History Repeats Itself Clear and Present Danger:
History Repeats Itself Clear and Present Danger:
In this writing I will complete a comparative analysis between four different groups that arose within the United States government and had the purpose of influencing foreign policy in this country.
I will examine the history and influence of the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD). I will explore whether the members of this group were able to influence national policy with the goal of creating a prolonged arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union to generate huge profits for members of the group. I will next examine how and why the Committee on the Present Danger appears to have lost favor and power with other groups associated with the United States government.
I will compare the Committee on the Present Danger as described by Jerry W. Sanders in his book, Peddlers of Crisis, to the present group, Project for a New American Century (PNAC) which arose in the 1990's. I will explore whether PNAC and the Committee on the Present Danger share similar ideologies.
This study will utilize books, government archives, PNAC's personal website, and documents that illustrate the types of policies that have been successfully enacted by both of these groups. In addition, I will also examine the effects that the enacted policies have had in regard to the direction the nation has taken concerning foreign relations towards other countries.
The Selling of Fear and Propaganda to Persuade the People
Even before the creation of the CPD, fear had been used in the effort to persuade the citizens of the United States of the need to allow the buildup of an overwhelming military force which was capable of dominating in the international arena. After World War II ended, the United States stood to usher in an era of peace. The citizens of the country were more than ready to accept peace and in fact, looked forward to it with great hope and longing. Many citizens had never wanted to become involved in WWII and preferred to maintain an isolationist stance. However, decision makers in Washington made a choice to “use their monopoly of nuclear weapons as a political instrument…and contributed substantially toward the creation of the Cold War” (Sanders, 1983).
The United States policy after WWII had been one of Containment Militarism. Beginning in February 1950 and lasting through March 1950 an interdepartmental task force comprised of State and Defense Department members undertook a reappraisal of this policy. What emerged was the National Security Memorandum No. 68 or NSC-68, which was largely a product of a group led by Paul Nitze. According to a 1979 article written by Samuel F. Wells, Jr. for International Security, entitled “Sounding the Tocsin: NSC 68 and the Soviet Threat, NSC-68 accused the Soviet Union of having a fanatic faith which was antithetical to the U.S. and sought to impose its absolute authority over the rest of the world. The appraisal insisted that conflict was unavoidable and called for a defense budget which was four times higher than its current level. NSC-68 redefined the idea of containment to a policy of outright militarism and advocated a rapid build up of strength, covert operations and psychological warfare. Wells points out in his article that the justification for these actions relied upon convincing the people, through an increased propaganda program and the efforts of a “Department of Dirty Tricks,” that the fate of the world hung in the balance. The mastermind of the NSC-68 review, which had been ordered by Truman, was Paul Nitze. The purpose of NSC-68 was to gain an increase in military spending on nuclear and conventional forces that were designed to send the world a signal that Truman's Administration was prepared to do whatever was needed to continue the policy of containment.
It was into this atmosphere that the first CPD was born. Founded by James Conant, Vannevar Bush and Tracy Voorhees, it figured prominently in NSC-68 and was begun shortly after NSC-68's completion. The members of the group were mostly members of the Establishment, not military men. According to, The 'Present Danger' War Parties, which is a 2006 special report by Tom Barry of the International Relations Center, the CPD members were in investment banking, international law firms, corporate America, major foundations and elite universities who moved in and out of government with the explicit purpose of scaring Americans. Its unstated but clear objective was to build support for a postwar militarization based on an exaggerated threat assessment of the Soviet Union.
The NSC-68 had stated that one of the most serious threats to U.S. national security was internal, that it was most likely to be defeated from lack of will to maintain it. This sparked a Citizens Conference at which the CPD came into existence. The meeting was attended by financier Bernard Baruch, Julius Ochs Adler of the New York Times, John D. Rockefeller, Alfred Sloan of General Motors, James Conant president of Harvard University, Tracy Voorhees former undersecretary of the Army and Vannevar Bush a prominent engineer and early promoter of the Manhattan Project. These last three men became the first directors of the CPD. According to Tom Barry (2006), members at the meeting decided that there should be no public records of their meetings because their purpose was to manipulate public opinion and to win congressional support for NSC-68. The CPD dissimulated its propaganda through the media and educational campaigns which proved to be critical to congressional acceptance of NSC-68 in ushering out the isolationist sentiments of a public tired of war. Once the CPD had completed its mission it disbanded in 1953, but by this time the military budget had been quadrupled. According to Sanders (1983), Containment Militarism held an allegiance in national security circles and the policies that had been put in place remained active during the Vietnam War era. However, due to the impact these policies were having on trade and diplomacy during the Vietnam War, Containment Militarism began to be questioned and heated debates arose as to whether it continued to be an acceptable policy. Another hotly debated issue was whether the citizens would continue to support the build up of nuclear weapons and such steep spending through taxation.
The tactic of fear had been used to convince the American public that a grave threat from Communism loomed over their heads and threatened national security. According to Wells (1979), what was not sold to the people was the fact that the true threat came from enormous military budgets which had the potential to bankrupt the country, and the attempts to undermine civil liberties which were needed in order to ‘protect' national security. Although the campaigns to ramp up fear were well implemented, the American public did not completely come onboard as it had been hoped they would. Many citizens refused the idea of a world under siege and which required the maintenance of the largest military force the world had ever known. Over time the effects of Cold War hysteria had faded and the idea of détente gained in popularity, which caused the ruling class to lose control in the making of foreign policy and had caused the policies of CPD to lose their influence.
The Rebirth of the CPD
When Jimmy Carter became President in 1976 he had decided to continue détente, the talks about the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty, and the trilateral agreement which made economic, not military, competition between the West and East into the preferred policy. It was felt that this agreement would be more advantageous for both superpowers and would help establish rules of international behavior for global power sharing.
According to Sanders (1983), during the Carter years a group of dissident national security managers who had never accepted détente were prepared to use their expertise and experience to put the United States back on the track of the Cold War. Research by Tom Barry (2006) shows that Paul Nitze sent a letter to Eugene Rostow proposing the formation of a new citizen committee to alert the public of a growing Soviet threat. The meeting was held by Rostow in March 1976 and led to the rebirth of the CPD which was unveiled on November 11, 1976 just three days after the election of Jimmy Carter. Members of the new CPD included but were not limited to Rostow, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Leon Keyserling, Max Kampelman, Richard Shifter, John P. Roche, James Watt, Richard Allen, William Casey, Charles Tyroler III, Charles E. Walker, and Norman Podhoretz. According to Barry (2006), the CPD presented an alternative to the cooperative vision of empire put forth by the trilateralists with an imperial, unilateral philosophy of power retention through military strength.
