Dark Passage: PNAC's Blueprint for Empire

[Guest guest]

http://empireburlesquenow.blogspot.com/2005/03/dark-passage-pnacs-blueprint-for.\

html

 

 

Sunday, March 27, 2005

 

Dark Passage: PNAC's Blueprint for Empire

(Original version published Sept. 20, 2002 in the Moscow Times. This

is the expanded version from the book, Empire Burlesque.)

 

 

 

 

Not since Mein Kampf has a geopolitical punch been so blatantly

telegraphed, years ahead of the blow.

 

Adolf Hitler clearly spelled out his plans to destroy the Jews and

launch wars of conquest to secure German domination of world affairs

in his 1925 book, long before he ever assumed power. Despite the

zig-zags of rhetoric he later employed, the various PR spins and

temporary justifications offered for this or that particular policy,

any attentive reader of his vile regurgitation could have divined his

intentions as he drove his country – and the world – to murderous

upheaval.

 

Similarly – in method, if not entirely in substance – the Bush

Regime's foreign policy is also being carried out according to a

strict blueprint first written ten years ago, then renewed a few

months before the Regime was installed in power by the judicial coup

of December 2000.

 

What does the plan call for? An attack on Iraq. Vast increases in

military spending. Planting new American bases all over the world,

from the jungles of South America to the steppes of Central Asia.

Embracing the concept of " pre-emptive war " and unilateral action as

cornerstones of national strategy.

 

These policies may seem like reactions to the " changed world "

confronting America after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But in fact,

each one of them – and many other policies now being advanced by the

Bush Administration – was planned long before the first plane ever

struck the doomed Twin Towers.

 

They are the handiwork of an obscure but influential conservative

group called Project for the New American Century (PNAC), whose

members – including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld – now sit in the

highest reaches of power. The papers they produced during the 1990s

are like a roadmap of the course that America is following – a course

which PNAC hopes will lead to a " benign " but utterly dominant

" American Empire. "

 

The Unipolar Moment

Not surprisingly, the roots of PNAC go back to the first Bush

Administration. In 1992, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney asked two

of his top aides, Paul Wolfowitz (now assistant secretary of Defense)

and Lewis Libby (now Cheney's chief of staff), to draw up a " Defense

Guidance Plan " to shape American strategy in the post-Cold War world.

They produced an aggressive, ambitious document calling for the

unilateral use of American military might to " discourage advanced

industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to

a larger regional or global role. " Military intervention would be " a

constant fixture " of what Wolfowitz and Libby called a " new order "

which the United States – not the United Nations – would " establish

and protect. "

 

The goal was to seize the opportunity offered by the collapse of the

Soviet Union – which left the United States without a serious

international rival – and extend this " unipolar moment " of American

dominance for decades to come; indeed, into a " New American Century. "

 

The report was leaked in the midst of the 1992 presidential campaign,

sparking controversy over its " imperial ambitions, " and was publicly

disowned by President George H.W. Bush. After the Bush team was

defeated by Bill Clinton, a lame-duck Cheney finally issued a

watered-down version of the paper as official policy. The Clinton

Administration then scrapped it upon taking office.

 

But the unipolar vision of American dominance was not forgotten.

During the 1990s, it was refined and expanded their ideas in a number

of conservative think tanks – the American Enterprise Institute (AEI),

the Hudson Institute, the Center for Security Policy and others –

whose memberships often overlapped. And now that they were out of

office, the advocates of dominance could speak more freely.

 

One former member of Cheney's Defense Department team, Zalmay

Khalilzad (now Bush's special emissary to Afghanistan), wrote openly

that the U.S. must " be willing to use force " to express its " global

leadership " and preclude the rise of potential rivals. Others, such as

former Reagan official and AEI stalwart Richard Perle (now head of the

Pentagon's Defense Policy Board) and Douglas Feith (now assistant

secretary of Defense), worked with Israel's Likud Party, drawing up

plans calling for American-led " regime change " efforts in Iraq, Syria,

Iran and Saudi Arabia.

 

Finally, in 1997, Project for the New American Century was formed as a

focal point for disseminating the dominance ideal. It was a " big tent "

of Great Power adherents: Beltway players like Cheney, Rumsfeld,

Wolfowitz, former Vice President Dan Quayle, and former Reagan

education secretary turned public scold, William Bennett; Christian

" social conservatives " like Gary Bauer; and the so-called

" neoconservatives " (often former Democrats whose staunch

anti-communism had led them to the Reagan Right), including Elliot

Abrams, who'd been convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra

scandal but was pardoned by George Bush Sr. (and now serves on the

White House director of Middle East policy). Other notable figures

joining PNAC included the Afghan-born Khalilzad, publisher and

presidential candidate Steve Forbes, and Jeb Bush, younger brother of

the president-to-be.

 

" A New Pearl Harbor "

PNAC fired its first shot across the bow in 1998, with letters to

President Clinton and Congressional leaders calling for " regime

change " in Iraq, by force if necessary, and the establishment of a

" strong U.S. military presence in the region. " Then in September 2000,

just months before the disputed election that brought George W. Bush

to power, the group published a highly detailed, 90-page " blueprint "

for transforming America's military – and the nation's role on the

world stage.

 

The document, " Rebuilding America's Defenses, " acknowledged its

adherence to the " basic tenets " of the controversial 1992

Wolfowitz-Libby report, and advocated a series of " transformations " in

national defense and foreign affairs. These included:

 

--- Projecting American dominance with a " worldwide network of forward

operating bases " – some permanent, others " temporary access

arrangements " as needed for various military interventions – in the

Middle East, Asia and Latin America. These additions to America's

already-extensive overseas deployments would act as " the cavalry on

the new American frontier " – a frontier that PNAC declared now

extended throughout the world.

