Kerry Admits US Intervention In Syria Is Illegal

So as Russia's involvement is also illegal,
they should get the hell out of Syria and let them resolve it.
Civil wars should be a domestic issue but I don't know how valuable Tartus is for them.

 

Then no legit gov't exists anywhere in the middle east. So, in hypocrisy you call out assad, who like Gadafi and Hussein, had secular gov't, instead of theocracy.

I doubt the western version of what happened in Syria. But I do not doubt that our CIA was involved in the ruse. That is what they do, and are quite good at it.

If you look from a bird's eye view, what we have seen are secular gov'ts being replaced with either chaos or sharia. But beyond that, you see the hit list of the neocon new American century, being fulfilled, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, then there is Iran, Sudan, and a couple more. Coincidental? LOL. Sure, so let me sell you that mountain I own down in florida. I will let it go cheap. You can retire to it, and the view is quite nice. You can see for miles and miles, as it is the only high ground in florida.

Here is he deal. What we have been doing in Syria, by proxies, is against international law. And we break it at will. And those that support us breaking it, are criminals too, and should be executed. A bullet to the head would do it. We have broke international law with Iraq, Libya, and now Syria. Bush should be hung, Cheney, Obama, and Clinton. Like we did with the Nazis at Nuremburg. These are all criminals. At least Russia was invited by the leader of Syria. Funny, how putin is not the criminal, but our corrupt politicians are. If you put my nation, the US, up besides Russia, and objectively looked, judged, we would make Russia, even as bad as putin can be, like a choir boy, with some morality, while we have zero.

 

Actually, once Saddam was defeated, an elections were held in Iraq, contrary to neocon expectations that the combination of US military presence, money, and support, would allow the so-called "American List" to win in Iraqi elections, the so-called "Iranian List" won in those elections. In the process, the Saudis accelerated their funding of Sunni groups (including both former Saddam officers and Sunni Jihadists), created all sorts of mayhem and instability in Iraq through vicious acts against the Shia community, and eventually -- working with the Israelis -- persuaded the US to change course and follow what is referred to as The Redirection. The Redirection saw the US create a large Sunni military force known as the "Sons of Iraq" (100,000 troops led by ex-Saddam officers equipped and paid by the US outside the control of the Iraqi government). It also saw the US push for a change in the leadership of Iraq's government, from a figure they said was too close to Iran to Al Maleki. Alas, the policies pursued by the US/Saudi Arabia in the guise of the Redirection pushed America's hand picked Iraqi prime minister to look to Iran for support to balance the threat of the Sunni forces being created against him. With Iran insisting the US troops must leave Iraq, and Maleki beginning to see the presence of US troops as a danger to his survival, that became the real demand of the Iraqi government as well. The SOFA agreement negotiated and signed by the Bush administration, therefore, set a timetable for withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq, i.e. 31 December 2011. And, under Obama, the US complied with those terms.

Once US troops left Iraq, and the Iraqi government disbanded the "Sons of Iraq", many of the officers and troops from this 100,000 force previously equipped and trained by the US, joined forces with the other Jihadists and elements that the Saudis had been supporting in Iraq, along with similar elements being groomed and developed in Syria in concert with the Turks. The whole thing metamorphised in what became known as ISIS.

 

For Jews from the different countries - Israel the historical Homeland. They try to do a lot of things for the good of Israel. Many of them Zionists fanatics, same as Islamists. Direct participation of the US in the Syrian conflict, also and on all the Middle East - is favorable only to Israel, but not simple Americans. (by the way, explosions of the Twin Towers in 2001 are favorable to them too...)

ps:Other countries in the Syrian conflict, have the interests. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, economic... Turkey conducts initially silly policy there...

 

There were and are Jews who --

1- are right wing pro Israeli zealots with visions of "Greater Israel" (ultra-Zionists, many who incidentally were part of the neocon pack);
2- are hard core Israeli zealots who are willing to support Israel blindly but who may not be as attached to any idea of Greater Israel (typical Aipac Zionists);
3- are folks who, in the wake of the Holocaust, wanted a secure Jewish homeland built on democratic traditions and were willing to close their eyes on what the Zionist project entailed for the people who had lived in Palestine and the rest of the region as a whole, but have no interest in seeing Israel become some sort of a military colony in pursuit of a Project for a New American Century (i.e., "liberal Zionists");
4- are people who once opposed the Zionist project, unwilling to close their eyes to what it entailed, but whose main focus right now is to make amends for the project by making sure that the plight of the Palestinians is not forgotten (i.e., those who some may pejoratively call the "peaceniks");
5- are people who opposed, and still oppose, the Zionist project because of its inconsistency with Western democratic values (i.e., "anti-Zionist" Jews); and
6- are people who opposed, and still oppose, the Zionist project because of its inconsistency with traditional Jewish religious tenets (i.e., so-called 'ultra-orthodox anti Zionist Jews').