Another source of influence and members for the second CPD was the Team B Strategic Objectives Panel, which was an independent panel established to review the CIA's threat assessments of the Soviet Union which showed that the Soviet Union was in severe decline. According to Lawrence J. Korb, author of “It's Time to Bench “Team B,” which was written in 2004 for the Center for American Progress, to address national security concerns. Team B members included Richard Pipes, Gen. Daniel Graham, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Nitze, William Van Cleave and Seymour Weiss. Richard Perle was a member of CPD, however he was not a member of Team B but he was instrumental in pulling the team together. Although there was more than enough information that backed up the CIA's assessment, Team B accused them of underestimating the Soviet threat because it had relied too heavily on hard data instead of extrapolating the Soviets' intentions from ideology.
The second phase of the CPD was created at this time to try to persuade Carter of the need to return to a Cold War type footing. However, Carter leaned more towards the Trilateral Commission for advice and advocated reducing the military budget. Carter also tried to warn American citizens that the use of fear of Communism and of the Soviet Union was in the process of being revived by those who favored the actions of groups such as the CPD, groups that wished to wildly escalate the military budget and the use of the military as a policy enforcer. Unfortunately, faced with mounting pressures by a militarist coalition led by the CPD to rearm, and accused of appeasement, Carter was forced to abandon the ideas of trilateral cooperation and in its place to become more globally confrontational. Sanders (1983) states, “This led, however, to a tortuous dual-track foreign policy that saddled the Carter Administration with charges of ineptitude, vacillation, and disingenuous motives both at home and abroad.” The CPD had succeeded in pushing the country back to a Cold War stance as well as causing a marked rise in military spending. Carter's previous policy of non-interventionalism gave way to plans for a rapid deployment force and the nuclear arms race gained impetus.
Reagan Embraces the Committee on the Present Danger
According to an article by James Kirchick entitled “Cold Warriors Return for War on Terrorism,” which was published by The Hill, in 2004, Reagan as an original member, had been initiated into the ranks of the CPD in 1979 and was on its executive committee. Reagan had promised to rearm America during his campaign. The election of Reagan in 1980 saw the CPD being brought directly into the government. Within days of the election Reagan went on television to warn that the U.S. must begin a massive military build up. When appointments were made to Reagan's Administration thirty-two of them were from the CPD. Reagan made the CPD co-founder and chairman, Eugene Rostow, the head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. He made James Watt the Secretary of the Interior. Paul Nitze became the CPD's director for policy studies and co-founder as Chief Negotiator for Theater Nuclear Forces in Europe, even though Nitze had held serious opposition to arms control since the late 1940's.
Other CPD members appointed by Reagan were Richard Allen to National Security coordinator; Richard Pipes as Chief Kremlinologist; Jeane Kirkpatrick as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.; William Casey as the director of the CIA. Reagan also appointed other CPD members to sensitive positions such as CPD Director, Charles Tyroler III to a membership on the Intelligence Oversight Board; Charles E. Walker as a member of the Economic Policy Advisory Board and Richard Perle as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. The immediate effect was a sharp increase in bellicose language, a repudiation of even the appearance of détente, and close to automatic approval for every weapons system being considered by the Pentagon.
Once again, the order of the day was to convince the people that there was a looming threat of the Soviets expanding through the use of aggression. At this point, the military industrial complex, which stood to make huge profits from the sale of more weapons, became a steadfast ally. Eager to exercise its new muscles, the CPD wasted no time in fanning the flames of fear towards the Soviets with a series of two releases, The 1980 Crisis (And What We Should Do About It), which was shortly followed by Countering the Soviet Threat: U.S. Defense Strategy in the 1980's. These releases used an urgent tone to paint a picture of an impending world crisis and placed the blame for it on Carter.
Ramping Up the Fear Factor with Propaganda
In an effort to justify the potential use of military containment, the CPD insinuated that the Soviets had continued to build up its military, had continued its expansionist policies, and was promoting religious and social unrest in Iran, despite evidence to the contrary. The next allegation by the CPD against the Soviets was that the Soviets had plans in Central America that were a threat to the United States. This charge was repeated often until the allegation was finally discredited, however, an article that was written by Herbert Stein in 1986 and published by Wall Street Journal, entitled “Board of Contributors A Perilous State of the Union,” shows that the allegations had been continued to be made until much later. The source for the article had been the CPD which stated that the Soviet Union had continued without any slacking the biggest and longest military expansion in world history.
According to Sanders (1983), Reagan began his tenure by charging that the Soviet Union reserved the right to commit any crime, to lie and cheat in a campaign to promote global revolution and a one-world communist state. This speech had the strongest anti-Soviet tone taken by an American president upon entering office since the time of Kennedy during the Berlin crisis. During confirmation hearings for the post of secretary of state, General Haig had stated that there were more important things than peace… things we Americans should be willing to fight for. Haig went on to charge that the Soviets were training, funding, and equipping international terrorism. The terrorism charge had come from the CPD and had no tangible proof but the charge was enough for the Reagan administration to announce plans for a build up of conventional and nuclear forces. However, the public was led to believe that even this might not be enough if the political climate continued to deteriorate.
After Reagan had been in office for only a month his aggressive stance turned toward Europe and Reagan hinted in an interview with the French magazine Le Figaro that the U.S. would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons in Europe. This statement made the Europeans understandably nervous. Tensions continued to mount when Richard Allen made the statement that Europe was beset by a dangerous “better red than dead” attitude and outright pacifist sentiments. Mr. Allen's statement was published in a Special to the New York Times as an article written by Robert Pear on March 22, 1981 entitled “Reagan Aide Assails Pacifism in Europe.” Tensions turned to distrust when the Administration went back on its promise that arms negotiations would be conducted before the newest Pershing II and cruise missiles were deployed on European soil. According to an article published in Foreign Affairs entitled “Nuclear Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance,” by McGeorge Bundy, et al. in 1982, when the Administration made a surprise announcement that the neutron bomb might be revived, shock waves were sent across Europe. It was felt that the U.S. was not resurrecting NATO to deter, but to fight a nuclear war in Europe.
Domestic protest across Europe was running high when Reagan's Administration decided to start up production of the neutron bomb in August, three months before Reagan was slated to open negotiations on theater nuclear weapons in Europe. Headlines across Europe pronounced Reagan as “CRAZY” and domestic protests escalated while the Administration insisted that the Soviets were going to strike and that the U.S. was in the midst of the greatest danger that the public had ever faced. The Europeans refused to believe the Soviets were in the process of expanding and many felt the U.S. was just as untrustworthy as the Soviet Union. By the end of November several million people had taken part in anti-nuclear demonstrations but Weinberger , as part of the Administration, responded by saying that he did not believe the massive outpouring really signifies anything.
It was also acknowledged in the Bundy (1982) article that with the mass pressure threatening to break down the Atlantic alliance Reagan offered to cancel the new generation of missiles destined for Europe if the Soviets dismantled the missiles they had already deployed. The Russian reaction was negative because the offer did not include the U.S. removing the systems they already had in place that could reach Soviet territory. The Soviets proposed instead a freeze. On the day of the opening negotiations, Rostow as the Administrations Chief Arms Control spokesman gave a speech where he repeated the theme of relentless Soviet expansion.
