chocalate_topaz
I wanna be your lover...
Received this in an email. Any thoughts as to the validity of it?
The president's real goal in Iraq -> Pax Americana
Friends Committee on Unity with Nature
>
> The president's real goal in Iraq
> by Jay Bookman
>
> (Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor of The Atlanta
> Journal- Constitution)
> http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html
>
> The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection
> that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and
> al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it
> was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration
> would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence. The pieces
> just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was
> missing.
>
> In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall
> into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is
> not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam,
> or U.N. resolutions. This war, should it come, is intended to
> mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-
> fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority
> as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10
> years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the
> United States must seize the opportunity for global domination,
> even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our
> enemies always claimed we were.
>
> Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For
> example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an
> exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
>
> Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United
> States will create permanent military bases in that country from
> which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran. In
> an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed
> aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not
> covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years
> after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany
> and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.
>
> And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing
> and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years?
> Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not
> allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath
> us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered.
> And so should we.
>
> Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group
> of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in
> the Bush administration: They envision the creation and
> enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or
> American peace. But so far, the American people have not
> appreciated the true extent of that ambition. Part of it's laid
> out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each
> administration outlines its approach to defending the country.
>
> The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a
> significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it
> attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11. To address the
> terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly
> aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive
> attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of
> what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring
> international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best
> defense is a good offense," the document asserts. It dismisses
> deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing
> or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."
>
> In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and
> economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by
> international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality,
> it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.
> "The United States will require bases and stations within and
> beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns,
> "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance
> deployment of U.S. troops."
>
> The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading,
> however, because the approach of the new National Security
> Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They
> can be found in much the same language in a report issued in
> September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a
> group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought
> that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global
> empire. "At no time in history has the international security
> order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the
> report said. Stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming
> century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.'
>
> Familiar themes.
>
> Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush
> defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush
> administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project
> report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty
> and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The
> administration has taken that course. It recommended that to
> project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the
> United States would have to increase defense spending from 3
> percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For
> next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget
> of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP. It advocates
> the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded
> obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense
> programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the
> message being preached by Rumsfeld and others. It urges the
> development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the
> very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by
> many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S.
> House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon,
> called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has
> so far balked.
>
> That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is
> hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who
> contributed to the 2000 report. Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy
> defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state.
> Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program,
> Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members
> of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis
> Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov
> Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.
>
> 'Constabulary duties'
>
> Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the
> authors of the project report could be more frank and less
> diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security
> Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and
> North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President
> Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they
> criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and
> Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no
> consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to
> defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power." To
> preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be
> required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States
> acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions
> "demand American political leadership rather than that of the
> United Nations."
>
> To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country
> dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much
> larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in
> addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are
> already deployed. More specifically, they argue that we need
> permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe,
> in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now
> exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our
> post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed
> to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as
> our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil
> war in Colombia.
>
> The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier
> document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That
> document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus
> astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace
> through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft
> form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was
> hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.
>
> Effect on allies
>
> The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document
> was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense
> undersecretary for policy. The potential implications of a Pax
> Americana are immense. One is the effect on our allies. Once we
> assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our
> allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we
> will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood
> protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to
> such things as health care for their citizenry.
>
> Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and
> an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he
> served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project --
> acknowledges that likelihood. "If [our allies] want a free ride,
> and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also
> argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no
> choice but to act anyway. "You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he
> asks. "We're Gary Cooper."
>
> Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we
> are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international
> arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a
> change. It is not something that he or others have dared to
> discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in
> his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated
> a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to
> voters leery of military intervention.
>
> For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as
> empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that
> it would be na > has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly
embraces the
> idea that the United States would establish permanent military
> bases in a post-war Iraq. "I think that's highly possible," he
> says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in
> the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a
> price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have
> economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil
> supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption
> in oil supplies."
>
> Costly global commitment
>
> Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq
> will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for
> nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive
> position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take
> place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction
> "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting
> attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.
> Kagan is more blunt. "People worry a lot about how the Arab
> street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab
> street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing
> things up."
>
> The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000,
> we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the
> next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have
> risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our
> defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount
> spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.
>
> The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the
> millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its
> behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of
> the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the
> feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not
> seize it at the time, in large part because the American people
> have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.
>
> Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given
> those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case
> with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we
> are really debating the role that the United States will play in
> the years and decades to come.
>
> Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances
> and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it
> necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and
> enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history
> has thrust upon us?
>
> If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision
> knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is
> always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting
> it would be higher still.