In short, not all Jews believe in the same things when it comes to Israel and Israeli policies. In the US, the most powerful organizations that purport to speak for the "Jews" are all pro Israeli and accomplices in the crimes of the state of Israel and those of the United States in pursuing the policies pushed by Israel's most avid supporters (the "Aipac crowd" for shorthand). But the majority of American Jews actually oppose the policies that are promoted by the Aipac crowd, even if they haven't been able to form equally influential groups to promote their views (in part, because they aren't as committed as the Aipac crowd is committed to its cause and aren't, therefore, willing to spend nearly as much, and in part because the Aipac crowd have an alliance these days with other interest groups tied with the military industrial complex which accentuates its strengths).

 

Yes, if still there is honest staff of FBI, they have to be well engaged in all these people.

 

To keep it brief I'll just answer one of your assertions (defined): But theTaliban hasn't been toppled (they took Kunduz recently, and considering they're up against the might of the US military, that was some achievement?). And Al Qaeda is still around.

My two pence ...

Apols to members for my off-topic interruption to the thread.

 

Saddam needed to be overthrown because he had become a threat to the entire region; but then he ought to have been allowed to resume control with the caveat that he will be well and truly monitored henceforth and there will be no second chance. And I don't say that with 20-20 hindsight, I thought it at the time.

 

Great post; it serves to demonstrate that globalists are not interested in doing what it takes to maintain a reasonable balance of power--they believe in "winner take all", which is sort of stupid for all sorts of reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

The only thing that will get us out of it is to NOT elect Hil president.

 

I too do not wish to derail, so look here for my point of view about Afghanistan and AQ.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=474793&page=3&p=1066682049#post1066682049

 

There is a story to tell behind how this delirium of empire and the winner take all attitude you allude to started and where it is intended to lead. I get the sense you are familiar with the story, of its rough origins in a paper for Netanyahu by Perle and Feith and company (Securing the Realm), and then neocon coalition that charted the Project for a New American Century, and how its essential ingredients are still being pushed by the Aipac crowd. But as with other stories, this one took some turns and twists and to tell the full story takes a bit of time. But certainly, American policies, besides being criminal in effect and consequence, have been misguided to say the least.

 

If you have links to any of those it would probably be worthwhile spelling it out for everyone.

 

To find the plans the neocons were concocting and promoting:

1- A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (the policy paper written by a study group headed by Perle which included many of the folks around the Bush administration, including Douglas Feith)
2- Project for the New American Century

As for articles, here are some I recommend:
1- Bush's Dual Loyalties (by two former high ranking CIA analysts, Bill and Kathleen Christison, in December 2002, published in Counter Punch)
2- The Redirection (by Pulitzer Prize and other award winning journalist, Seymour Hersh, in 2007, published in the New Yorker)
3- Going to Tehran, a website promoting a book of the same name which also contains numerous articles written by the authors, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Leverett (both former CIA analysts as well), including in particular their article which was published by CNN entitled Why Iran Rising is a Good Thing

 

Thanks-- I will quote the "fair use" ones here in case "something happens" to those links...

====\\====\\====\\====\\

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political

Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive

ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers,

including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert

Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A

Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of

follow-up reports on strategy.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist

movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s

socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty

and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine

the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous

government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding

national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited

strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s

efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to

negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of

terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily

functions, such as commuting to work in buses.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are

those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it

can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual

foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to

engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must

be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate

future, Israel can:

Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its

most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive

peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.
Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of

hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to

Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.
Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity,

strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the

West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which

prevents economic reform.
This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that

highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The

body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the

strategic context of the passages.

A New Approach to Peace

Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the

new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize

"land for peace"— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political,

diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and

traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes

"peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance of power.

A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

TEXT:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot

play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character

and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and

bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state

and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now."

Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate

and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make

peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially

in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.
Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals.

The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-

year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and

reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace

negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national

steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and

insist on minimal standards of accountability.

Securing the Northern Border

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which

American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its

northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of

aggression in Lebanon, including by:



striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which

focuses on Razi Qanan.


paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not

immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.


striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at

select targets in Syria proper.
Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian

regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the

Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation

of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a

quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that

terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with

hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at

a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers

receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups

operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled

Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for

computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not

production points, of the "supernote" — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is

impossible to detect.

Text:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot

sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively

with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors,

criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive

of the most deadly terrorist organizations.
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel

abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing

attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace"

deals on the Golan Heights.

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our

friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by

weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing

Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own

right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's

regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.

This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping

up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria

recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if

only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied

with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the

Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side,

central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and

detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a

redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial

integrity.

Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it

would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in

their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first

official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu

government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security

measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through

influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift

Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by

using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting

diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria,

such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are

hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control.

The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to

the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq,

they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia

away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia

venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in

whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.

Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians

Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First

and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into

Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can

sympathize.

A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed. Therefore, Israel

has the right to insist on compliance, including closing Orient House and disbanding

Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can

establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the

PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human

rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.

TEXT:

We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal standards of

accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate

repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations

to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.
Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its

obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be

neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this,

Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on

this.

To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not

the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends

and advance human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel;

identifying and helping them are important. Israel may also find that many of her

neighbors, such as Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel

may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.

Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship

In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign

policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace"

concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money,

forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy,

which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was

risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United

States in roles is should neither have nor want.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-

Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused

narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy

of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that

Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on

the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel

greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in

the past.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce

that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S.

economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid

is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that

Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in

another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather

than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-

processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will

electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli

Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats

to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to

cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to

remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either

state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical

threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in

the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about

missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S.

embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions,

Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in

language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations

during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain

propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is

before November, 1996.

Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict

TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.
Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s

floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked

Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel.

The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-

Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which

assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of

preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation

without response.

Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant

Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to

rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist

foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its "exhaustion," which

threatens the survival of the nation.

Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war.

No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is

on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no

longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi

opposition leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and

intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important--element in the

history of the Middle East." Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the

basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.

Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"

Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.ht



HOME

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Fair Use Notice

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in

our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help

find solutions for those problems.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for

in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,

the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a

prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational

purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information.

Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on

this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for

purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the

copyright owner.

You can read more about 'fair use' and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information

Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at

Common Dreams.
=================================================

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Project for the New American Century
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
PNAC logo.png
Formation 1997
Founder William Kristol, Robert Kagan
Dissolved 2006
Type Public policy think tank
Location
Washington, D.C.
Chairman
William Kristol
Directors
Robert Kagan
Devon Gaffney Cross
Bruce P. Jackson
John R. Bolton
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative[1][2][3] think

tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United States foreign policy. It was

established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William

Kristol and Robert Kagan.[4][5] The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global

leadership."[6] The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for

America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of

military strength and moral clarity."[7]
Of the twenty-five people who signed the PNAC's founding statement of principles, ten

went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick

Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.[8][9][10][11] Observers such as Irwin

Stelzer and Dave Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping

the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the

Iraq War.[12][13][14][15] Academics such as Inderjeet Parmar, Phillip Hammond, and

Donald E. Abelson have said PNAC's influence on the George W. Bush administration has

been exaggerated.[16][17][18]
The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006;[19] it was

replaced by new think-tank Foreign Policy Initiative, co-founded by Kristol and Kagan in

2009.
Contents [hide]
1 Origins and operation
2 Statement of Principles
3 Calls for regime change in Iraq
4 Rebuilding America's Defenses
5 Critics
5.1 Rebuilding America's Defenses
5.2 Focus on military strategies, versus diplomatic strategies
6 End of the organization
7 People associated with the PNAC
7.1 Project directors
7.2 Project staff
7.3 Former directors and staff
7.4 Signatories to Statement of Principles
8 See also
9 Notes and references
10 External links
Origins and operation[edit]
The Project for the New American Century developed from Kristol and Kagan's belief

that the Republican Party lacked a "compelling vision for American foreign policy,"

which would allow Republican leaders to effectively criticize President Bill Clinton's

foreign policy record.[19]
During the summer of 1996, Kristol and Kagan co-authored an article in Foreign Affairs

titled "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy" - referring to the foreign policy of

President Ronald Reagan. In the article, they argued that American conservatives were

"adrift" in the area of foreign policy, advocated a "more elevated vision of America's

international role," and suggested that the United States' should adopt a stance of

"benevolent global hegemony."[20] In June 1997, Kristol and Kagan founded the PNAC

in order to advance the goals they had first laid out in Foreign Affairs, echoing the

article's statements and goals in PNAC's founding Statement of Principles.[19]
According to Maria Ryan, the individuals who signed the PNAC's statements and letters

were not employees or members of the group, and "supporters of PNAC's initiatives

differed from case to case."[19] While its permanent staff was relatively small, the

organization was "especially well connected," with some of its statements and letters

attracting the support of prominent conservatives and neoconservatives.[9][19]
In this regard, Stuart Elden has stated that "The influence that PNAC had was

astonishing," and noted that
The number of figures associated with PNAC that had been members of the Reagan or

the first Bush administration and the number that would take up office with the

administration of the second President Bush demonstrate that it is not merely a

question of employees and budgets.[21]
Statement of Principles[edit]
PNAC's first public act was to release a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997. The

statement had 25 signers, including project members and outside supporters (see

Signatories to Statement of Principles). It described the United States as the "world's

pre-eminent power," and said that the nation faced a challenge to "shape a new century

favorable to American principles and interests." In order to achieve this goal, the

statement's signers called for significant increases in defense spending, and for the

promotion of "political and economic freedom abroad." It said the United States should

strengthen ties with its democratic allies, "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and

values," and preserve and extend "an international order friendly to our security, our

prosperity, and our principles." Calling for a "Reaganite" policy of "military strength and

moral clarity," it concluded that PNAC's principles were 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."[5]
Calls for regime change in Iraq[edit]
Kristol and Kagan advocated regime change in Iraq throughout the Iraq disarmament

crisis.[22][23] Following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons

inspections, core members of the PNAC including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R.