In the meantime, according to Sanders (1983), the peace movement that had begun in Europe spread across the ocean to the U.S. and with evidence emerging that assessments and statements which had been made by the Administration were full of mistakes and guessing, it was concluded that they had been possibly misleading and over embellished. Also called into question were the allegations of Soviet hit lists and terrorist training camps when the intelligence agencies admitted that they had no hard evidence.
The Administration and CPD Loses Credibility
As the peace movement spread across the U.S. the American public in increasing numbers, reached the same conclusions as their European counterparts had. Americans began to believe that Reagan was preparing to fight a nuclear war with strategic intercontinental exchanges and strikes limited to Europe. This suspicion was strengthened when the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) revealed plans for mass evacuations from U.S. cities under the disguise of civil defense. FEMA, along with Rostow expressed the belief that the U.S. could not only survive a nuclear exchange but could recover from one in the matter of a few years. This unrealistic attitude of the government was addressed by Robert Scheer in his 1983 book, “With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush and Nuclear War.” Many citizens became increasingly unsettled as plans came out of Washington promoting the idea that the public should invest in private bomb shelters. When it was revealed that Washington also had plans for city evacuations decided by odd and even license plate numbers and post-attack mail delivery, many people were convinced that the Administration had taken leave of its senses.
During that spring, town forums and teach-ins across the country featured presentations from medical experts that the Administration was not telling the truth about how devastating a nuclear attack would really be even though, “the Administration insisted that everyone would survive if there were enough shovels to go around” Scheer (1983).. Thousands of American citizens from every state demanded an immediate weapons freeze, a halt in testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons, and a major reduction in weapons stockpiles. The response from the people was great enough that a resolution was introduced in Congress which was named the Kennedy-Hatfield Amendment and was backed by 180 lawmakers. However, the CPD would undermine its objectives to continue the build up of arms. Research by Sanders (1983) indicates that the Administration introduced legislation named the Jackson-Warner Amendment in order to continue the build up without attracting undue attention.
Reagan endorsed the Jackson-Warner Amendment while at the same time reasserting to a nationwide audience the notion that the Soviet Union had a margin of superiority and could absorb a retaliatory strike from the U.S. and hit us again. Reagan's claim was challenged immediately as untrue and irresponsible by arms experts. It was at this point that Richard Burt, the Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs attempted to reword Reagan's statement in an effort to make it appear as if he had meant something other than what he had said. Even after this, not only did Reagan not back down from his statements, he continued to be supported by Weinberger. There was an article carried by the Washington Post on April 30, 1982 which covered Weinberger's support.
When a group of four experts, McGeorge Bundy, George F. Kennan, Robert S. McNamara and Gerard C. Smith made public in an article published in Foreign Affairs, entitled “Nuclear Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance,” 1982, the fact that the Soviets had declared they would not make a first strike with nuclear weapons more than a quarter of a century before, and that this fact could allow the U.S. to give up its controversial generation of weapons, Reagan proposed a date for arms reduction talks. However, these talks were a rehash of the earlier European talks which had demanded the Soviets cutback on their weapons while the U.S. was to do only a little cutting of its own. Sanders (1983) goes on to state that the U.S. plans intended to allow the U.S. to continue to modernize its weapons. Shortly after Reagan's call for arms reduction it was revealed by a leak from the Pentagon in a document titled, Fiscal Year 1984-1988 Defense Guidance, that the Administration was still developing a plan to fight limited nuclear wars and that Weinberger had ordered the military to prepare for nuclear war against the Soviet Union over a protracted period. It had become all too obvious that Reagan and his CPD infested Administration had every intention of declaring economic and technical war on the Soviet Union despite the efforts they were making to have it appear otherwise.
The leak of the Pentagon's plans for nuclear war destroyed any hope the Administration had of beginning disarmament talks which would stop the massive demonstrations that had been planned to greet those talks and did in fact take place on June 12, 1982. Only one month later the Administration broke off negotiations for a test ban and Reagan increased the weapons budget for 1982 by 30 percent while he continued to insinuate that the Soviets posed a growing threat and arms experts, including the four experts who had written the article for Foreign Affairs, continued to challenge his assertions. As nationwide protests against the Administration's continued attempts to escalate tension towards the Soviet Union increased, Reagan proposed to increase military spending by double to $343 billion with the total cost exceeding $1.7 trillion. According to Sanders (1983), the public was told that this spending could be accomplished while corporations and wealthy individuals enjoyed tax cuts, social programs were being gutted and the government said it added up to a balanced budget. By the spring of 1982 the nation was facing the largest budget deficit it had ever seen and except for the most diehard militarists in Congress it became evident that the decline in America's economy and society had to be stopped.
The CPD Reasserts its Influence
Once the freeze movement had gained ground and Congress began to scrutinize the military budget, the CPD issued its first position paper since 1980 which was titled, Is the Reagan Defense Program Adequate? As far as the CPD was concerned the answer was no. Although Reagan's program had become known as excessive, the CPD felt it was a minimal one which was inadequate to balance out the power of the Soviets. The CPD called for an even greater amount of spending than Reagan was already doing. The CPD wasted no time in playing the fear card when it stated that a failure to increase military spending would send a dangerous signal to the Soviet Union. The CPD's next step was to follow up with another paper titled, Has America Become Number Two? And of course their answer was yes.
Stories in the media of the CPD's revival played into the 1982 campaign as 33 of its members including the president held government positions while another 18 members were serving in various part-time positions. The CPD attempted to make itself seem non-partisan by “attacking” Reagan's military budget as being $100 billion to low making it a defective budget. According to Sanders (1983), the CPD felt that the U.S. should be able to wage a protracted nuclear conflict in several parts of the world at the same time. This “attack” against Reagan's budget was not in truth aimed at Reagan but rather at Congress for under-funding his programs. The CPD had returned in order to convince Congress and the public to spend huge sums for further military build up. Position papers coming out of the Defense and National Security Council were being drafted by handpicked members of the CPD, including a man named Richard Perle.
Perle had been taught by Nitze and had a reputation for being ruthless in assaults against détente and arms control. Perle is credited as the mastermind of a purge in Reagan's Administration which forced out those who opposed a further military build up. The purge helped to spark a grassroots movement for peace. When this movement gained inroads into Congress, the CPD countered by cranking up the propaganda machine. According to Barry (2006), the CPD was able to generate enough fear that the Administration got what it wanted and by 1985 military tax expenditures had increased by 32 percent, making Reagan's peacetime military budget the largest in U.S. history. With its job done CPD II quietly faded into the pages of history.