>
> That's what this is about.
The president's real goal in Iraq -> Pax Americana
Friends Committee on Unity with Nature
>
> The president's real goal in Iraq
> by Jay Bookman
>
> (Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor of The Atlanta
> Journal- Constitution)
> http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html
>
> The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection
> that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and
> al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it
> was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration
> would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence. The pieces
> just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was
> missing.
>
> In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall
> into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is
> not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam,
> or U.N. resolutions. This war, should it come, is intended to
> mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-
> fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority
> as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10
> years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the
> United States must seize the opportunity for global domination,
> even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our
> enemies always claimed we were.
>
> Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For
> example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an
> exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
>
> Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United
> States will create permanent military bases in that country from
> which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran. In
> an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed
> aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not
> covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years
> after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany
> and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.
>
> And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing
> and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years?
> Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not
> allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath
> us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered.
> And so should we.
>
> Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group
> of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in
> the Bush administration: They envision the creation and
> enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or
> American peace. But so far, the American people have not
> appreciated the true extent of that ambition. Part of it's laid
> out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each
> administration outlines its approach to defending the country.
>
> The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a
> significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it
> attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11. To address the
> terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly
> aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive
> attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of
> what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring
> international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best
> defense is a good offense," the document asserts. It dismisses
> deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing
> or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."
>
> In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and
> economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by
> international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality,
> it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.
> "The United States will require bases and stations within and
> beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns,
> "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance
> deployment of U.S. troops."
>
> The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading,
> however, because the approach of the new National Security
> Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They
> can be found in much the same language in a report issued in
> September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a
> group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought
> that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global
> empire. "At no time in history has the international security
> order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the
> report said. Stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming
> century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.'
>
> Familiar themes.
>
> Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush
> defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush
> administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project
> report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty
> and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The
> administration has taken that course. It recommended that to
> project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the
> United States would have to increase defense spending from 3
> percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For
> next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget
> of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP. It advocates
> the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded
> obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense
> programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the
> message being preached by Rumsfeld and others. It urges the
> development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the
> very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by
> many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S.
> House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon,
> called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has
> so far balked.
>
> That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is
> hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who
> contributed to the 2000 report. Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy
> defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state.
> Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program,
> Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members
> of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis
> Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov
> Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.
>
> 'Constabulary duties'
>
> Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the
> authors of the project report could be more frank and less
> diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security
> Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and
> North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President
> Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they
> criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and
> Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no
> consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to
> defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power." To
> preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be
> required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States
> acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions
> "demand American political leadership rather than that of the
> United Nations."
>
> To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country
> dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much
> larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in
> addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are
> already deployed. More specifically, they argue that we need
> permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe,
> in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now
> exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our
> post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed
> to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as
> our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil
> war in Colombia.
>
> The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier
> document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That
> document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus
> astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace
> through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft
> form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was
> hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.
>
> Effect on allies
>
> The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document
> was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense
> undersecretary for policy. The potential implications of a Pax
> Americana are immense. One is the effect on our allies. Once we
> assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our
> allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we
> will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood
> protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to
> such things as health care for their citizenry.
>
> Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and
> an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he
> served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project --
> acknowledges that likelihood. "If [our allies] want a free ride,
> and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also
> argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no
> choice but to act anyway. "You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he
> asks. "We're Gary Cooper."
>
> Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we
> are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international
> arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a
> change. It is not something that he or others have dared to
> discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in
> his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated
> a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to
> voters leery of military intervention.
>
> For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as
> empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that
> it would be na > has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly
embraces the
> idea that the United States would establish permanent military
> bases in a post-war Iraq. "I think that's highly possible," he
> says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in
> the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a
> price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have
> economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil
> supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption
> in oil supplies."
>
> Costly global commitment
>
> Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq
> will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for
> nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive
> position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take
> place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction
> "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting
> attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.
> Kagan is more blunt. "People worry a lot about how the Arab
> street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab
> street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing
> things up."
>
> The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000,
> we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the
> next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have
> risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our
> defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount
> spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.
>
> The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the
> millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its
> behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of
> the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the
> feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not
> seize it at the time, in large part because the American people
> have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.
>
> Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given
> those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case
> with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we
> are really debating the role that the United States will play in
> the years and decades to come.
>
> Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances
> and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it
> necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and
> enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history
> has thrust upon us?
>
> If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision
> knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is
> always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting
> it would be higher still.
>
> That's what this is about.