This administrations policies; Then & Now

El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
edited July 2006 in A Moving Train
It is obvious Bush is nothing more than a puppet for PNAC's agenda which they laid out pretty bare in the 90's and 2000's. Here are a few exerpts from the 92 report from the State Dept (Cheney was Sec of Def, Wolfowitz was his Undersecretary) and PNAC's policy paper written 9/00.

Isn't it odd the same ppl are involved? Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Perle, Addington...gee, it's almost as if this has all been in the works for a decade or more?

Then

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
Wolfowitz Doctrine is a pseudo-name given to the initial version of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994-99 fiscal years (dated Feb 18, 1992) authored by U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy Scooter Libby.

Not intended for public release, it was leaked to The New York Times on March 7th, 1992 and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from rogue nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.

Such was the outcry that the document was hastily re-written under the close supervision of U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell before being officially released on April 16. Although the initial release was denounced at the time it was leaked many of its tenets have since re-emerged in the Bush Doctrine.

Superpower Status
The doctrine announces the U.Ss status as the worlds only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims its main objective to be retaining that status.

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power."

U.S. Primacy
The doctrine establishes the U.Ss leadership role within the new world order.

"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

Unilateralism
The doctrine downplays the value of international coalitions.

"Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor."

Pre-emptive Intervention
The doctrine stated the U.Ss right to intervene when and where it believed necessary.

While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.

Oil
The doctrine clarified the strategic value of the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."


Now:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

On Space:
CONTROL THE NEW INTERNATIONAL COMMONS OF SPACE AND CYBERSPACE, and pave the way for the creation of a new military service U.S. Space Forces with the mission of space control.
the United States must field a global system of missile defenses, divine ways to control the new âinternational commons of space and cyberspace[/size]

Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas and the protection of international commerce defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new international commons be a key to

world power in the future:
Given the advantages U.S. armed forces enjoy as a result of this unrestricted use of space, it is shortsighted to expect potential adversaries to refrain from attempting to offset to disable or offset U.S. space capabilities. And with the proliferation of space know-how and related technology around the world, our adversaries will inevitably seek to enjoy many of the same space advantages in the future. Moreover, space commerce is a growing part of the global economy.


on Nukes:
But what should finally drive the size and character of our nuclear forces is not numerical parity with Russian capabilities but maintaining American strategic superiority â and, with that superiority, a capability to deter possible hostile coalitions of nuclear powers. U.S. nuclear superiority is nothing to be ashamed of; rather, it will be an essential element in preserving American leadership in a more complex and chaotic world.


On Iraq:
Indeed, 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.


On paying for the weapons and bombs:
A sensible plan would add $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually through the Future Years Defense Program; this would result in a defense âtoplineâ increase of $75 billion to $100 billion over that period, a small percentage of the $700 billion onbudget surplus now projected for that same period. We believe that the new president should commit his administration to a plan to achieve that level of spending within four years.


On where to find this money:
New circumstances make us think that the report might have a more receptive audience now than in recent years. For the first time since the late 1960s the federal government is running a surplus. For most of the 1990s, Congress and the White House gave balancing the federal budget a higher priority than funding national security. In fact, to a significant degree, the budget was balanced by a combination of increased tax revenues and cuts in defense spending. The surplus expected in federal revenues over the next decade, however, removes any need to hold defense spending to some preconceived low level.

Yes, but how to get the public to support this?

They think this will take time to get the defense budget to where they think it should be....unlesss....

"Further, 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."
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Bump for the weekend crew
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • truroutetruroute Posts: 251
    Bump for the interesting to read, but not "very realistic" crew.

    Possible but not very probably.

    Comon guys, every group, business, government, has a "plan"

    Maybe we should constantly post China's, Russia's, the hardcore Islamists', Isreali, Bleeding Heart Liberal, or Neo-Conservative plan? hmmmmmm I'll pick the US over alluv'em...lesser of evils IMO.... but thats looking at the BIG worldwide picture. (again IMO) There are others on this planet who I would definatly not want to be a superpower compaired to the US.

    Depends on how one would connect whatever dots and how much time one would have, I guess.
  • truroute wrote:
    Bump for the interesting to read, but not "very realistic" crew.

    bump for whoever may have missed it then. Some people have more time to post and read here on the weekend, one being me. :)
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    truroute wrote:
    Bump for the interesting to read, but not "very realistic" crew.

    Possible but not very probably.

    Comon guys, every group, business, government, has a "plan"

    Maybe we should constantly post China's, Russia's, the hardcore Islamists', Isreali, Bleeding Heart Liberal, or Neo-Conservative plan? hmmmmmm I'll pick the US over alluv'em...lesser of evils IMO.... but thats looking at the BIG worldwide picture. (again IMO) There are others on this planet who I would definatly not want to be a superpower compaired to the US.

    Depends on how one would connect whatever dots and how much time one would have, I guess.


    seems like pretty easy dots to connect, but maybe it's just me.

    wolfowitzand cheney say in 92 we must protect the oil and our economic interests. that we don't need international coalitions. that we have the right to attack pre-emptively to protect our interests...

    then compare it to wolfowitz, cheney, rummy, kristol's... pnac in 00:
    break the nuclear no-proliferation treaty and build new nukes, overthrow saddam not b/c he's a bad guy but "need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.", breaking the icbm treaty and militarizing space and controlling cyberspace, spending the surplus on weapons...

    compare it to their actions:
    pulling out of the world court, breaking all sorts of treatines, pretty much saying fuck you to the UN and the rest of the world, we'll do what we want...pre-emptively attacking iraq for....?

    what do you see as being too out there to believe?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
Sign In or Register to comment.