The Birth of PNAC
With the end of a possible threat to America because of the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the organizations that had been able to use that threat as a trigger for increased military spending and buildup lost its major fear inducing factor. As the administration changed from Reagan to Clinton, Neo-conservatives became frustrated at the lack of influence they had to shape the direction of American foreign policy and wanted to revive support for Reaganite politics. However, in order to revive aggressive foreign politics a new enemy was needed.
Two men, William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in the spring of 1997 in an effort to continue a neo-Reaganite agenda which would use a sense of patriotism and nationalism to rally support for continuing increases in military spending and military buildup. They claimed that the forces of evil were gathering around the world. Upon inspection of PNAC's own website one may read their Statement of Principles in which they alleged that the Clinton Administration's cutting of defense spending and inconstant leadership were making it difficult to sustain American influence around the world. The statement went on to express their feelings that the U.S. as the world's preeminent power was in the position to shape a new century that would be favorable to American interests, but in order to ensure American greatness it would be necessary to significantly increase defense spending to remain the global leaders. Among the 25 signatures attached to the Statement of Principles were those of Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Norman Podhoretz (from the old CPD II), Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Francis Fukuyama, I. Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams and Jeb Bush.
PNAC began to publish a series of letters all of which can be found on PNAC's website. The first letter put out by PNAC was addressed to President Clinton and was dated Jan. 26, 1998. This letter expressed PNAC's desire to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq so that America could ‘protect' the oil supply. The letter sought to induce a fear of the possibility of Hussein building weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Furthermore, it was asserted that even if inspections were to resume Hussein could hide his weapons and that the only sure way to deal with Hussein was to remove him by military force. The letter urged Clinton to remove Hussein on his own rather than to heed the unanimity in the U.N. Security Council. This letter was signed by Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle (from the old CPD II), Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, among others.
Four months later, PNAC put out another letter which was addressed to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott to inform them of the letter that had been sent to Clinton. This letter restated their belief in the need to remove Hussein as well as complained that Clinton had rejected their advice. They were particularly upset because Clinton had embraced an agreement that had been reached by U.N. Secretary Koffi Annan with Hussein to allow U.N. inspectors unfettered access in Iraq to look for WMD instead of resorting to military action to remove Hussein. This letter was used in an effort to cause fear that our troops stationed in the Persian Gulf would be open to WMD attacks from Hussein and that the Iraqi government would be able to dominate policy decisions in regard to Iraqi oil. The letter was sent to Gingrich and Lott because they had both agreed earlier that Hussein's regime should be removed and had the authority to press Congress to take the steps necessary to do so. It became clear that diplomacy was not appreciated by PNAC and that the only policy acceptable to them was to topple Hussein's regime no matter what the cost would be. Among the signers of this letter were the familiar names of Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
Perhaps the most insidious document to be put out by PNAC was its 2000 report entitled, “Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources For A New Century.” This report has been widely compared to Mein Kampf and is a virtual blueprint for world domination by America. The 90 page report can be accessed from PNAC's website in a PDF format. Chapter 5 is of particular interest as it lists some of PNAC's goals, one of which was to keep a war going in order to justify a continued amassing of weapons and to be able to spread these weapons worldwide which is stated on page 50. On page 51 of this same chapter is a statement that the desired transformation to an imperial America will be a slow transformation absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor. Other statements on page 51 include weaponizing space, taking over control of not only space but cyberspace as well, control over how much information is allowed out to citizens, and that no other nation that may decide to fight back should be allowed to have missiles. Moving on to page 52, one will read how PNAC is not at all interested in diplomacy or in international agreements. They also state they are not interested in sanctions and want a galaxy of surveillance satellites.
If the reader was to skip over to page 54 they can read how PNAC wanted unrestricted use of outer space, however, they did not want anyone else to have the same use without their permission. On page 56 PNAC details how they were not happy when Clinton did not establish a space ‘take over' policy, and how they felt that spending on NASA's space shuttle program had deprived the funding necessary for other advancements in space. It was PNAC's opinion that the funding for new weapons had been stalled because there was no immediate military competitor, which can be read on page 59. The last page I will highlight will be page 60, where one can read how PNAC wanted to develop a fleet of robots to be used by the military, gain complete control of the seas and develop new biological weapons that would target specific genotypes. According to this report the goal of PNAC was to promote American global leadership as the “sole remaining” superpower.
Although PNAC had large aspirations it had little influence to implement them. However, the 2000 election of George W. Bush along with his PNAC member Vice President Dick Cheney, would soon improve PNAC's influence. Just as Reagan had brought the CPD II members into his administration, Bush did likewise with PNAC members being installed into government positions, including Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle and Francis Fukuyama who was appointed to serve on the administration's Commission of Bioethics.
According to an article written by Duane Shank and printed in Sojourners Magazine, Sept./Oct. 2003 issue, entitled “The Project for a New American Empire,” the new PNAC dominated administration “immediately began to implement their strategic plan – withdrawing from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, increasing military spending and beginning a missile defense program.” However, by the summer of 2001 Bush's approval ratings had fallen to 51 percent and the country was feeling the signs of an impending recession. On September 11, 2001, PNAC was to receive its needed Pearl Harbor event and wasted no time in sending a letter to George Bush. The tragedy of 9/11 was also to give them a much needed enemy.
In a letter dated September 20, 2001, which can be seen on the PNAC website, and was addressed to G.W. Bush, PNAC endorsed his commitment to ‘lead the world to victory.' The letter goes on to state that in this ‘first war of the 21st century,' there were certain steps they felt needed to be taken. The first step was the need to eliminate Osama bin Laden. The second step was the need to remove Hussein, even if there was no evidence linking him to the attack, and to use military force to do so. The next step was to make demands to Iran and Syria and if they refused to comply, then retaliate. This letter was used to insist that this war required a large increase in defense spending that would allow the U.S. to fight this war while still being able to fight in other areas of the world. Some of the signers of this letter were Francis Fukuyama, Jeane Kirkpatrick (from CPD II), Richard Perle and Norman Podhoretz.
Another letter of interest carried on the PNAC website is dated Jan. 23, 2003 and was addressed to G.W. Bush. It commends Bush for seizing new opportunities to create an enduring “balance of power that favors freedom,” yet goes on to state that the current level of defense spending is inadequate to meet the demands of the Bush Doctrine. It further states that American strength is key to building the new world Bush has envisioned and that removing Hussein is just the first step in his vision for the Middle East. The letter then targets Iran, North Korea and possibly China. It is stated that the Bush Doctrine cannot be carried out without having a larger military force and again makes the statement that current defense spending is inadequate to carry out our global responsibilities. It is acknowledged that while defense spending has improved, it is still not enough because new planes, ships and other equipment is needed and this will require tens of billions more over the next decade. It is then stated that more money is needed to develop new missile systems, to transform our conventional forces and to exploit new technologies, which will require another $70 to $100 billion. At this point the specific signers I have revealed have dwindled down to Norman Podhoretz, although there are many other signers remaining but are not well known in the Bush Administration.
