Knowledge and Forethought
dh | 18.03.2003 22:32
Reality Check: A New American Century
CBC News Online | March 17, 2003
As the U.S. edges closer to war with Iraq, some are wondering whether the conflict could have been avoided. As the CBC Reality Check team found, the current course of events has been carefully planned by a powerful group of men, beginning even before George Bush assumed the U.S. presidency.
George W. Bush, presidential candidate, said on Oct. 11, 2000.
"I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, 'We do it this way, so should you.'"
One of Bush's more recent speeches is somewhat different: "The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder... By the resolve and purpose of America, and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty."
So, what happened? After the terrorist attacks on September 11, Bush had to rethink. But for many of those around him, there was no need to. Long before Sept. 11, influential neo-conservatives wanted to see America as an enlightened ruler, unchallenged, astride the world. Long before Bush was elected president, they got together and they wrote down a manifesto.
The document was effectively a charter of the Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank in Washington.
Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution says, "In essence it's a call for an American empire, for what they call Pax Americana ... it's basically saying that the United States has to take responsibility and to enforce peace around the world and enforce what they call American principles and American interests."
The founding members included Vice-President Dick Cheney; Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz of the Defence Department; Richard Perle, head of the defence advisory board; Louis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff; John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control; and Elliot Cohen of the defence policy board.
Much of what these men wanted is coming true: They urged that the U.S. abandon the anti-ballistic missile treaty. It has.
They wanted establishment of more permanent U.S. military bases abroad. That is happening in the Philippines and in Georgia, and will likely happen in Iraq.
They urged regime change as a goal of foreign wars, and not just in Iraq.
They wanted the U.S. as a global "constabulary" – their word – unburdened by the United Nations or world opinion, preventing any challenge to U.S. dominance.
But, they wrote a year before Sept. 11, such aspirations are unlikely to be realized without "a catastrophic and catalyzing event. . .like a new Pearl Harbor."
William Kristol, a leading neo-conservative and director of the Project for a New American Century, believes such goals are good and right, and he's delighted with all this success, but says there is more to do.
"We haven't persuaded the Bush administration of everything… I think we need to spend more on defence, I think they need to re-think their policy toward Saudi Arabia, I think the administration kicked the can down the road on North Korea, but that remains a threat…"
It's America as Gary Cooper in High Noon, say the critics. Standing tall, all alone, building a new American empire in a new American century.
"Kristol has used the term 'benevolent global hegemony,' which to me says empire, but I suppose if you put the word benevolent in front of it, it makes it OK," Bookman says.
It's been a long time in the making. And wise people will not underestimate the determination of its proponents.
"The point of view from here is a really attractive agenda of governing. We never thought of ourselves as simply intellectual thought experiments," Kristol says.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/realitycheck030317.html
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent 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?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
CBC News Online | March 17, 2003
As the U.S. edges closer to war with Iraq, some are wondering whether the conflict could have been avoided. As the CBC Reality Check team found, the current course of events has been carefully planned by a powerful group of men, beginning even before George Bush assumed the U.S. presidency.
George W. Bush, presidential candidate, said on Oct. 11, 2000.
"I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, 'We do it this way, so should you.'"
One of Bush's more recent speeches is somewhat different: "The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder... By the resolve and purpose of America, and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty."
So, what happened? After the terrorist attacks on September 11, Bush had to rethink. But for many of those around him, there was no need to. Long before Sept. 11, influential neo-conservatives wanted to see America as an enlightened ruler, unchallenged, astride the world. Long before Bush was elected president, they got together and they wrote down a manifesto.
The document was effectively a charter of the Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank in Washington.
Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution says, "In essence it's a call for an American empire, for what they call Pax Americana ... it's basically saying that the United States has to take responsibility and to enforce peace around the world and enforce what they call American principles and American interests."
The founding members included Vice-President Dick Cheney; Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz of the Defence Department; Richard Perle, head of the defence advisory board; Louis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff; John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control; and Elliot Cohen of the defence policy board.
Much of what these men wanted is coming true: They urged that the U.S. abandon the anti-ballistic missile treaty. It has.
They wanted establishment of more permanent U.S. military bases abroad. That is happening in the Philippines and in Georgia, and will likely happen in Iraq.
They urged regime change as a goal of foreign wars, and not just in Iraq.
They wanted the U.S. as a global "constabulary" – their word – unburdened by the United Nations or world opinion, preventing any challenge to U.S. dominance.
But, they wrote a year before Sept. 11, such aspirations are unlikely to be realized without "a catastrophic and catalyzing event. . .like a new Pearl Harbor."
William Kristol, a leading neo-conservative and director of the Project for a New American Century, believes such goals are good and right, and he's delighted with all this success, but says there is more to do.
"We haven't persuaded the Bush administration of everything… I think we need to spend more on defence, I think they need to re-think their policy toward Saudi Arabia, I think the administration kicked the can down the road on North Korea, but that remains a threat…"
It's America as Gary Cooper in High Noon, say the critics. Standing tall, all alone, building a new American empire in a new American century.
"Kristol has used the term 'benevolent global hegemony,' which to me says empire, but I suppose if you put the word benevolent in front of it, it makes it OK," Bookman says.
It's been a long time in the making. And wise people will not underestimate the determination of its proponents.
"The point of view from here is a really attractive agenda of governing. We never thought of ourselves as simply intellectual thought experiments," Kristol says.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/realitycheck030317.html http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent 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?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
dh