James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick, and John Bolton were

among the signatories of an open letter initiated by the PNAC to President Bill Clinton

calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein.[19][24] Portraying Saddam Hussein as a

threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, and

emphasizing the potential danger of any Weapons of Mass Destruction under Iraq's

control, the letter asserted that the United States could "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." Stating that American policy "cannot continue to

be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council," the

letter's signatories asserted that "the U.S. has the authority under existing UN

resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital

interests in the Gulf."[25] Believing that UN sanctions against Iraq would be an

ineffective means of disarming Iraq, PNAC members also wrote a letter to Republican

members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott,[26] urging Congress to

act, and supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655)[27][28] which President

Clinton signed into law in October 1998.
In February 1998, some of the same individuals who had signed the PNAC letter in

January also signed a similar letter to Clinton, from the bipartisan Committee for Peace

and Security in the Gulf.[24][29]
In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998

bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective. The memo questioned the

viability of Iraqi democratic opposition, which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq

Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.[30]
Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the PNAC sent a letter to President

George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from

power in Iraq", or regime change. The letter suggested that "any strategy aiming at the

eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove

Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," even if no evidence surfaced linking Iraq to the

September 11 attacks. The letter warned that allowing Hussein to remain in power

would be "an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international

terrorism."[31] From 2001 through the invasion of Iraq, the PNAC and many of its

members voiced active support for military action against Iraq, and asserted leaving

Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[32][33][34][35][36]
Some have regarded the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton urging "the

removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power,"[25][37] and the involvement of

multiple PNAC members in the Bush Administration[10][11] as evidence that the PNAC

had a significant influence on the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq, or even

argued that the invasion was a foregone conclusion.[14][38][39][40][41] Writing in Der

Spiegel in 2003, for example, Jochen Bölsche specifically referred to PNAC when he

claimed that "ultra-rightwing US think-tanks" had been "drawing up plans for an era of

American global domination, for the emasculation of the UN, and an aggressive war

against Iraq" in "broad daylight" since 1998.[42] Similarly, BBC journalist Paul Reynolds

portrayed PNAC's activities and goals as key to understanding the foreign policy of the

George W. Bush administration after September 11, 2001, suggesting that Bush's

"dominant" foreign policy was at least partly inspired by the PNAC's ideas.[38]
Some[who?] political scientists, historians, and other academics have been critical of

many of these claims. Donald E. Abelson has written that scholars studying "PNAC's

ascendancy" in the political arena "cannot possibly overlook the fact" that several of the

signatories to PNAC's Statement of Purposes "received high level positions in the Bush

administration," but that acknowledging these facts "is a far cry from making the claim

that the institute was the architect of Bush's foreign policy."[16][43][44]
Rebuilding America's Defenses[edit]
One of the PNAC's most influential publications was a 90-page report titled Rebuilding

America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century. Citing the

PNAC's 1997 Statement of Principles, Rebuilding America's Defenses asserted that the

United States should "seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership" by

"maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."[45] The report's primary author

was Thomas Donnelly, and Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt are credited as project

chairmen. It also lists the names of 27 other participants that contributed papers or

attended meetings related to the production of the report, six of whom subsequently

assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration.[46][47] It

suggested that the preceding decade had been a time of peace and stability, which had

provided "the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth" and "the spread

of American principles of liberty and democracy." The report warned that "no moment

in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not

preserve itself.
According to the report, current levels of defense spending were insufficient, forcing

policymakers "to try ineffectually to “manage” increasingly large risks." The result, it

suggested, was a form "paying for today's needs by shortchanging tomorrow's;

withdrawing from constabulary missions to retain strength for large-scale wars;

"choosing" between presence in Europe or presence in Asia; and so on." All of these, the

report asserted, were "bad choices" and "false economies," which did little to promote

long-term American interests. "The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements,"

the report argued, "will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and,

ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American

principles and prosperity."[45]
Rebuilding America's Defenses recommended establishing four core missions for US

military forces: the defense of the "American homeland," the fighting and winning of

"multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars," the performance of "'constabular' duties

associated with shaping the security environment" in key regions, and the

transformation of US forces "to exploit the 'revolution in military affairs.'" Its specific

recommendations included the maintenance of US nuclear superiority, an increase of

the active personnel strength of the military from 1.4 to 1.6 million people, the

redeployment of US forces to Southeast Europe and Asia, and the "selective"

modernization of US forces. The report advocated the cancellation of "roadblock"

programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter (which it argued would absorb "exorbitant"

amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited gains), but favored the

development of "global missile defenses," and the control of "space and cyberspace,"

including the creation of a new military service with the mission of "space control." To

help achieve these aims, Rebuilding America's Defenses advocated a gradual increase in

military and defense spending "to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross

domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.

[45]
Critics[edit]
Rebuilding America's Defenses[edit]
Written before the September 11 attacks, and during political debates of the War in Iraq,

a section of Rebuilding America's Defenses entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant

Force" became the subject of considerable controversy. The passage suggested that the

transformation of American armed forces through "new technologies and operational

concepts" was likely to be a long one, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event –

like a new Pearl Harbor."[45] Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he

argued that Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an

opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans.[48]
Some critics went further, asserting that Rebuilding America's Defenses should be

viewed as a program for global American hegemony. Writing in Der Spiegel in 2003,

Jochen Bölsche claimed that Rebuilding America's Defenses "had been developed by

PNAC for Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby," and was "devoted to matters of

'maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security

system according to US interests.'"[42][49] British MP Michael Meacher made similar

allegations in 2003, stating that Rebuilding America's Defences was "a blueprint for the

creation of a global Pax Americana," which had been "drawn up for" key members of the

