Jump to content

Project for the New American Century

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.129.53.132 (talk) at 03:58, 6 August 2006 (→See also). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American political think tank, based in Washington, DC. The controversial group was established in early 1997 as a non-profit organization with the goal of promoting "American global leadership." The chairman is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a regular contributor to the Fox News Channel. The Executive Director and chief operating officer has been Gary J. Schmitt. The group is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a non-profit 501c3 organization that has been funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation. [1]

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

Supporters of the PNAC counter that such criticisms are little more than conspiracy theories and point out that the organization's stated purposes have been mischaracterized. (See PNAC's mission statement below.)

Core views and beliefs

The PNAC Web site states the group's "fundamental propositions", which are

  • "American leadership is good both for America and 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.

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 political and economic freedom outside the US.
  • Preserving and extending an international order friendly to US security, prosperity and principles.

The PNAC and its members had long called for the United States to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the US and the Soviet Union, from which the US withdrew in 2002. The PNAC also proposes to control the new "international commons" of space and "cyberspace" and pave the way for the creation of a new military service — U.S. Space Forces — with the mission of space control. In 1998, Donald Rumsfeld chaired a bipartisan commission on the US Ballistic Missile Threat toward advancement of these goals. It is unclear how "space control" will affect US adherence to the Outer Space Treaty.

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, 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 have been called upon 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 the military should be enlarged, equipped and restructured for the "constabulary" roles associated with shaping the security in critical regions of the world.

Chairman and Executive Director

William Kristol taught politics at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. In 1985 he went to Washington and later served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the Bush administration, and to Secretary of Education William Bennett under President Ronald Reagan.

Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped create the strategy which produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. He started The Weekly Standard in 1995, and now serves as its editor and publisher. He is also a political contributor for the Fox News Channel and serves as a regular contributor to Special Report with Brit Hume.

Gary J. Schmitt, Executive Director, received his Ph.D. in political science from University of Chicago. He served as a top aide of Senator Daniel Moynihan (D-NY), and as staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee and later executive director of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under President Reagan. His published work includes studies of national security and foreign policy, intelligence policy, and American political and constitutional thought.

Position on Iraq

In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including 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 and , the report states "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".

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 American "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 America, motivated by an imperial and globalist agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance. Critics of the United States' international relations take umbrage at 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 are 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. PNAC position papers and other documents contain few references on building or maintaining any of these requirements. [citation needed]

Supporters of the project reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different from past conservative foreign policy assessments. American 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 unfair conspiracy theories, mainly motivated by the left. [citation needed]

A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). 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” (page 50). 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. Many critics also claim the PNAC believed this "new Pearl Harbor" would justify war on Iraq. [citation needed]

Criticisms of position on Iraq

Many critics of the American-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" [2], showing that the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz's and 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." [3] 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." [4]

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
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 PNAC Founder
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
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 Libby Bush Administration 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.
Peter W. Rodman Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Donald Rumsfeld Department of Defense Secretary of Defense PNAC founder and previously Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences Developer of Tamiflu
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 World Bank President Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller Former V.P. of System Planning Corp.
Robert B. Zoellick Department of State Deputy Secretary of State Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001-2005);

Other members

Support for liberal democracies

The policies of this organization call for robust support of democratic allies, among them Israel and Taiwan. The strong Jewish American presence in this organization has been criticized by US progressives, some Democrats and by Arabs (Imperial America, Gore Vidal, 2004).This organization has close ties to Likud and other right-wing Israeli parties.

See also

Analysis of PNAC

  • irc-online.org - 'Rise and Demise of the New American Century'
  • BBC.co.uk - 'Analysis: Power Americana: The US appears to be heading to war with Iraq whatever happens, with implications for the future conduct of American foreign policy', Paul Reynolds, BBC News Online world affairs correspondent (March 2, 2003)
  • Channel4.com (ram video file) - Rory Bremner (alleges decision to invade Iraq made in 1998 by PNAC members)
  • Guardian.co.uk - 'Could Tony Blair look at the internet now, please? Why is the British Prime Minister the only person who seems to be unaware of the US hawks' agenda', Terry Jones (March 2, 2003)
  • Guardian.co.uk - 'Why look in the crystal ball?' Terry Jones (May 4, 2003)
  • OpEdNews.com - PNAC info and sources (members and their letters)
  • PBS.org - 'Frontline: the war behind closed doors: analyses, PBS
  • PNAC.info - 'Exposing the Project for the New American Century: An effort to investigate, analyze, and expose the Project for the New American Century, and its plan'
  • TruthOut.org - 'New York, you've been used', William Rivers Pitt, (questioning PNAC)
  • WSWS.org - 'Meacher: terrorism a pretext for conquest: British official charges US "stood down" on 9/11', Bill Vann (September 8, 2003) alleges that the decision to invade Iraq was made in 1998 by PNAC members (interpretation of Michael Meacher, former cabinet minister for Tony Blair)
  • PNAC 101 - Rise of the Neocons
  • 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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century&oldid=67942064"