The next PNAC letter I will bring to light was written by Gary Schmitt, dated March 23, 2003 and is entitled, “Power & Duty: U.S. Action is Crucial to Maintaining World Order.” Besides being seen on the PNAC website it was also printed in the Los Angeles Times. The first paragraph of this letter says, “As the war in Iraq unfolds, the awesome military power of the United States is on exhibit for the whole world to see. Despite the real but mostly tacit support of friends and allies around the world, America is exercising its power in the face of world opinion decidedly opposed to the war. In some respects, the very fact that the United states can do so is even more confirmation to its critics around the world that American power seemingly unhinged from all restraints – be it the United Nations or world opinion – is as much a danger to world order as perhaps Saddam Hussein himself.” The letter continues and conveys the sentiments that the U.S. holds the U.N. in very small esteem and states that American power is key to peace and order in the world. The U.S. is then cast in the role of the marshal in “High Noon” who makes the townsfolk anxious.
The Selling of Fear and Propaganda to Persuade the People
Just as in the era of CPD II, PNAC had attempted to use fear and propaganda in order to persuade the people to support policies that they might not otherwise support. In the run-up to the Iraq War which was egged on by PNAC, there was a great deal of media hyping in regard to WMD, mushroom clouds over the U.S., unknown terrorist cells hidden all over the country, concocted connections to 9/11, yellowcake, color-coded terror alerts and an ability for Iraq to hit England with WMD in as little as forty minutes. The U.S. was later told the weapons were north, south, east and west, lots of weapons that were nuclear, chemical and biological. Most people who were alive at that time can well remember hearing everyone of these and more. However, unlike the earlier era this campaign did not produce the desired effects. Although a percentage of citizens did believe it for awhile, many did not and by April 2003 concerns were surfacing in the media about not only the war but the administration and PNAC's influence on it as well.
On April 6, 2003 an article was carried by St. Petersburg Times Online which was written by David Bollingrud and was entitles, “Neocons Espouse Preemption Policy.” The article begins by revealing the resignation of Richard Perle because of questions about his business dealings. It states that despite this, Bush is not going anywhere. It speaks about Bush's preemptive foreign policy and worries that the Middle East may be headed toward chaos. Next it asks what happens when the Iraq War is over; will the U.S. threaten Syria, North Korea or Iran? Although it is mentioned that Rumsfeld had just warned Syria not to become involved, much more space is devoted to the PNAC ties of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Perle and William Kristol who publishes the Weekly Standard. The article states that, “it's a matter of public record that this war with Iraq is largely the brainchild of…PNAC.”
The article goes on to explain how, two months earlier Bolton had stated the U.S. would not only attack Iraq, but would deal with Syria, Iran and North Korea afterward. It is further stated that a few months before, Perle had shocked members of British Parliament when he said the U.S. would attack Iraq even if U.N. inspectors did not find WMD. It was wondered whether the fear being generated by this administration would drive away friends and create new enemies. Also noted was that Bush had adopted a policy of ‘anticipatory self-defense' that was alarmingly like that of Japan, at Pearl Harbor.
On May 7, 2003 the Inter Press Service News Agency printed an article written by Jim Lobe, entitled, “Strong Must Rule the Weak, Said Neo-Cons' Muse.” This article calls PNAC into question while revealing that the people behind Bush's aggressive foreign and military policy consider themselves to be followers of Strauss whose idea of running a government is by the perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power because the strong need to tell them what is good for them. Strauss also had the belief that those who are strong enough to be leaders realize there is no morality and that the only natural right is that of the superior to rule the inferior. Members of the administration who were identified as followers included Wolfowitz, who is seen as the chief architect of the U.S. post-9/11 global strategy, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Perle. Other members of PNAC identified as followers are William Kristol and Gary Schmitt. Another point of interest in the article is how PNAC's early prescriptions and letters to G.W. Bush on how to fight the war had “anticipated to an uncanny extent precisely what the administration has done.”
Views from Abroad
Considering the influence PNAC had upon the Bush Administration which had a direct impact on policies has affected far more than the U.S., attention must be paid to how others are viewing the situation. On September 15, 2002 the Sunday Herald of Scotland carried an article written by Neil Mackay entitled, “Bush Planned Iraq ‘Regime Change' Before Becoming President.” The article begins, “A secret blueprint for U.S. global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure ‘regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.” The article lists Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and Lewis Libby as members of a neo-conservative think-tank called PNAC, who are responsible for the creation of the blueprint.
Mackay describes how the plan calls for global U.S. preeminence that will prevent any rivals from arising to challenge them and be able to fight in multiple simultaneous wars for as far into the future as possible. The article reports that this plan includes the need for the U.S. to discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging American leadership or aspiring to a larger regional or global role. The original blueprint document was entitled, “Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources For A New American Century.” This is the same document which was touched upon earlier during the discussion of Chapter 5.
Mackay emphasizes that the blueprint calls for peace-keeping missions that demand American leadership instead of U.N. leadership and worries that Europe could become a rival to the U.S. It further states that even once Hussein is gone, American bases will remain in the Middle East permanently so that the process can then move on to China. Also discussed are PNAC's plans to create ‘U.S. Space Forces' in order to dominate space and the intention of taking complete control of cyberspace. The article also states that, “despite threatening war against Iraq for developing WMD, the U.S. may consider developing biological weapons – which the nation has banned – in decades to come…New methods of attack…will be more widely available…advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool” (Mackay, 2002). The article relays how Tam Dalyell, Labour MP and father of the House of Commons calls PNAC's blueprint garbage from right-wing chicken hawks who have never seen the horrors of war and he is appalled.
In an article entitled, “A Think Tank War: Why Old Europe Says No,” written by Margo Kingston and dated March 7, 2003, one will find quotes compiled from several different media sources from around Europe. These quotes addressed reasons why Europe had said no to the attack on Iraq. The quote from Spiegel spoke about how the right-wing in the U.S. had developed and published plans for world domination back in 1998 which included weakening the U.N. and attacking Iraq. The quote from Nuremburg News related how Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer had stated that war could only be avoided if Hussein not only disarms but leaves office as well, which was not among the 18 resolutions that had been given to the U.N. Kingston highlights an article that had been carried by Spiegel which was written by Jochen Boelsche entitled, “This War Came From a Think Tank,” which stated that critics around the world were convinced that the Gulf War was not really about WMD or Hussein but about world domination and a new world order, where might makes right and that meant America. PNAC was cited as the source of these plans. It was stated that the zeal behind the American crusade was very disturbing. The article discusses Labour MP Tam Dalyell's outrage as well as American Senator Robert Byrd's fear that the war would be a blow against international law that could cause worldwide Anti-American sentiments.