Bush administration.[50] Academic Peter Dale Scott subsequently wrote
“[PNAC’s] ideology was summarized in a major position paper, Rebuilding America’s

Defenses, in 2000. This document advocated a global Pax Americana unrestrained by

international law…”[51]
Other academics, such as Donald E. Abelson and Phillip Hammond, have suggested that

many of these criticisms were overblown, while noting that similar statements about

PNAC's origins, goals, and influence "continue to make their way into the academic

literature on the neo-conservative network in the United States." Hammond, for

example, notes that while Rebuilding America's Defenses "is often cited as evidence that

a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under cover of the

war on terrorism," it was actually "unexceptional." According to Hammond, the report's

recommendations were "exactly what one would generally expect neoconservatives to

say, and it is no great revelation that they said it in publicly-available documents prior

to September 2001."[52] Similarly, Abelson has written that "evaluating the extent of

PNAC's influence is not as straightforward" as Meacher and others maintain," as "we

know very little about the inner workings of this think tank and whether it has lived up

to its billing as the architect of Bush's foreign policy".[53]
Focus on military strategies, versus diplomatic strategies[edit]
PNAC fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht stated:
"We have no choice but to re-instill in our foes and friends the fear that attaches to any

great power.... Only a war against Saddam Hussein will decisively restore the awe that

protects American interests abroad and citizens at home".[54]
The Strategic Studies Institute' s Jeffrey Record in his monograph Bounding the Global

War on Terrorism, Gabriel Kolko, research professor emeritus at York University and

author of Another Century of War? (The New Press, 2002), in his article published in

CounterPunch, and William Rivers Pitt, in Truthout, respectively, argued that the PNAC's

goals of military hegemony exaggerated what the military can accomplish, that they

failed to recognize "the limits of US power", and that favoring pre-emptive exercise of

military might over diplomatic strategies could have "adverse side effects."[55][56][57]

(Paul Reynolds and Max Boot have made similar observations.[38][58])
End of the organization[edit]
By the end of 2006, PNAC was "reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website [with

a] single employee … left to wrap things up", according to a correspondent at the BBC

News.[59] In 2006 former executive director of the PNAC Gary Schmitt said PNAC had

never been intended to "go on forever," and had "already done its job," suggesting that

(continued)

 

CONTINUED 2


"our view has been adopted."[59] In 2009 Robert Kagan and William Kristol created a

new think tank, the Foreign Policy Initiative, which scholars Stephen M. Walt and Don

Abelson have characterized as a successor to PNAC.[2][60]
People associated with the PNAC[edit]
Project directors[edit]
[as listed on the PNAC website:]
William Kristol, Co-founder and Chairman[6]
Robert Kagan, Co-founder[6]
Bruce P. Jackson[6]
Mark Gerson[6]
Randy Scheunemann[6]
Project staff[edit]
Other director(s):
Ellen Bork, Deputy Director[6]
Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director[6]
Other associates:
Senior fellows:
Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow[6]
Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow[6]
Gary Schmitt, Senior Fellow[6][61]
Research associates:
Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate[6]
Former directors and staff[edit]
Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director[62]
Signatories to Statement of Principles[edit]
Elliott Abrams[5]
Gary Bauer[5]
William J. Bennett[5]
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush[5]
Dick Cheney[5]
Eliot A. Cohen[5]
Midge Decter[5]
Paula Dobriansky[5]
Steve Forbes[5]
Aaron Friedberg[5]
Francis Fukuyama[5]
Frank Gaffney[5]
Fred C. Ikle[5]
Donald Kagan[5]
Zalmay Khalilzad[5]
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby[5]
Norman Podhoretz[5]
J. Danforth Quayle[5]
Peter W. Rodman[5]
Stephen P. Rosen[5]
Henry S. Rowen[5]
Donald Rumsfeld[5]
Vin Weber[5]
George Weigel[5]
Paul Wolfowitz[5]
See also[edit]
American Century
American Imperialism
Liberal internationalism
Wilsonianism
Center for a New American Security
Committee on the Present Danger
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
Notes and references[edit]
Jump up ^ The following refer to or label PNAC as a neoconservative organization:
Albanese, Matteo (2012). The Concept of War in Neoconservative Thinking. p. 72.

Retrieved March 2, 2015.
Ryan, Maria. Neoconservatism and the New American Century. Palgrave Macmillan.
Feldman, Stephen. Neoconservative Politics and the Supreme Court. NYU Press. p. 67.
Brownstein, Ronald (17 April 2003). "War With Iraq/Political Thought: Those Who Sought

War are Now Pushing Peace". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 3, 2015.
Greenberger, Robert S; Legget, Karby (March 21, 2003). "Bush Dreams of Changing Not

Just Regime but Region". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
Maddox, Bronwen (July 14, 2004). "Nation-Builders must not lose their voice". The

Times. Retrieved March 3, 2015.
Salvucci, Jim (August 25, 2003). "Bush Uses Crisis to Push Preset Agenda". Baltimore

Sun. Retrieved March 3, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b [1] First Impressions, Second Thoughts: Reflections on the Changing

Role of Think Tanks in U.S. Foreign Policy, Abelson, Critical Issues of Our Time, v.8,

