagree on this point. I have no idea what you mean.

13

Probably something along the lines that world domination by the Evil Commies would have been a bad thing, while world domination by the champions of Peace, Freedom, and Justice would be the beginning of the Golden Age, and all would share in the universal prosperity bestowed by a benign, but firm, ruler. Of course, some it would share a bit more than others, thats only to be expected.

As Lord Acton’s famous remark has it, “power corrupts”. We Americans are not immune to corruption. We pretty much dominated our hemisphere for the last hundred years or so, and our record in terms of progress and justice is, at best, spotty. And that is given the most generous assessment of our influence. A more accurate assessment would have us invariably on the side of oppression and a rigid enemy of progress.

14

Or drugs and poverty. Nor should democracies have Czars, but there it is.

Logically: one can only mitigate the harms from serious long-term problems. You cannot “win” most of these metaphorical wars we keep declaring. Real wars, meaning the conquest of ground, can be won. This, along with the death of adverbs, is one of my biggest pet peeves with language right now.

I don’t know how what happened in Afghanistan, or what will happen in Iraq, is not war. Obviously arresting three guys for some conversation in a diner is as far removed from war as possible. What was her name “Eunice”? Anyway, of course, most of the War on Terror is little more than bombastic overblown rhetoric - available by the metric ton.

15

I agree with you 100% on the language issue, Beagle.

We should always, always call it the ‘war’ on terror, to remind ourselves ans everyone else that this is a metaphoric war at best, and a fascist propaganda tool at worst.

CtG-- if the new american century guys freak you out, you ought to check out the Democratic Leadership Council… now there’s a shadowy group thats had a lot of its members in high places! :slight_smile:

Seriously, though, if GWB had had any national political interests in 1997, I’m sure he would have been a member also.

16

We shouldn’t call it the “War on Terror.” The problem with this is obvious. The government is saying we’re “at war,” justifying massive deficits and debatable increases in military spending because we’re “at war.” People are getting lost in the metaphor, and the Bush administration is playing it up.

The comparison to the faux “war” with the faux “czars” is a bad one, Beagle. No one who is called a “czar” has been given the autocratic powers of the czars. I don’t even think that’s an official title, anyway. Regardless, “czar” has proven to be a safe term to throw around because no one is getting lost in the metaphor. With “war,” on the other hand, many people clearly are.

17

What worries me the most about the war rhetoric is what is doing to the concept of justice here in the United States. There have been enough proposed and actual infringments on our civil liberties to make me nervous.

It’s fun to try to remember even half of them: TIPS, PATRIOT Act, TIA, tribunals, right to counsel, Gitmo, etc.

Some of this is justified, IMO. For example, keeping actual Taliban fighters out of Afghanistan while the new government fights for its life seems reasonable. But taken as a whole it seems rather grim.

Don’t want to hijack, sorry.