Outrage would be the proper way to describe the reaction to Bush's PNAC infested administration, worldwide outrage. As more people began to understand the ulterior motives behind the PNAC influenced war, Bush's approval ratings began to drop. As he received increasing opposition to the policies he attempted to enact a slow replacement as many PNAC members began leaving their government positions. PNAC had reached the point where it no longer had the influence it once had because of a problem with overreaching its power. By late 2005, PNAC was defunct and no other postings have been made to their website since that time.
Policies Acted Upon by a PNAC Presidency
Did PNAC have any influence over the policies which have been acted upon by the Bush Administration? The answer would have to be a resounding yes. In this section I will discuss just a few Bush policies which carry a definite PNAC influence.
On October 2, 2003 a report came out that was written by Theresa Hitchens entitled, “U.S. Weaponization of Space: Implications for International Security,” which was printed in CDI Center for Defense Information, Space Security. In the report Hitchens states that the administration of G.W. Bush has put the country on the path to weaponizing space. She voices the opinion that such an achievement could cause a major shift in U.S. policy and international security which could have unpredictable consequences. The article explains the U.S. not only has more weapons but also out-spends all other nations when it comes to defense spending, especially space related defense. However, the U.S. still projects the idea that it suffers vulnerabilities in space while relying on assessments that have tended to hype any threats. It is stated that weaponizing space could be detrimental to U.S. relations with the rest of the world and to international stability.
Hitchens states that other nations that are not as technically advanced as the U.S. cannot be expected to allow an American hegemony in space. The article further states that both Russia and China, who would prefer a ban on weaponizing space, have made it known that a move by the U.S. to unilaterally deploy space based weapons would force them to change their policies and programs. According to Hitchens, “it is fairly reasonable to expect that if a space arms race were to erupt among the United States, Russia and China, other emerging space powers would feel pressured to also compete – in particular, India, Pakistan and Iran” (Hitchens, 2003). Other nations that could become actors in the race are France, Britain, Japan, Israel and Brazil. It is stressed that if it was felt the U.S. was about to use those weapons against another country many more nations would feel threatened and join the race. In this type of situation it is conceivable that it could escalate into a nuclear war on the ground.
A recent article carried by USA Today that was written on October 9, 2006 by David Leonard is entitled, “New Bush Space Policy Unveiled.” This article reveals that Bush signed the “National Space Policy” on August 31, 2006 which was a 10 page unclassified document. The document calls for NASA to “execute a sustained human and robotic exploration program.” Also revealed is that Bush supports space nuclear power systems which are consistent with U.S. national and homeland security interests and will enable unhindered U.S. operations to defend our interests. “The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed deny such freedom of action to adversaries” (Leonard, 2006).
Another article which was written by Marc Kaufman on October 18, 2006 and entitled, “Bush Sets Defense as Space Priority,” was printed by the Washington Post. Items of particular interest from this article include an announcement by Bush that rejects future arms-control agreements which would limit the U.S. in space and asserts Bush's right to deny space access to anyone. The article reviews a new policy revision which states the right of the U.S. to persuade other nations to support U.S. policy because freedom to act in space is just as important to the U.S. as air and sea power. The fact that the administration has refused to enter negotiations or formal discussions about the policy has begun to cause concern in other nations. This concern was increased when it was revealed that the new policy calls on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to provide the capability for newly deployed satellites to support multi-layered and integrated missile defenses. In the article it is further stated that in October 2005 the issue of banning space weapons came up for a vote in the U.N. The U.S. was the only nation to vote no against 160 yes votes.
The Effort to Control Cyberspace
Another area of interest to governmental policy making which was listed in PNAC's blueprint was the control of cyberspace. In an article carried by Sunday Herald of Scotland which was written by Neil Mackay on April 2, 2006 entitled, “America's War on the Web,” the Pentagon is developing technologies to wage war on the internet, in newspapers and through mobile phones. It is revealed that the new technology will include news reports which are designed to confuse the public, and the ability to remotely shut down computers, phones, radios or t.v. at will. The details of this technology can be seen in a report entitled, “The Information Operations Roadmap,” which was commissioned and approved by Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. The U.S. intends to force this technology by 2009 which will allow the domination of the internet and to launch cyber attacks. Included in this plan is the ability to use psyops in cyberspace to put out black propaganda to assist the government in the dissemination of lies and fake stories.
Furthermore, this article states that the U.S. wants to take control of the Earth's electromagnetic spectrum and use it to allow U.S. domination of mobile phones, PDAs, internet, radio, t.v. and all other forms of communication. However, this plan is causing concern for those who value freedom of speech. Mackay states that this technology was known to be a desire of PNAC in 2000.
From the first days of PNAC one of its charter members was Francis Fukuyama. Fukuyama was among those who celebrated the fall of Hussein which he had whole-heartedly supported since signing PNAC letters to this effect as far back as 1998. But as Hussein fell, Fukuyama was having misgivings about the invasion which were to soon become his belief that the Iraq War was a big mistake.
An article dated March 19, 2006 was printed in The Sunday Times (London), and was written by Sarah Baxter which was entitled, “Francis Fukuyama: I Was a Neocon, I Was Wrong.” This article relates the interview Baxter had with Fukuyama after his split from the Neocons because he felt the war was wrong in theory and practice, while the rest of the Neocons did not agree. For Fukuyama the evolution which was taking place among the Neocons was something he could no longer support. As a person who had been internationally active he was alarmed by a change in the type of anti-Americanism he was seeing, and which he was hearing from people who had been pro-American. He was also disturbed by the Neocons idea that democracy could be implemented at the point of a gun. Fukuyama is against the policy of preemptive war and it really shook him up when the Bush Administration used it. He stated he is not just shocked; he is appalled at the level of incompetence. He believes that Bush and PM Tony Blair should be blamed for starting the Iraq War which has isolated America as never before.
A Rose by any Other Name…
Although PNAC became defunct in 2005, the writing had been on the wall for awhile, and certainly long enough for alternative plans to be made to take up where PNAC would leave off. Thus, on July 20, 2004, CPD III was created in the image of others who had gone before it.
An article carried by The Washington Post, dated July 20, 2004 and written by Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl entitled, “The Present Danger,” heralded the launching of the Committee on the Present Danger. In this article Lieberman states that the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties are firm in their commitment to finish the job in Iraq but that the consensus is coming under increasing pressure from the public which could cause it to fray in the future. The CPD III, he stated, was being launched to prevent that fraying and garner more support for this war in Iraq and the wars that lie beyond. He stated that this third incarnation will focus on international terrorism by Islamics. Lieberman used the tragedy of 9/11 to justify the need for CPD III and the need to strike Iraq even though, by that time evidence had begun coming out that Iraq had nothing to do with it.