Center for American Studies, University of Western Ontario, 2011
Jump up ^ [2] Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and

the Architects of American Power, David Rothkopf, PublicAffairs, 2006
Jump up ^ Home page of the Project for the New American Century, accessed March 4,

2015.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa Elliott Abrams, et al.,

"Statement of Principles", June 3, 1997, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 28,

2007.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l "About PNAC", newamericancentury.org, n.d.,

accessed May 30, 2007: "Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New

American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote

American global leadership. The Project was an initiative of the New Citizenship Project

(501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is

Gary Schmitt."
Jump up ^ Statement of Principles of the Project for a New American Century :
Jump up ^ [3] United States Foreign Policy and National Identity in the 21st Century,

Kenneth Christie (ed.), Routledge, 2008
^ Jump up to: a b Max Boot, "Neocons", Foreign Policy No. 140 (Jan. - Feb., 2004), pp.

20-22+24+26+28 [4]
^ Jump up to: a b Parmar, Inderjeet (200. "Chapter 3: A Neo-Conservative-Dominated

US Foreign Policy Establishment?". In Christie, Kenneth. United State Foreign Policy and

National Identity in the 21st Century. Routledge. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-415-57357-3.
"The PNAC's 33 leaders were highly connected with the American state - displaying 115

such connections: 27 with the Department of Defense, 13 with State, 12 with the White

House, 10 with the National Security Council, and 23 with Congress."
"The PNAC may be considered strongly integrated into the political and administrative

machinery of US power; certainly, it is not an outsider institution in this regard."
^ Jump up to: a b Funabashi, Yichi (2007). The Peninsula Question: A Chronicle of the

Second Korean Nuclear Crisis. Brookings Institution. ISBN 0-8157-3010-1.
"Of the twenty-five signatories of the PNAC's Statement of Principles... ten went on to

serve in the George W. Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,

and Paul Wolfowitz, among others."
Jump up ^ Stelzer, Irwin (2004). Neoconservatism. London: Atlantic Books. p. 5.
(on PNAC, founded by Kristol): "Its other founders included Dick Cheney, Donald

Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Elliot Abrams, all of whom were destined for key

positions in the Bush administration - with the exception of Kristol."
"No one can doubt that PNAC was an important contributor to the Bush administration's

foreign policy. To suggest, however, that it is a part of some secret effort to overthrow

traditional American foreign policy is not true."
Jump up ^ Hammond, Phillip. Media, War and Postmodernity.
"Critics have made much of the fact that US actions after 9/11 seemed to follow

neoconservative thinking on foreign and security policy formulated before Bush took

office," p. 72.
"In particular, Rebuilding American Defenses... is often cited as evidence that a blueprint

for American domination of the world was implemented under of cover of the War on

Terrorism," p. 72.
^ Jump up to: a b Parmar, Inderjeet (200. "Chapter 3: A Neo-Conservative-Dominated

US Foreign Policy Establishment?". In Christie, Kenneth. United State Foreign Policy and

National Identity in the 21st Century. Routledge. p. 49.
"It is often argued that the neo-cons hijacked the Bush administration - particularly

through the influence of PNAC."
Jump up ^ Grondin, David (2005). "Mistaking Hegemony for Empire: Neoconservatives,

the Bush Doctrine, and the Democratic Empire". International Journal. 61 (1).
"There can be no question that the September 2002 'National security strategy of the

United States of America,' announcing a Bush doctrine predicated upon military

prevention, regime change, and enhanced defence spending, has been heavily

influenced by neoconservative writings. Among these have been works published under

the aegis of the 'Project for a new American century,' including Rebuilding America's

Defenses (by Donald Kagan, Gary Schmitt, and Thomas Donnelly), and Present Dangers:

Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy (by William Kristol and

Robert Kagan)." pages 231-232.
^ Jump up to: a b Parmar, Inderjeet (200. "Chapter 3: A Neo-Conservative-Dominated

US Foreign Policy Establishment?". In Christie, Kenneth. United State Foreign Policy and

National Identity in the 21st Century. Routledge. p. 49.
Jump up ^ Hammond, Phillip. Media, War and Postmodernity.
Jump up ^ Abelson, Donald E. Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and US Foreign Policy. McGill-

Queen's University Press. pp. 218–219. ISBN 978-0773531154. Retrieved 2006. Check

date values in: |access-date= (help)
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Ryan, Maria. Neoconservatism and the New American Century.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-230-10467-3. Retrieved 2 March 2015.
Jump up ^ Kristol, William; Kagan, Robert (1 July 1996). "Toward a Neo-Reaganite

Foreign Policy". Foreign Affairs.
Jump up ^ [5] Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty, Stuart Elden, Univ

Of Minnesota Press, 2009, p.15
Jump up ^ Kristol, William; Kagan, Robert (January 30, 199. "Bombing Iraq Isn't

Enough". The New York Times.
Jump up ^ Kristol, William; Kagan, Robert (February 26, 199. "A 'Great Victory' for

Iraq". The Washington Post.
^ Jump up to: a b Wedel, Janine (2009). Shadow Elite. New York: Basic Books. p. 170.
^ Jump up to: a b "Open Letter to President Bill Clinton", January 26, 1998, accessed

May 28, 2007.
Jump up ^ Elliott Abrams, et al.,Letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, May 28, 1998,

newamericancentury.org, accessed May 30, 2007.
Jump up ^ Arin, Kubilay Yado (2013): Think Tanks, the Brain Trusts of US Foreign Policy.

