The Project for a New American Century

Discussion in 'Ethnic & Religious Conflicts' started by Iranian Monitor, Oct 5, 2016.

  1. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,920
    Likes Received:
    563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For decades, inspired by habits from the cold war, when America had regarded instability as providing an opportunity for the Soviets to fish in troubled waters, US foreign policy often sought to encourage stability and the status quo against forces that might have upset the apple cart. That all changed with the advent of the neocons and their blue print embodied in the Project for a New American Century: a century that was supposed to usher a period of US-Israeli hegemony in the Middle East and solidify America’s place as the lone superpower against the rise of any emerging powers elsewhere.

    Never mind that much of this project was, from its beginning, a ruse by ultra-right wing Zionists whose main inspiration was their dream of a Greater Israel, and a scheme by the their military industrial complex allies to siphon off more trillions of dollars into their coffers: the fact is that the essential blue print from the neocons tenure in the Bush administration still shapes and colors American foreign policy. That is because while the neocons might not have been around during the Obama administration, Israel still pushes for the same policies that were once outlined for Netanyahu in the 1990s by the likes of Richard Perle and Douglas Feith in policy papers such as the Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. And with AIPAC as influential as ever, with its influence felt on both sides of the political isle in Washington and beyond, many of the debates and much of the environment that colors those debates is still under the shadow of the vision and dreams of the neocons.

    To be sure, not everything (indeed not all that much) unfolded in the way the neocons had imagined or promised and, instead of Pax Americana, we have a Middle East which is a theater of various wars and sub-wars waged by all sorts of powers trying to fill the gap in the power vacuums that have been created. Certainly, Iraq did not become a successful, pro American, democratic oasis to serve as both an example of the advantages of working with the United States, and a reminder of America’s power to dictate its will on those who would be reluctant to follow its lead. Certainly, the so-called 'war against terrorism' did not vanquish the terrorists but instead led to the rise of groups that make Al Queda and Taleban look 'moderate' in comparison. Certainly, Iran’s wings, whether in Lebanon or in Syria, were not clipped; indeed, the reverse: today, Iran’s writ extends through much of the region from Afghanistan to Lebanon, and the once distant dreams of Iranian nationalists such as myself of the Persian empire reborn are now closer to reality than ever. In the meantime, if a rising Iran has also spurred the rise of a Sunni coalition led by the Saudis to counter Iran, leaving much of the region a playground in the cold and hot wars being waged between Iran and the Sunni bloc, the rise of a resurgent Russia looking like it will be taking over the role once occupied by the Soviets is not what the neocons had promised either. Far from being a so-called American Century, with the start of the new millennium, the neocons managed to usher forces that have at once ruined the very promise of America from within, strengthening the means and tools to manage public perceptions and control American political actions, while making America’s place and position in the world less certain than ever before.

    Sure, even in the wake of hundreds of thousands of lives lost in pursuit of these false promises, and millions more whose lives were irrevocably damaged, and the rise of groups like ISIS which have made Al Queda and the Taleban look tame by comparison, there might be a smug feeling of self-satisfaction among the neocons still. Israel, from their perspective, doesn’t look any less secure than it would have under the promises of Oslo in the environment of the 1990s, which was what initially led them to draw up their plans. They and their allies have certainly become richer; trillions wasted on these projects haven’t disappeared into thin air and have instead lined the pockets of the groups and people who are their allies and who can sponsor their continued mischief. And, frankly, it is not often that a small group of so-called intellectuals can leave as much influence in the course of events as these folks have. For sure, for better and, for millions people already (and to possibly become billions of people), certainly for much worse, these neocons have left their mark in history.
     
  2. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Banned Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    18,351
    Likes Received:
    8,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A more jargon-free post may have made this post interesting.
     
  3. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,920
    Likes Received:
    563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What "jargon"? Of course, to make what is already a long post manageable, you do need to use a few short-hands that are commonly understood in their meaning and import.
     
  4. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,702
    Likes Received:
    8,055
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PNAC was jingoistic, economically imperialist and nationalist. It was designed to make america great again. It didn't work then and it won't work now.
     
  5. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,920
    Likes Received:
    563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its proponents may not have been opposed to making "America great", but clearly their first and initial inspiration and dream was to make another country (Israel) great. Indeed, they were initially quite interested still in their dreams of Greater Israel. Of course, not all those who they managed to win over to their cause had similar dreams: the ultra Zionist crowd behind PNAC (as they had alluded to themselves in the Clean Break) needed allies who weren't all that interested in their vision and dreams about Israel. Those allies were from the US military industrial complex: in folks like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others of similar ilk.
     
  6. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,702
    Likes Received:
    8,055
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WHOA! I reject your premise entirely. Israel was to be supported, but that was secondary.

    Let's not crawl too far up the fundament on this zionist jewish global conspiracy bullcrap.
     
  7. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,920
    Likes Received:
    563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Clean Break was written for Netanyahu in 1996, when he was Israel's prime minister, and its focus wasn't US interests but Israeli ones. To be sure, many of these folks might consider US and Israeli interests to be synonymous, but they already recognized that their plans would require building a coalition and friendship with other groups who might not be all that interested in their Israeli agendas per se. Hence, the Clean Break had this little tidbit which was later expanded as different groups were recruited for the cause:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm
    As for the so-called "Jewish global conspiracy" and the like, I wouldn't go nearly that far nor burden "Jews" with the conspiracy. Pro Israeli groups have huge influence in the US and that is just a fact. Their influence used to be more concentrated in the Democratic party, but with the neocons forging the same kind of relationship with Likud (and its successors) that the Democrats once had forged with Labor when the latter used to dominate Israeli politics until the 1970s, right now the influence of Aipac and the pro Israeli groups is even more pronounced in the Republican party (excepting its isolationist wing).

    An article that you might not enjoy, but does an excellent job in addressing the issue, is the one below written by 2 former high ranking CIA analysts. For me, it is one of the 'must read' articles in understanding not just the reasons behind the Iraq war, but more broadly, the way the connection between the PNAC project and the lobbying efforts of organizations like Aipac whose reach extends as much into the Democratic party as it does among the Republicans. Of course, I don't blame "Jews" for what Aipac does, as most Jews actually oppose the policies that Aipac has been lobbying most stridently since 2000 (e.g., Iraq war, opposition to Iran nuclear deal, etc).

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/12/13/bush-s-dual-loyalties/
    Bush’s Dual Loyalties
     
  8. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Banned Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    18,351
    Likes Received:
    8,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What are the "Israeli agendas"?
     
  9. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Banned Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    18,351
    Likes Received:
    8,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It seems that many fear the spread of democracy throughout the world and instead prefer other systems of government. Here's the opinion of one well known 'neo-con'. http://www.ned.org/remarks-by-president-george-w-bush-at-the-20th-anniversary/
     
  10. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,920
    Likes Received:
    563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Overtime, the focus, objectives, and agendas of all states -- as well as individuals and groups which like to define and influence those agendas -- changes.

    The pro Israeli lobbying groups were actually divided in ways that were unprecedented in the 1990s, as a result of Oslo. Sure, all of them were still lobbying for things like US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. But a portion followed the majority of American Jews (who overwhelmingly supported Clinton as well as the Olso peace process), while a segment were opposed to Oslo. The neocons hailed from the segment that opposed Oslo. Many of them, especially the likes of Douglas Feith, were affiliated to ultra right wing Israeli advocacy groups such as the Zionist Organization of America, which wanted to advance the dream of Greater Israel. Even those who may not have been as focused on the Greater Israel bit but who were nonetheless opposed to Oslo were giving an alternative vision or answer to what Rabin had said in justifying the compromising necessary to reach peace with neighboring Arab states. In this regard, Rabin had mentioned that in the day and age of missiles, weapons of mass destruction, and the like, security cannot come from where you draw the borders but requires peace. In response, folks like Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, and company, had another idea altogether: they would drag the US to clean up the region of those pesky countries which had the "missiles", "weapons of mass destruction" and the like. That was their agenda and eventually became the agenda of the state of Israel, Aipac and the pro Israeli lobby. To advance this agenda, they built up a coalition with the kind of groups alluded in the Clean Break - folks like Cheney, Rumsfeld and the like. Folks whose primary interest was coming up with plans for a new mission that would justify the kind of defense spending they wanted.
     
  11. bobnelsonfr

    bobnelsonfr Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    334
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Whenever speaking about the neocons, one should keep in mind that they do not tell the truth. I'm not being insulting -- not telling the truth is an integral part of their political philosophy. Leo Strauss considered that "those who understand" have a duty to ensure that "correct" policy is implemented. If that policy is not popular, then it is the duty of "those who understand" to manipulate the people/state in order to arrive at "correct" policy anyway.

