Peace Talk — Summer 2006
The Quarterly Newsletter of Peace Action Maine“As activists our work must begin with revealing invisibilities and unveiling deceits.” —By What Authority, Vol 7, No
All over the country people are shaking their heads in consternation. Can it be that the Bush Administration is planning to nuke Iran on top of the disaster they’ve created in Iraq? What is their reason for talking of endless warWhy aren’t they employing diplomacy to deal with their adversaries? And why do they seem to find adversaries around every corner?
To find the answers to these questions one need look no further than the Project for a New American Century, conceived by then members of the Reagan Administration and created in 1997 by familiar names such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Abrams,Woolsey and Libby with the expectation of unilateralism, pre-emptive war and the development of new nuclear weapons. Quoting from its statement of principles: “American foreign and defense policy is adriftŠDoes the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?” The Bush Sr. Administration had rejected the project’s language as too radical. From the beginning, the Project was obsessed with Iraq. In a January 1998 letter to President Clinton, PNAC wrote, “We urge youŠto 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, PaulWolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and Richard Armitage.
Proponents of PNAC were not ready to support Bush Jr’s candidacy until Cheney was agreed upon for Vice-President. Once in office the creators of PNAC became the leaders of the new administration. In September of 2000, their proposal, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” was presented. 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 economyŠ. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.” You can find the whole document at their website: www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)
The proposal recommends new missions for the U.S. military, 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 Œdeployment bases’ or Œforward 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 HusseinŠ. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has.”
This vision of American empire/Pax Americana received little attention in the fall of 2000, and was largely dismissed as the work of radicals. 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.”
Upon taking office, Bush/Cheney 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.”
Disguised as a “War on Terrorism,” authors of the PNAC pursue their desire for a permanent role in the strategically-important Gulf region. An exaggerated fear of terrorism is being promoted 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.
Is there, as they expect, no force that can stop them? Perhaps hubris will undo them.
Right now, an unremitting popular movement must do everything it can to involve more and more people who are currently uncertain of how to act. Everyone who reads this is urged to ask themselves if they are willing to let Bush/Cheney continue this intentional path to destruction. We are faced with a broken system. We can no longer expect that the three branches of government will provide checks or balances. It is up to the people “each one to teach one” until we reach the critical mass necessary to understanding the urgency of removing Bush/Cheney from office. The goal of our activism must be to “reveal invisibilities and unveil deceits,” to do everything we can to make impeachment a reality.
Information about PNAC comes from Sojourners Magazine Sept/Oct 2003