(Wiesbaden: VS Springer) .
Jump up ^ "PUBLIC LAW 105–338—OCT. 31, 1998. IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998" Iraq

Liberation Act of 1998, January 27, 1998, accessed June 20, 2014.
Jump up ^ "A Faustian Foreign Policy from Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush".

google.co.jp.
Jump up ^ "MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS, FROM: MARK LAGON, SUBJECT: Iraq",

January 7, 1999, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed May 30, 2007.
Jump up ^ William Kristol, et al., Letter to George W. Bush, September 20, 2001,

newamericancentury.org, n.d., accessed June 20, 2014.
Jump up ^ For example, William Kristol, "Liberate Iraq", The Weekly Standard, May 14,

2001, online posting, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 28, 2007.
Jump up ^ Neil MacKay, "Former Bush Aide: US Plotted Iraq Invasion Long Before 9/11",

The Wisdom Fund, Scottish Sunday Herald January 11, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007.
Jump up ^ Gary Schmitt, "State of Terror: War by any other name . . .", The Weekly

Standard November 20, 2000, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed June

1, 2007.
Jump up ^ Gary Schmitt, "MEMORANDUM: TO: OPINION LEADERS, FROM: GARY

SCHMITT, SUBJECT: Iraq - al Qaeda Connection", August 6, 2002,

newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed June 1, 2007.
Jump up ^ Gary Schmitt, "MEMORANDUM: TO: OPINION LEADERS, FROM: WILLIAM

KRISTOL, SUBJECT: Iraq and the War on Terror", August 21, 2002,

newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed June 1, 2007.
Jump up ^ "Chronology: The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine", The War Behind Closed

Doors. Frontline, WGBH-TV (Boston, Massachusetts), Public Broadcasting Service (PBS),

online posting February 20, 2003, accessed June 1, 2007.("Home page" includes menu

of links to "Analysis", "Chronology", "Interviews", and "Discussion" as well as link to

streaming video of the program.)
^ Jump up to: a b c Paul Reynolds, "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", BBC News, March 2, 2003, accessed May 29, 2007.
Jump up ^ Margie Burns, "Warriors Behind the Scenes Coached the Stars On Stage", The

Washington Spectator, May 1, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007, updated November 16,

2013. (1 of 3 pages.)
Jump up ^ "Media, War and Postmodernity". google.ca.
"Critics have made much of the fact that US actions after 9/11 seemed to follow

neoconservative thinking on foreign and security policy formulated before Bush took

office." "In particular, Rebuilding American Defenses... is often cited as evidence that a

blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under of cover of the

War on Terrorism."
Jump up ^ "Capitol Idea". google.ca.
Abelson quotes British MP Michael Meacher on Rebuilding America's Defenses: "The

plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether

or not Saddam Hussein was in Power.
^ Jump up to: a b Ebrahim Afsah, "Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy – The Origins of the

Current Neo-Conservative Revolution in US Strategic Thinking", The German Law

Journal, No. 9 (September 2003), n. 5, citing Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan - Der

Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam", Der Spiegel March 4, 2003.
Jump up ^ Abelson, Donald E. Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and US Foreign Policy. pp.

218–219.
Jump up ^ "Media, War and Postmodernity". google.ca.
^ Jump up to: a b c d "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources

For a New Century" (PDF). September 2000. Archived from the original on August 17,

2013. Retrieved May 30, 2007.
Jump up ^ [6] The President's Real Goal In Iraq, Jay Bookman, Atlanta Journal-

Constitution, September 29, 2002
Jump up ^ At the end of the list of "Project Participants", on page 90 of Rebuilding

America's Defenses, there appears the following statement: "The above list of

individuals participated in at least one project meeting or contributed a paper for

discussion. The report is a product solely of the Project for the New American Century

and does not necessarily represent the views of the project participants or their

affiliated institutions."
Jump up ^ John Pilger, "John Pilger Reveals the American Plan", New Statesman,

December 16, 2002, accessed June 20, 2014.
Jump up ^ Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan - Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank

kam", Der Spiegel March 4, 2003; English translation, "This War Came from a Think

Tank", trans. Alun Breward, published in Margo Kingston,"A Think Tank War: Why Old

Europe Says No", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 7, 2003, accessed May 28, 2007.
Jump up ^ Donald E. Abelson, Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and U. S. Foreign Policy;

McGill-Queen's University Press, 2006; p. 213.
Jump up ^ [7] The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, Peter Dale

Scott, University of California Press, 2008, p.192
Jump up ^ "Media, War and Postmodernity". google.ca.
Jump up ^ "Capitol Idea". google.ca.
Jump up ^ "Why Did We Invade Iraq?". LobeLog Foreign Policy. 28 April 2015. Retrieved

17 February 2016.
Jump up ^ William Rivers Pitt, "Of Gods and Mortals and Empire" ("Editorial: Truthout

Perspective"), Truthout, February 21, 2003, accessed May 31, 2007. Archived August

