Note: this page is a time capsule from Spring
Neo-conservatives are well positioned in
Bush's cabinet and are attempting to establish a guiding
American presence around the world. This presence includes
military, economic and cultural. This is not a conspiracy
theory. Several web sites openly expound and disseminate their
Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a "bastion of
neo-conservativism" and has been around since 1943. At a recent ceremony Bush praised the AEI for
having the "brightest minds in the country". A few dozen of
these bright minds are currently illuminating the White House.
Richard Perle is a fellow at AEI.
Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is
an exclusive club of power players and influential thinkers.
Numerous members of PNAC are currently in Bush's inner circle
including: Elliott Abrams, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick
Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Frank Carlucci, Richard Perle and
The Neo-conservatives believe that a global Pax Americana
can be established and that it is America's responsibility to
rise to the occasion. A type of Manifest Destiny. Some would
call this hegemony, or liberation, or empire building, or
democratization. In this day of sound bite marketing these
labels can all mean about the same thing. Analyzing this in
terms of Republican or Democratic politics is also limited
because this is a policy is spanning administrations. Is the
US actually pursuing a vision of "enlightened" domination of
global geo-politics? What are the pros and cons of this
approach? Will it engender democracy or an unruly backlash?
How far is the military willing to extend itself? Is this the
rise of an empire? Who will pay and who will profit? How will
Europe respond? What is the future of the United Nations? Will
it make the world a safer place?
It appears that the neo-conservative agenda is bearing
fruit and that the recent invasion and installation of US
forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are just stepping-stones. This
explains why the US didn't want the Iraqi inspections to work
in 1997 or 2003. If Saddam had a clean bill of health, we
would not have had a good reason to invade. Have you ever
wondered why you haven't heard much about an exit strategy for
Iraq? We don't plan to leave.
A quick review of a few Neo-Conservative articles.
Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategy, Forces
and Resources for a New Century (PNAC) - September
This PNAC report spells out “American grand strategy” for
“as far into the future as possible” — the project’s reference
to the "New American Century". Some major points of interest:
“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.” An
invasion of Iraq was of interest, with or without Saddam. The
report states bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would remain
permanently and “Iran may well prove as large a threat to US
interests as Iraq has”.
The US should be able to “fight and decisively win
multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars”, and increase
military spending by $48 billion to ensure this.
The US should develop “bunker-buster” nuclear weapons.
Whereas till now nuclear weapons were considered strategic
weapons—a threat of massive retaliation to deter an attack—the
development of such uses for smaller nuclear weapons would
make them into tactical weapons, that could be used in the
ordinary course of battle, as it were. The US, the report
unmistakably implies, should also develop biological weapons:
“New methods of attack—electronic, ‘non-lethal’, biological—
will be more widely available.... combat likely will take
place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace and perhaps the
world of microbes.... advanced forms of biological warfare
that can ‘target’ specific genotypes (i.e., kill people
selectively based on their race or ethnicity) may transform
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically
The US should create ‘US Space Forces’ to dominate space.
The ‘star wars’ program, officially known as National Missile
Defense, should be made a priority. The US military should
also set up a “worldwide command-and-control system”.
The report says that “it is time to increase the presence
of American forces in southeast Asia”. This may lead to
“American and allied power providing the spur to the process
of democratization in China.” In other words, the US should
strive to replace the present Chinese regime with a clearly
The PNAC supports a “blueprint for maintaining global US
pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and
shaping the international security order in line with American
principles and interests.” Thus the document explicitly calls
for preventing the “American century” becoming anyone else’s,
even if peacefully. Indeed this is the crux of the matter, as
we shall see. Close allies such as the UK are referred to as
“the most effective and efficient means of exercising American
global leadership”—that is, a mere mask for American hegemony.
Peace-keeping missions are described as “demanding American
political leadership rather than that of the United Nations”.
Prophetically the document includes this comment "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." This was posted to their website a year before 9/11.
The Bush Doctrine (PNAC) - January 2002
Note: the following is quoted directly from the PNAC
At last, more than a decade after the demise of the Soviet
Union, the United States has an understanding of its role in
the world and a strategy for achieving its purposes. In his
State of the Union speech last night, President George W. Bush
has done what neither his father nor Bill Clinton could
This “Bush Doctrine” has three essential elements:
Active American global leadership. The president
noted that our “enemies view the entire world as a
battlefield” and vowed to “pursue them wherever they are.” He
also made it clear that he was willing to act preemptively and
quickly -- “time is not on our side,” he admitted --
especially when threats from nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons are involved.
Regime change. Although President Bush pulled no
punches when listing terrorist organizations as enemies,
including Palestinian groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, he also
made clear his determination to include rogue regimes as
targets in the war on terrorism. “We can’t stop short,” he
said. And in “naming names” -- North Korea, Iran and Iraq --
he clearly defined a meaning of victory.
Promoting liberal democratic principles. “No nation
is exempt” from the “non-negotiable demands” of liberty, law
and justice. Because the United States has a “greater
objective” -- a greater purpose -- in the world, Bush sees in
the war not just danger but an opportunity to spread American
political principles, especially into the Muslim world.
The Bush Doctrine is also notable for what it is not. It is
not Clintonian multilateralism; the president did not appeal
to the United Nations, profess faith in arms control, or raise
hopes for any “peace process.” Nor is it the balance-of-power
realism favored by his father. It is, rather, a reassertion
that lasting peace and security is to be won and preserved by
asserting both U.S. military strength and American political