Return to The Modern Tribune Home Page

The use of American power to set a coarse for the 21st Century
Using American power to make a better world.

By D. LINDLEY YOUNG
 The Modern Tribune - April 11, 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. (4/11) - On February 8, 2004, in an interview on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked President Bush what would be the biggest issue in the 2004 Presidential race. Bush said was, "who can properly use American power in a way to make the world a better place." 

We are in the new American century and the America is the world's sole superpower. We are at a crucial defining moment in history and civilization. The war on terror and how we deal with it will shape the century and the world for this century. Will American power be used to better the world or to create greater threats?  America will decide in the next election.

On one side, there are those that argue we must democratize the world unilaterally through military means in order to stop terror against America. On the other, it is believed that a multinational approach to the global war on terrorism is required to make the world safer.

There are those that argue we must take the war to the enemy - even though we are not sure who the enemy is. And, there are those that believe must take the war to the enemy, but, we must know who they are.

There are those that believe we must build American security at home while we work with other nations to stop terrorism and there are those that argue we must get them before they get us.

1992 "Defense Planning Guidance" Draft

Shortly after the end of the Gulf War, in 1992, the concept of a unilateral approach to American policy and maintaining the U.S.  as the sole superpower began to take root as what is now Bush policy. A proposed 1992 policy eventually took a strong foothold in the current Bush administration and became what is the current policy of preemption and global dominance through democratization as the means to eliminate terrorism..

In 1992, Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense and Paul Wolfowitz, then the Pentagon's Under Secretary for policy, oversaw the preparation of a classified blueprint draft of a post-cold-war strategy intended to help "set the nation's direction for the next century." 

The initial  "Defense Planning Guidance" draft,  called for concerted efforts by the U.S. to preserve American global military supremacy and to thwart the emergence of a rival superpower in Europe, Asia or the former Soviet Union.

The document set forth that the number one objective of the U.S. post-cold-war political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower and that, if necessary, the U. S. be prepared to take unilateral action.

Unilateralist tendencies were at work even back. The first draft of the document did not make any reference to the United Nations. A role of the U.N. was later added after their omission became an issue.

The final document emphasized the U.S. interest in promoting increased respect for international law and "the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems."

Some see this 1992  plan as a "blueprint for US hegemony." Since then, many of the goals in the draft have become the hallmarks of the Bush foreign policy doctrine.

Project New American Century

Consistent with the 1992 plan, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was formed in 1997 to express and advance a new foreign policy with regard to Iraq and other "potential aggressor states", dismissing "containment" in favor of "preemption" and the strike first to eliminate threats. Their policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," openly advocates for total global military domination.

On the surface, you would think that the document 90 page document was presentation to obtain more funding for the weapons industry, but, it is interpreted around the world as the manifesto for global domination starting with the democratization of the Middle East ostensibly to make America safer.

The document posits "multiple wars" in "multiple theaters" to accomplish the goal of global domination by military means. It highlights that, "American landpower is the essential link in the chain that translates U.S. military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence." 

One alarming point is the they note, before 9/11, is that the process of transformation to global dominance "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." PNAC needed an attack on American soil and a subsequent war in order to enact their vision. They got it.

Members and Supporters of PNAC policies

Project New American Century could be more easily brushed of if it were not for who the founding members were and are. Among the original signers in 1997 of the principles of PNAC  - who are either members of or close to the Bush administration,  include,  Dick Cheney, Vice President,  Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Elliot Abrams, a senior member of the National Security Council. See signatories for PNAC

There are many others in key policy and defense positions with the Bush administration that either signed the founding documents for PNAC or support it's principles. For example Richard Perle was appointed as chairman of the  Defense Policy Board in July 2001, signed at least eight PNAC position papers and sent as letters to presidents and members of congress advocating military aggression abroad.

Others have adopted the PNAC thinking. In the run up to the Iraq war Richard Armitage, Under Secretary of State, specifically stated "we'll take them down one at a time -- like a wrestling match.

Body of thought

Project New American Century is representative of a whole body of thought. Read Niall Ferguson pleading for America to settle into its imperial destiny, or Max Boot calling for a new "Pax Americana," or Robert D. Kaplan urging in the new Atlantic Monthly for the promotion of American power "as an organizing principle for the worldwide expansion of a liberal civil society." The latest book consistent with this body of thought is Richard Perle's The End of Evil.

The world perception is what matters.

Although most of American isn't even aware of "the plan," the rest of the world is acutely aware of it. Among other reports, there was a ABC News report, broadcast globally, entitled "The Plan."  It asked, "Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?" The ABC News report highlighted the issue: "Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power" See ABC Report

The PNAC plan has been covered by numerous and major media around the world. On the Internet the concern about PNAC is almost epidemic as it is passed from one to the other in chat rooms around the world.

Americans do not take it seriously or support it. This is a problem since regardless of how Americans perceive PNAC, the world know and is concerned about the perceived threat the Bush administration poses.

For example, according to the Asian Times, "As the Iraq revolt takes ground and chaos seems to spread, the greater Iran is the problem and a threat to the U.S. There is a steady call to get Iran as the problems in Iraq evolve. The drum beat to war on Iran  has been, and is, sounding louder and louder now virtually every day.

In addition, in the words of Scotland's Sunday Herald, PNAC is "a secret blueprint for U.S. global domination."

Whether the plan is real or just fuel for the paranoid conspiracy theorists, it is causing global damage to  America, adding to the perception of imperialism, placing America's motive in question,  and causing the world to prepare at an accelerated pace.

Execution of the plan.

One of the first acts of the Bush administration was to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) which was intended to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. This withdrawal was strongly urged in PNAC's policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses." Bush is pushing for a national missile defense and proposing new nuclear weapon designs known as "mini-nukes" and "bunker-busters"

PNAC, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz  had plans to attack Iraq and finish what was started in the Gulf as early as 1998. See the letter to Clinton urging war on Iraq in January 1998. In addition, in 1998 in an article in the Weekly Standard, Project Director Robert Kagan made clear it’s time “to complete the unfinished business of the 1991 Gulf War and get rid of Saddam.” No other strategy ultimately made sense to PNAC. Iraq was a target before 9/11 as part of a bigger strategy.

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and is setting the stage for going into Iran and other countries. Bush is staunch and persistent in his public advocacy to bring democracy to the Middle East. This year the "Greater Middle East Initiative" was written and floated throughout the Middle East.

We are in multiple wars with plans for more. In Bush's May 1, 2003, "Mission Accomplished" speech Bush said: "The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world" and characterized the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as mere "battles."

Creating the enemy - Iran is Next

This may be what the neo-cons want. In a logic of total war, this is the next step leading to the inevitable attacks on Syria and Iran in the event that Bush is reelected

Iran was originally designated as part of the "axis of evil." Ever since the war in Iraq started Iran has been under a steady attack. They were letting Saddam's people in. They were letting opposition fighters to U.S. occupation cross their borders to prevent democracy and U.S. success. Saddam's WMD may be there. Iran is financing al Sadr's militia and others. They are meddling in the Iraq war so they can create another theocracy.  Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They are a threat to America.

In a May 1, 2003 article by William Kristol on Bush's speech that day aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, Kristol noted, " The president said on Thursday night, 'Any outlaw regime ...  will be confronted.' That is Iran, above all. On the outcome of the confrontation with Tehran, more than any other, rests the future of the Bush Doctrine--and, quite possibly, the Bush presidency--and prospects for a safer world.  

This Sunday Fox News  repeatedly did stories about Iran and it's roll in Iraq interviewing numerous pundits who believed that Iran is a real problem. Retired General Tom McInerny, now Fox News senior military analyst, stated we "need" to get into Iran.  There were others expressing the same opinion.

On April 10, 2004, Bush reiterated his resolve and his theme for wars in his radio address, stating, "Our decisive actions will continue until these enemies of democracy are dealt with." The United States has made a formal request to Iran to help ease mounting violence in Iraq.

Exacerbating the problem

The issue in the 2004 Campaign should be whether we are using American power to make a better world or a Bush world. The issue is whether American power is being used as a force for peace or as a tool to incite more wars.

Bush is exacerbating the problem in the world by letting a  plan float around the world which definitely creates the perception that the war on Iraq and other wars are based upon imperialistic motives. Bush has said or done nothing to dispel the PNAC plan or distance himself from those behind it. Cheney is still his running mate and Wolfowitz and the others are still there, except Perle who is promoting the plan with his new book "An End of Evil."

You cannot wield American military might unilaterally, announce a strategy of preemptive nuclear attacks and  preventive wars, withdraw from the world bodies, call everyone in the world names and just impose US will and expect to make a better world. With the use of American power, Bush is inciting the enemy and is creating greater danger for America and the world.

Iraq is just a step on the path to a series of wars under the guise of  a war on terror. There is the potential of turning the anti-terrorist "wars" against so called rogue-nations into an all out "Clash of Civilizations." 

This seeds for this clash have been planted around the world in what appears to be deliberate fashion. If these seeds were planted by mistake, it is a major one because they are germinating. The threats of Bush are creating hate and fear around the world - a dangerous combination.

See http://www.bushpresident2004.com/pnac.htm for a good PNAC overview.

UPDATE: (4/16) - In the Bush/Blair pres conference Bush placed an accent of democratizing the Middle East to secure America. Bush said, "We've ... removed a dangerous threat to the region and to the world....  We're engaged in difficult and necessary work of helping Iraqis build their own democracy, for the sake of our security and to increase the momentum of freedom across the greater Middle East.  

UPDATE: (4/18) - The following is an excerpt from an AP report on ABC entitled "U.S. General Puts Syria On Notice: Help, Or Risk Stability"::

"The battle Saturday on the Syrian-Iraqi border, in an area that had seen little fighting previously, left at least 25 Iraqis dead.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the stability not only of Syria and Iraq, but also of the entire region is at stake.

"We know that the pathway into Iraq for many foreign fighters is through Syria. It's a fact. We know it. The Syrians know it," Myers told CNN's "Late Edition."

"The Syrians need to take this situation very seriously. They need to help us stop that infiltration of foreign fighters. It doesn't do their government any good," Myers said".

                            Other related articles:

| Home | Contact The Modern Tribune |