and remove Saddam Hussein from power. A
January letter from PNAC urged America to initiate that
war even if the U.S. could not muster full support from the Security
Council at the United Nations. Sound familiar? Clinton replied that he was
focusing on dealing with al-Qaida terrorist cells. But PNAC's lobbying was
able to convince a GOP-dominated Congress to pass the "Liberation of Iraq
Act," with nearly $100 million earmarked for Iraqi opposition groups.
LAYING OUT "GLOBAL HEGEMONY" PLAN
4. In September of 2000, PNAC, anticipating a GOP victory in the upcoming
presidential election, issued its white paper on
"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for
the New Century." The PNAC report was quite
frank about why the U.S. would want to move toward imperialist militarism,
a Pax Americana, because with the Soviet Union out of the picture, now is
the time most "conducive to American interests and ideals. ... The
challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American
peace'."
As Neil Mackay
observed: "In its own words," he wrote, the PNAC report is a
"'blueprint for maintaining global U.S. pre-eminence, precluding the rise
of a great-power rival and shaping the international security order in
line with American principles and interests'." This 'American grand
strategy,' it says, must be advanced 'as far into the future as
possible'."
answer, William
Rivers Pitt noted, lies in following a five-fold plan:
"Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia
and the Middle East; Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our
fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities; Develop and
deploy a global missile-defense system, and develop a strategic dominance
of space; Control the 'International Commons' of cyberspace; Increase
defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up
from the 3 percent currently spent."
Most ominously, Pitt, wrote, "this PNAC document described four 'Core
Missions' for the American military. The two central requirements are for
American forces to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major
theater wars,' and to 'perform the "constabulary" duties associated with
shaping the security environment in critical regions.' Note well that PNAC
does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars.
That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military
must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance
for all to see."
In serving as world "constable," the PNAC report went on, no other
countervailing forces will be permitted to get in the way. Such actions
"demand American political leadership rather than that of the United
Nations," for example. No country will be permitted to get close to parity
with the U.S. when it comes to weaponry or influence. Therefore, more U.S.
military bases will be established in the various regions of the globe.
Post-Saddam Iraq would serve as one of those advance military bases.
Currently, it is estimated that the U.S. now has more than 150 military
bases and deployments in different countries around the world, with the
most recent major increase being in the Caspian Sea/Afghanistan/Middle
East areas, the so-called "arc of oil" states in that area of the world.
5. George W. Bush was moved into the White House in January of 2001.
Shortly thereafter, a report,
"Strategic
Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," was
commissioned from the James Baker III Institute for Public Policy -- yep,
that James Baker, the Bush consigliore. The report advocated a more
aggressive U.S. posture in the world and called for a "reassessment of the
role of energy in American foreign policy," with access to oil repeatedly
cited as a "security imperative." It's possible that inside Cheney's
secret energy-panel papers, which he refuses to release to Congress or the
American people, are references to foreign-policy plans for how to gain
military control of oilfields across the globe. We do know now that
maps were rolled out at those energy-panel meetings,
which detailed which foreign oil-companies might get a slice of the Iraq
oil pie.
"SWEEP IT ALL UP, RELATED OR NOT"
6. In February of 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said publicly that Iraq was contained
and posed
no
military threat to its neighbors or the U.S. But mere hours
after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Rumsfeld ordered his aides to begin
planning for an attack on Iraq, even though his intelligence officials
told him it was an al-Qaida operation and there was no connection between
Iraq and the attacks. "Go massive," the
aides' notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up.
Things related and not." Rumsfeld leaned heavily on the FBI and CIA to
find any shred of evidence linking the Iraq government to 9/11, but they
weren't able to do so. So he set up his own fact-finding group in the
Pentagon, the
Office of
Special Plans, that would provide him with whatever shaky connections
it could find or surmise.
Paul O'Neill, Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, reported that
he was astonished that the first Cabinet meetings in January 2001 were
focusing on war with Iraq. The leaked
Downing Street Memos also supply proof of how far along the
war-plans were developed, years before the invasion began.
William Rivers Pitt offered some intriguing possibilities
about why this Bush&Co. obsession with attacking Iraq:
"The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control
of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a
warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To
establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and
overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are
allies of the United States...
"At the end of the day, this is not even about oil. The drive behind
this war is ideological in nature, a crusade to 'reform' the religion of
Islam as it exists in both government and society within the Middle
East. Once this is accomplished, the road to empire will be open, ten
lanes wide and steppin' out over the line."
And, of course, inherent in all these PNAC plans is for
the U.S. to act in concert with its one surefire ally in the region,
Israel, which has to be supported and protected economically and
militarily. (Jews and non-Jews alike in PNAC worked hard to maintain U.S.
support for Israel.) The U.S. has a friend it can count on, Israel has a
protector against its Arab neighbors. A two-country backscratching system.
"PRE-EMPTIVE" WARS OF CHOICE
7. Feeling confident that all plans were on track for moving aggressively
in the world, the Bush Administration in September of 2002 published the
"National
Security Strategy of the United States of America."
The official policy of the U.S. government, as proudly proclaimed in this
major document, is virtually identical to the policy proposals in various
PNAC white papers and similar ones from other think tanks, such as the
American Enterprise Institute, the operational hub of Washington's
neo-cons.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