    When Paul Wolfowitz recognized that no one in the administration had ever really taken the WMD excuse seriously, he was simply explaining that he and his fellow neocons had done their duty. They had obtained the war that they knew was necessary.

    This is important, I think. Neocons still have air time. They have reappeared in significant number around Mr Trump, who has proved himself particularly vulnerable to manipulation. They are still convinced that PNAC is Truth, so they will say whatever (literally "whatever") it takes the country in the "right direction". :eekeyes:
     
  12. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,920
    Likes Received:
    563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For America itself, one of the worst things about the rise of the neocons was what you allude to: the process of telling lies, taking measures to protect those lies and cover them up, to silence those who might expose them, and to eventually legitimize and make lying a much more acceptable part of politics in America. America always had a few such lies that it needed to protect against, but when the circle of such lies expanded exponentially under the propaganda machines employed by the neocons, the US lost a lot more than anything the neocons can promise it will gain from their follies.
     
  13. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Banned Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    18,351
    Likes Received:
    8,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a load of gobbledygook! Can't you just give a straight answer without all the labels? Is their agenda war? Control of the Middle East?
     
  14. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,920
    Likes Received:
    563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your answer was there and I will highlight it for you
     
  15. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Banned Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    18,351
    Likes Received:
    8,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, so you feel that Israel wanted the US to attack and destroy Middle Eastern countries and encouraged them to do so. Is that your complaint?
     
  16. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,920
    Likes Received:
    563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have a lot of complaints about the pro Israeli lobby. That is one of them for sure. As for the groups they aligned themselves with to achieve their objectives (the so-called military industrial complex, along with the so-called Christian evangelicals to serve as their foot soldiers) their focus and agendas built on the immediate ones that the pro Israeli groups promoted. And those other agendas have their own set of issues as well.
     
  17. bobnelsonfr

    bobnelsonfr Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    334
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Since the neocons lie whenever they think it useful, we have no way of knowing which is the chicken and which is the egg, between "support for Israel" and "reshaping the Middle East".

    These two objectives of the neocons are intimately entwined, at the least. They are perhaps indistinguishable, perhaps the same thing.

    I wouldn't presume that the neocons are homogeneous, either. Some may see PNAC as a tool for getting American aid for Israel... and others may see PNAC as a tool for getting Israeli aid for America. The end result, in any case, is that they all work for a close alliance between Israel and the US, including dissimulating all divergences of interests between the two nations.
     
  18. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37,702
    Likes Received:
    8,055
    Trophy Points:
    113
    any number of PNAC ideas remain rather fundamental to certain republican policies.

    As for this notion that it was a zionist controlled plot, one should remember that the key American ENEMY in the middle east at that time was IRAN. Iraq was definitely on the radar while Afghanistan was merely a sideshow.

    Support for Israel was a natural extension of existing policy and there was nothing issued by PNAC regarding Israel that was not already an element of american foreign policy.



    http://pnac.info/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

    http://pnac.info/
     
  19. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Banned Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    18,351
    Likes Received:
    8,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quite convenient. This allows you to ascribe whatever motives you choose to these "neo-cons'. Rather like Al-taqiyya, is it?
     
  20. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Banned Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    18,351
    Likes Received:
    8,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US has supported democracy all over the world so it is no surprise that they would support Israel, a tiny nation surrounded by hate-filled despots.
     
  21. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Banned Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    18,351
    Likes Received:
    8,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It may surprise you that the US also has a close alliance with Australia, Canada, Great Britain and many other democracies. Do you see any conspiracies between these other countries?
     
  22. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    37,824
    Likes Received:
    15,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Matzah balls.
     
  23. bobnelsonfr

    bobnelsonfr Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    334
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    18
    No. It does not allow ascribing of anything.

    It does require us to doubt the truth of everything they say.


    No. Not all. The two cases have nothing at all in common.



    I didn't think my post was so hard to understand.
     
  24. bobnelsonfr

    bobnelsonfr Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    334
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Oh, certainly! We are being manipulated to take sides in Australia's seventy year old conflict with New Zealand. And we are being manipulated to take sides in Canada's long-simmering war against Greenland.


    C'mon, Fred... :eyepopping:
     
  25. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Banned Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    18,351
    Likes Received:
    8,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right. No end of conspiracy theories, though they're more likely when Israel is involved. Or the 'neo-cons'. They lie whenever they think it's useful.
     

Share This Page