22, 2005, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ Jeffrey Record, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, online posting via

washingtonpost.com, January 12, 2004, accessed May 30, 2007.
Jump up ^ Gabriel Kolko, ""The Perils of the Pax Americana", CounterPunch, January 15,

2003, accessed May 30, 2007.
Jump up ^ Max Boot, "Doctrine of the 'Big Enchilada'", The Washington Post, October

14, 2002, online posting, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 31, 2007.
^ Jump up to: a b Paul Reynolds, "End of the Neo-con Dream: The Neo-conservative

Dream Faded in 2006", BBC News, December 21, 2006, accessed May 29, 2007.
Jump up ^ [8] Would You Buy a Used Foreign Policy from these Guys?, Stephen M. Walt,

Foreign Policy, March 31, 2009
Jump up ^ Gary J. Schmitt is currently Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise

Institute and Director of its program in Advanced Strategic Studies.
Jump up ^ "Daniel McKivergan", newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed

May 30, 2007.
External links[edit]
Project for the New American Century, archived copy from June 9, 2013 (with working

links)
Project For The Old American Century — critical website
Preserving Pax Americana: Defense Reform for the Unipolar Moment by Thomas

Donnelly
Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century -

PNAC September 2000 Report
Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy by William Kristol and Robert Kagan
[hide] v t e
Neoconservatism
General
Democratization Globalization Humanitarian intervention Liberal internationalism Bush

Doctrine Pax Americana
Figures
William Kristol Robert Kagan Frederick Kagan Irving Kristol Paul Wolfowitz Richard Perle

John R. Bolton Charles Krauthammer David Frum Elliott Abrams Norman Podhoretz

David Wurmser Douglas J. Feith Paul Bremer Peter Berkowitz Douglas Murray David

Aaronovitch Oliver Kamm Max Boot Eliot A. Cohen Jeane Kirkpatrick Michael Novak

Jonah Goldberg Joshua Muravchik Jennifer Rubin Irwin Stelzer Bret Stephens Zalmay

Khalilzad Scooter Libby Yuval Levin
Major influences
Leo Strauss Bernard Lewis Henry M. Jackson
Organisations
Project for the New American Century National Endowment for Democracy Foundation

for Defense of Democracies Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs Henry Jackson

Society Emergency Committee for Israel Hudson Institute American Enterprise Institute

Foreign Policy Initiative NGO Monitor
Publications
Commentary The Weekly Standard The Public Interest FrontPage Magazine National

Affairs Encounter
Related articles
Timeline of modern American conservatism Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism

British neoconservatism Blairism and New Labour Clash of Civilisations Idealism in

international relations Liberal hawk Anti-Stalinist Left (The New York Intellectuals and

Trotskyism) Republican in Name Only (pejorative) Cuckservative (pejorative) Stop Trump

movement
Authority control
WorldCat Identities VIAF: 125853377 LCCN: no2006011331
Categories: Organizations established in 1997Organizations disestablished in

2006Foreign policy and strategy think tanks in the United StatesPolitical and economic

think tanks in the United StatesNeoconservatismNon-profit organizations based in

Washington, D.C.
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView

historySearch






This page was last modified on 8 September 2016, at 07:47.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional

terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit

organization.

========================

 

Also happening in Syria.

 

Of course its illegal. Foreign backed regime change violates UN charter and international laws.

Our plan for regime change in Syria has plunged it into a bloody civil war.

While dumb neocons neolibs like to peddle all the deaths as being Russia's fault, I chalange them to think of how our country would respond to a foreign backed rebilion on our own soil that seeks regime change.

And while they cry humanitarianism they fail to mention Yemem, where scores of civilians are killes by the weapons that we sell to Saudi Arabia. Thats how I know that they dont really care about civilian deaths and just mindlessly peddle a narrative

 

Is it really important what the UN says regarding the UN Charter or International Laws? It seems that the despots who make up too large a portion of the UN are only interested in these Charters and Laws when the US is involved. http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/EYEontheUN/un_101/facts/?p=16

Our plan? Whose plan was that?

 

Planned since 2006.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html

Here's Hillary's involvement
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

And here's a Huffington Post article about it.

Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html

 

Muslims will always create third world situations.

If you knew anything about SOFA's you'd know they are always negotiated. There have been hundreds of them and they regularly expire and are renegotiated every few years, depended where there agreements were made. Romney wanted to negotiate the next SOFA with Iraq but Obama didn't That is just an historical fact.

Once again Muslims created a ballsup. How many hundreds of thousands more will be murdered as a consequence of their imperialism and ignorance is anyones guess.

 

This is really something. I mean, really something. Let me get this straight. John Kerry admits that Russia has a legal right to be in Syria because they are there by invitation, but they don't care about international law, so Kerry wants to break international law and go into Syria?

Folks, 1984 is now. Double think is real! Double speak is real!! Thought crimes are real!!! You are being watched everywhere you go. All of your communications are being monitored. I strongly encourage anyone that has not read "1984" by George Orwell to do so now before it is burned in the hearth by the salamander.

 

This 'international law' is restricted only to the democracies and can be safely ignored by everyone else. That holds true for membership in the UN as well. Here's a list of the current council's membership, which makes no sense at all. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx