The Project for a New American Empire

Who are these guys? And why do they think they can rule the world?

by Duane Shank**

A British magazine called them "the weird men behind George W. Bush's war."

Their Project has led to countless conspiracy theories. Their principles are

now the governing foreign and military policy of the Bush administration-a

plan combining U.S. military forces based around the world with a doctrine

of pre-emptive war and the development of new nuclear weapons.

Who are they, the creators of the "Project for the New American Century"?

What is the "Project," and why is it cause for concern? The people behind it

are now prominent players in the Bush administration (see "Powers That Be,"

at left), and some of them-most notably, Vice-President Richard Cheney and

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld-are household names. And their plan is for

nothing less than securing U.S. global domination for decades to come-and

that's according to their own testimony.

The roots of the Project-both ideological and the people identified with

it-are in the Reagan administration. Combining an aggressive foreign policy

with a then-unprecedented military buildup, they helped lead the invasions

of Panama and Grenada, counter-insurgency wars in Central America, the Cold

War showdown with the Soviet Union, and the arming of Iraq as a counter to

radical Islamists in Iran.

In 1989, the Soviet Union finally imploded-and with it ended the bipolar

world that had existed since World War II. The United States remained as the

lone superpower.

Neoconservative intellectuals, inside and outside the administration of

George Bush I, began plotting how to continue that situation into the

future.

After the first Gulf war, Paul Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of defense for

policy, drafted a defense planning document that laid out the core ideas of

what was to become the Project for the New American Century's vision. It was

a strategy of maintaining and strengthening unchallenged U.S. military

superiority against a potential future superpower rival and against unrest

around the world, through pre-emption rather than containment and unilateral

military action rather than multilateral internationalism. Bush Sr.

administration officials rejected it as too radical.

Bill Clinton's foreign policy emphasized multilateralism, involving the

United States in peacekeeping missions in Somalia and Bosnia. In response,

the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) emerged in June 1997. Its

founding "Statement of Principles" was released by a who's who of former

Reagan administration and conservative think tank intellectuals. After

criticizing the Clinton administration for "incoherent policies,"

"squandering the opportunity," and "inconstant leadership," they presented

their alternative.

"American foreign and defense policy is adrift," the statement said. "...As

the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's

preeminent power.. Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new

century favorable to American principles and interests?" The statement ended

by calling for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."

>From the beginning, the Project was obsessed with Iraq. In a January 1998

letter to President Clinton, PNAC wrote, "We urge you.to turn your

administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's

regime from power." The letter was signed by, among others, Donald Rumsfeld,

Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and Richard Armitage.

In September 2000, the Project released its grand plan for the future in a

report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and

Resources for a New Century." The report begins with the premise that "The

United States is the world's only superpower, combining preeminent military

power, global technological leadership, and the world's largest economy..

America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous

position as far into the future as possible.. Yet no moment in international

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

preserve itself."

The report recommends new missions for the U.S. armed forces, including a

dominant nuclear capability with a new generation of nuclear weapons,

sufficient combat forces to fight and win multiple major wars, and forces

for "constabulary duties" around the world with American rather than U.N.

leadership. It asserts that "The presence of American forces in critical

regions around the world is the visible expression of the extent of

America's status as a superpower" and proposes "a network of 'deployment

bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and

future forces."

Specifically citing the Persian Gulf, the report notes that "the United

States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional

security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate

justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the

Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.. Over the long

term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as

Iraq has."

Concluding with the importance of transforming the U.S. military for new

challenges, it provocatively notes that "the failure to prepare for

tomorrow's challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an

early end."

This vision of American empire received little attention in fall 2000 and

was largely dismissed as the work of hard-liners. The report itself admitted

that the process of accomplishing this transformation was "likely to be a

long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl

Harbor."

FEW OF THE Project's participants had supported George W. Bush in his run

for the presidency, fearing that with his lack of foreign policy experience,

he would be shaped by the moderate Republicans who had dominated his

father's administration. But Richard Cheney, one of the Project's founders,

was named vice president and placed in charge of the transition. Suddenly

Project participants were in key foreign and military policy positions.

They immediately began to implement their strategic plan-withdrawing from

the anti-ballistic missile treaty, increasing military spending, and

beginning a missile defense program. But by the end of summer 2001, the

administration was in trouble. The president's approval rating had sunk to

51 percent, the Democrats had regained control of the Senate with the switch

of Sen. James Jeffords, and the economy was entering a recession.

Then came Sept. 11, the type of catastrophe the Project had posed as

necessary for the realization of its agenda. For them, it was the best thing

that could have happened.

The Project lost no time. Only days after 9/11, it released a letter arguing

that "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any

strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must

include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq."

That determined effort culminated in the war this spring. The real rationale

ultimately was not weapons of mass destruction, oil, human rights

violations, or any of the other reasons given publicly. It was, as had been

written two years earlier, the desire for a permanent role in the

strategically important Gulf region.

President Bush's 2002 State of the Union speech declared that "Our war on

terror is well begun, but it is only begun." He singled out Iraq, Iran, and

North Korea as "an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."

In June, the president signaled his support for a pre-emptive war strategy,

saying that the United States is "ready for pre-emptive action when

necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives." By the end of the

year, this was the official policy of the administration, outlined in two

White House planning documents.

The strategy makes pre-emptive war official policy against "rogue states"

with the alleged potential to develop weapons of mass destruction. "To

forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries," the White House

documents say, "the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively." To

fight those countries the administration accuses of attaining (or even

seeking) weapons of mass destruction, the planning documents threaten its

own mass destruction: the possible first use of U.S. nuclear weapons.

Admitting that this is a "fundamental change from the past," the White House

documents state that U.S. military forces will use "pre-emptive measures"

against such states, including "the full range of operational

capabilities"-which many read as code for nuclear strikes. Indeed, this

year's defense authorization bill includes new, low-yield nuclear weapons,

including the "bunker buster."

The real or exaggerated fear of terrorism is being used to drive the

militarization of U.S. foreign policy. There are now U.S. troops in 130

countries around the world, permanent bases in 40, and a growing number of

others providing basing rights. The Wall Street Journal recently described

it as "one of the biggest shifts in U.S. military thinking in the past 50

years," and noted that the new strategy is "pushing U.S. forces into far

more remote and dangerous corners of the world." Defense Secretary Rumsfeld,

architect of the strategy, is "preparing U.S. forces for a future that could

involve lots of small, dirty fights in remote and dangerous places."

HOW DID A GROUP of little-known intellectuals gain the power to control an

administration? Partly by capitalizing on fear, with the American people

kept constantly on edge by color-coded terror warnings. Partly by keeping

the focus on one piece at a time-Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran. And partly

by their arrogant belief that there is ultimately no force that can defeat

them. It is the same hubris that always accompanies empire-a desire to

dominate the world through military power.

But there is an alternative to empire and endless war. The plan of the

Project for the New American Century must be countered with a vision that

insists militarization and pre-emptive war is not the path to real security.

We must advance the vision of a world where international institutions are

strengthened rather than destroyed, where global poverty is seriously

addressed, where all countries, including the United States, are disarming

their weapons of mass destruction, and where human rights are taken

seriously. People of faith and goodwill in this country and around the world

stood up by the millions to oppose the war against Iraq. We must now

continue that opposition-through doing justice, loving compassion, and

walking with God in the struggle.

* Powers That Be

Key participants in the Project for the New American Century and their

current positions in the Bush administration:

· Richard Cheney, Vice-President

· Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

· Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense

· Peter Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security

Affairs

· Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State

· John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International

Security

· Elliot Abrams, Senior Director for Near East, Southwest Asian, and North

African Affairs, National Security Council

· James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence; member Defense

Policy Board

· Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff, Office of the Vice-President

**Duane Shank is issues and policy adviser for Sojourners.

Sojourners - September-October 2003

https://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article

=030911