Lieberman used the article to spread fear of an evil worldwide jihad which in some ways was comparable to the communist threat that had been fought in the past. Lieberman said, “…the world war against Islamic terrorism is the test of our time…all Americans are the targets of their hate” (Lieberman, 2004). He wanted to convince the public that there would be an empire in the Middle East and the CPD III intended to push for strong policies that would favor the U.S.
The person who will head the panel is James Woolsey who had been a member of PNAC. In an article printed in The New York Sun and dated July 20, 2004 which was written by Eli Lake and is entitled, “Committee on the Present Danger is Being Revived,” it is revealed that several former members of PNAC will be part of CPD III as well. The people who have moved from PNAC to CPD III are a husband and wife team named Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter. Another person named Max Kampelman is also a member of the new CPD III. All three, Podhoretz, Decter and Kampelman had been members of the old CPD II. The article revealed that Decter felt the fight against the new enemy also meant people should support and defend the USA Patriot Act, which has been controversial since its inception. She also harbors the feeling that the tremendous amount of resistance to the policies being pushed by the government is irresponsible. She further states that, “Iraq is only one front in a larger war…being the greatest power in the world, we can't be finished” (Lake, 2004). This group does not specify target nations because they have found it easier to gain support this way.
In a speech given by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz on September 29, 2004 at Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. a transcript of which may be found on the U.S. Department of Defense website, Wolfowitz commends the new CPD III for understanding the need to keep the new threat in the minds of the citizens. Within the first few minutes Wolfowitz was using the tragedy of 9/11 in order to justify the attack on Iraq. He proceeded to compare the enemy of the day to the Nazis and Soviets of yesteryear. He informed the gathering that this new battle will take a long time and must be waged in multiple theaters with military force if necessary.
The new CPD III has its own website where one may find a list of the members, a Mission Statement, and an explanation of the perceived threat along with other links. A quick check under the link labeled Member's Views produces a list of group members. Along with Woolsey, Podhoretz, Decter and Kampelman who have previously been established as former PNAC members are two other former members, Clifford May and Joshua Muravchik. Under another link labeled The Threat one will see what CPD III considers to be the threat against the U.S. The first line of the first paragraph begins with the mention of September 11, 2001 and proceeds to describe how stunned even astute students of Islamic studies were at the sophistication of the 9/11 attack. CPD III then attempts to capitalize on the anthrax attacks which followed, in order to demonize this new enemy, although it had been found that the anthrax had originated within the American military establishment. According to a May 9, 2002 article written by Debora MacKenzie for New Scientist, entitled Anthrax attack bug ‘identical' to army strain, it is stated, “The DNA sequence of the anthrax sent through the US mail in 2001 has been revealed and confirms that the bacteria originally came from a US military laboratory at the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Ft. Detrick (USAMRIID), Maryland.”
This perceived threat exploited the memory of the 9/11 tragedy throughout its pages and attempts to tie Iraq to that event as much as it ties Osama bin Laden to it. To those who have taken the time to read PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, and especially Chapter 5, it becomes apparent that an innocent Iraq was to be blamed for the attack in order to provide a long sought after and previously planned justification to tamper with that sovereign nation. The supposed threat is worded in a way that portrays the 1.5 billion followers of Islam around the world of harboring delusions of Muslim victim-hood and labels them as evildoers with a propensity to all consuming hatred.
As has been noted earlier in this analysis, PNAC had actively sought an excuse to attack Iraq and to depose Hussein. Each of the letters which have been highlighted from PNAC's website urge the reader to attack not only Iraq but Iran as well, beginning six years before the Bush Administration accused Iraq of possessing non-existent WMD. In the four years since the attack upon Iraq no WMD have been found, however, that once modern country has descended into a nightmare of instability, blood shed, destroyed infrastructure and civil war. While no official records have been kept, the number of causalities among the Iraqi citizens is in the untold tens of thousands and the reasons why they had to die change frequently.
Although PNAC is now defunct it succeeded in getting the war it wanted. Even now, some of its main members are still players in the making of foreign policy in the nation's capital, in the IMF, and in other sensitive positions. Where once PNAC used the term ‘axis of evil' to refer to Iraq, Iran and North Korea, CPD III has taken up the call. While only the passage of time can reveal where this group will go, it should be noted that the same types of accusations which were used against Iraq are now being thrown at Iran. The story being told is almost the same and may cause some to come to the conclusion that only the name of the country and the ‘dictator du jour' has been changed. Just as Iraq had not attacked our country, neither has Iran and yet we have assumed a threatening posture towards it.
This analysis clearly illustrates the existence in both the past and the present, of small groups which have inserted themselves into positions of power within the government of the United States. It further illustrates that these groups have had strong, costly and sometimes devastating impact on the type and direction of foreign policies which have been followed for almost sixty years. A common denominator of these groups is the use of fear, propaganda and the demonization of ‘the other' in order to demand vast increases in military spending which inevitably profits members within these groups.
The research collected for this analysis strongly supports that subsequent incarnations have tended to witness a growing amount of influence and power with each ‘new birth.' Furthermore, each new generation has come closer to the shared desire of achieving world domination. However, the same research indicates that in each case as power was gained a sense of over-confidence and over-reach was gained as well which tended to cause an anxiety among the public and a heightened vigilance. In each case, as the public became more watchful these groups would lose effectiveness and eventually the influence that had been enjoyed.
As for the latest group, CPD III, only time will tell if the pattern will be repeated. However, there is a famous quote which research shows has been attributed to either Tacitus, Benjamin Franklin or Santayana, depending which source one is going with, which states, “Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” and is completely applicable here. Another quote that applies comes from Thomas Jefferson and states, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” The next quote I will add to this analysis is in respect to the present trend by authorities to label those who disagree with current policies as unpatriotic people who should not question either the government or its policies. The quote is from 1918 and was made by Theodore Roosevelt, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” The final quote that will be added is addressed to those who would force a document upon the people which is as unconstitutional as the Patriot Act, and then claim it is for our safety. It was said by Benjamin Franklin in 1755, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty, nor safety.”
If this research is to be expanded in the future a suggested arena which may yield interesting and enlightening results would be to ascertain the backgrounds of the entities which have funded or supported these groups and their corporate connections. Also of interest would be whether these entities made financial or political gains because of their support, and if so, what those gains consisted of. Finally, future research could be undertaken to compare PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, especially Chapter 5 of that document to Hitler's Mein Kampf, to ascertain what similarities may exist between them.
To TOP of PAGE
* Abrams, Elliott. (1997). “Statement of Principles.” Project for the New American Century. Retrieved Feb. 19, 2006, from, Website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
* Abrams, Elliott. (1998). “Dear Mr. President.” Project for the New American Century. Retrieved Feb. 19, 2007, from Website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
* Abrams, Elliott. (1998). “Dear Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott.” Project for the New American Century. Retrieved Feb. 19, 2007, from Website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
* Ballingrud, David. (2003). “Neocons espouse preemption policy.” St. Petersburg Online. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from Website: http://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/06/news_pf/Worldandnation/_Neocons_espouse_pre.shtml
* Barry, Tom. (2006). “The “Present Danger” War Parties.” International Relations Center. Retrieved Feb. 18, 2007, from Website: http://www.irc-online.org/content/3297
* Baxter, Sarah. (2006). “Francis Fukuyama: I was a Neocon. I was wrong.” The Sunday Times (London). Retrieved March 21, 2006, from Website: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2092153,00.html
* Bundy, McGeorge. Kennan, George F. McNamara, Robert S. Smith, Gerard C. (1982). “Nuclear Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance.” Foreign Affairs. Retrieved March 12, 2007, from Website: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19820301faessay8247/mcgeorge-bundy-george-f-kennan-robert-s-mnnamara-gerard-c-smith/nuclear-weapons-and-the-atlantic-alliance.html
* Committee on the Present Danger. (2004). “The Nature of the Global Threat.” Committee on the Present Danger. Retrieved March 22, 2007, from Website: http://www.fightingterror.org/threat/index.cfm
* David, Leonard. (2006). “New Bush space policy unveiled.” USAToday.com. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from Website: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-10-09-bush-space-policy_x.htm?csp=34
* Donnelly, Thomas. (2000). “Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” Project for the New American Century. Retrieved May 01, 2003, from Website: http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
* Hitchens, Theresa. (2003). “U.S. Weaponization of Space: Implications for International Security.” Center for Defense Information: Space Security. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from Website: http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1745
* Kaufman, Marc. (2006). “Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority.” Washingtonpost.com. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484.html
* Kingston, Margo. (2003). “A think tank war: Why old Europe says no.” Sydney Morning Herald Online. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from Website: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826528748.html
* Kirchick, James. (2004). “Cold Warriors return for war on terrorism.” The Hill. Retrieved March 4, 2007, from Website: http://thehill.com/mews/063004/coldwar.aspx
* Korb, Lawrence J. (2004). “It's Time to Bench “Team B.” Center for American Progress. Retrieved March 4, 2007, from Website: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/08/b140711.html
* Kristol, William. (2001). “Dear Mr. President.” Project for the New American Century. Retrieved Feb. 19, 2007, from Website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm
* Kristol, William. (2003). “Dear Mr. President.” Project for the New American Century. Retrieved Feb. 19, 2007, from Website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-200330123.htm
* Lake, Eli. (2004). “Committee on Present Danger is Being Revived.” The New York Sun. Retrieved March 23, 2007, from Website: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=232993&attrib_id=7377
* Lieberman, Joe. & Kyl, Jon. (2004). “The Present Danger.” Washingtonpost.com. Retrieved Feb. 18, 2007, from Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63067-2004Jul19.html
* Lobe, Jim. (2003). “Strong Must Rule the Weak, said Neo-Cons' Muse.” Inter Press Service News Agency. Retrieved April 16, 2006, from Website: http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=18038
* Mackay, Neil. (2006). “America's war on the web.” The Sunday Herald, (Scotland). Retrieved April 5, 2006, from Website: http://www.sundayherald.com/54975
* Mackay, Neil. (2002). “Bush planned Iraq ‘regime change' before becoming President.” The Sunday Herald, (Scotland). Retrieved Jan. 29, 2006, from Website: http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
* MacKenzie, Debora. (2002). “Anthrax attack bug ‘identical' to army strain.” NewScientist.com. Retrieved April 15, 2007, from Website: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2265&print=true
* Pear, Robert. (1981). “Reagan Aide Assails Pacifism in Europe.” The New York Times. World News, March 22, 1981.
* Sanders, Jerry W. “Peddlers of Crisis.” South End Press. Boston, Ma. 1983.
* Scheer, Robert. “With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush and Nuclear War.” New York: Vintage Books. New York, 1983.
* Schmitt, Gary. (2003). “Power & Duty: U.S. Action is Crucial to Maintaining World Order.” Project for the New American Century. Retrieved Feb. 18, 2007, from Website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/global-032303.htm
* Shank, Duane. (2003). “The Project for a New American Empire.” Sojourners Magazine. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from Website: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030911
* Stein, Herbert. “Board of Contributors A Perilous State of the Union. Wall Street Journal. New York, N.Y. Nov. 21, 1986.
* Wells, Samuel F. Jr. “Sounding the Tocsin: NSC 68 and the Soviet Threat.” International Security. Vol. 4, No. 2. (Autumn), The Mitt Press, 1979.
* Wolfowitz, Paul. “Speech to the Committee on the Present Danger and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.” U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved Feb. 18, 2007, from Website: http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=157
To TOP of PAGE
More Summary Documents on PNAC at Political Reference Page
(in "A HISTORY of High Crime..." section)
T H E A N N O T A T E D
Elaborated Descriptions of Links whereby you can get "the jist of the story" right here! ---
This page is here to say why each citizen needs to to give that 5 minutes a week
(See Christopher's Political Page for specifics as needed)
I. A HISTORY of High Crime - The Bush Cabal's Agendas & Relationships
(The same folks into Drugs, Oil, Arms, Power, & Mercenaries ("contractors") - "the DOAPM Mafia" since the 60's)
II. LIARS WARS (Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Lebonon, Caspian Basin ("Base"), Etc
IIa. DEPLETED URANIUM Weaponry ("DU")
III. Civil Liberties Changes & Implications,
including "The Original Homeland Security" and
=== Lots of Links on the CRITICAL VOTING situation, REFORM, etc ===
IV. Media Issues
V. Recovering Democracy, Peace Education, Related Attitudinal Change & Healing
VI. Responsible Shopping & Investment, Corporate Reform, & Economic Fairness Issues
(Other ref/links on this page likely: Word search/Find using keywords "econ," "cost," "spending" via your browser's edit or file menu).
VII. Veterans For Peace, More Alternatives to War, etc
Copyright/Disclosure/Editor & HomePage Info
Main Political Page Links (Essays, Etc)
On March 13-16, 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War members gathered near Washington DC to disclose the realities of U.S. war policy, to share eyewitness stories that have been censored from the American public about the true human cost of these occupations. You can listen to Audio Clips from Participating Veterans. Audio/video feeds from the Washington DC hearings are available to present at your local event. There are many ways to lend needed support. Monetary Cost Stats at Cost Of War .Com
Winter Soldier II
Is here and now to inspire the creation of the *real* UNITED STATES PEACE ACADEMY. Courses are now being set up to be taught in the Seattle area [Spring '07]. In the interim the vUSPA is here for students choosing alternatives in peace, to facilitates resources and connections to institutions of higher learning for lasting global peace. In utilizing this site, young people can also create a vital and permanent record of their sincere desire and choice to learn and wage the arts of peace, rather than the art of war as taught at the military academies - as well as establish Conscientious Objector Status.
To TOP of PAGE