 

--- Withdrawing from arms control treaties to allow for the

development of a global missile shield, the deployment of space-based

weapons and the production of a new generation of " battlefield nuclear

weapons, " especially " bunker-busters " for penetrating underground

fortifications.

 

--- Raising the U.S. military budget to at least 3.8 percent of gross

domestic product, with annual increases of tens of billions of dollars

each year.

 

--- Developing sophisticated new technologies to " control the global

commons of cyberspace " by closely monitoring communications and

transactions on the Internet.

 

--- Pursuing the development of " new methods of attack – electronic,

'non-lethal, biological…in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace and

perhaps the world of microbes. " Just this month, Defense Secretary

Rumsfeld was complaining to Congress about long-standing international

chemical weapons treaties which have " tangled us up so badly " and

prevented the use of non-lethal chemical arms in subduing enemy armies

– and enemy populations.

 

--- Developing the ability to " fight and decisively win multiple,

simultaneous major theater wars. " This means moving beyond the

" two-war standard " of preparedness which has guided U.S. strategy

since World War II in order to account for " new realities and

potential new conflicts. " It lists countries such as Iraq, Iran,

Syria, North Korea and Libya as targets for those potential new

conflicts, and urges Pentagon warplanners to consider not merely

containing them or defeating them in battle, but " changing their regimes. "

 

Oddly enough, although " regime change " in Iraq was still clearly a

priority for PNAC, it had little to do with Saddam Hussein and his

brutal policies or his aggressive tendencies. Instead, removing Saddam

was tied to the larger goal of establishing a permanent U.S. military

presence in the Persian Gulf in order to " secure energy supplies " and

preclude any other power from dominating the vital oil regions of the

Middle East and Central Asia. The PNAC report puts it quite plainly:

 

" The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent

role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with

Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial

American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime

of Saddam Hussein. "

 

This is why the Bush Regime has offered a constantly shifting menu of

rationales for the impending attack on Iraq: because the decision to

remove Saddam was taken long ago, as part of a larger strategic plan,

and has little to do with any imminent threat from the broken-backed

Iraqi regime, which is constantly bombed, partially occupied (with

U.S. forces already working in the autonomous Kurdish territories) and

now swarming with UN inspectors. If the strategic need for the attack

" transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein, " then almost

any rationale will do.

 

Perhaps due to the presence of Washington heavyweights like Cheney and

Rumsfeld, the PNAC report recognized that thorny political

difficulties could stand in the way of implementing the group's

radical designs. Indeed, in one of the most striking and prescient

passages in the entire 90-page document, PNAC acknowledged that the

" revolutionary " changes it envisaged could take decades to bring about

– unless, that is, the United States was struck by " some catastrophic

and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. "

 

The Path of Action

That " new Pearl Harbor " did come, of course, in the thunderclap of

September 11, 2001. And the PNAC alumni now in government were quick

to capitalize on this " catalyzing event. " All of the PNAC

recommendations listed above were put into place, with almost no

debate from a shellshocked Congress and a populace reeling from the

unprecedented assault on American security. In the very first days

following the attack, Rumsfeld urged the Bush cabinet to make " Iraq a

principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism, "

despite the lack of any proof connecting Baghdad to the terrorist

atrocity, according to Bob Woodward's insider account, Bush at War.

 

But Rumsfeld was overruled by Colin Powell, who counseled that " public

opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible. " So

the " war on terrorism " was launched initially against Afghanistan,

where the Taliban regime was harboring Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden

and his band of international extremists. The attack on Afghanistan

was accompanied by the construction of new American bases and

" temporary access arrangements " throughout Central Asia, giving

America a military " footprint " in the strategically vital region for

the first time. At the same time, new U.S. forces were dispatched to

East Asia, to the Philippines, Indonesia and elsewhere, and to South

America, to help Colombia combat " narco-terrorists " and to protect

that nation's vital oil pipelines.

 

Meanwhile, at home, military budgets skyrocketed to deal with the " new

realities and potential new conflicts. " The Bush Administration

withdrew from the landmark ABM arms control treaty and began

construction of missile defense facilities. There were new funds and

more research for the militarization of outer space (dubbed " Full

Spectrum Dominance " ), and the development of " non-lethal " biochemical

weapons. Pentagon technicians, led by another convicted Iran-Contra

figure, John Poindexter, began the development of Internet

" data-mining " and monitoring technology (which, despite some recent

Congressional restrictions, continues today). And the U.S. announced a

new " nuclear posture, " including the willingness to use tactical

nuclear weapons – a move supported by the Republican-led House of

Representatives, which approved Pentagon plans to develop the

" bunker-buster " nukes specifically recommended by PNAC.

 

" The Savage Wars of Peace "

The existence of PNAC and its influence on the Bush Administration is

not some " conspiracy theory. " It follows a pattern frequently seen in

American history: a group of like-minded people band together in think

tanks, foundations, universities and other institutions, where they

lay out their vision for America's future. And when they at last have

access to the levers of power, they try to make that vision a reality.

 

What is different now is that the September 11 attacks have given this

particular group an unprecedented amount of political capital – not to

mention cold, hard federal cash – to put their long-held dreams into

practice, virtually without opposition. (In contrast, consider the

bitterly partisan political struggles between Congress and Lincoln

during the Civil War.) What is also different is the essential content

of that vision: the establishment – by force – of an American Empire.

 

This Empire is to be different from the old Roman or British models,

of course. It will not entail settlement or direct control of foreign

lands, but will instead offer paternal " protection " and " guidance " –

backed up with strategically placed military bases and " temporary

access arrangements " for the inevitable " constabulatory duties "

required to enforce PNAC's longed-for " Pax Americana. " However, the

intent is not outright conquest, but the chance to bring " the single

sustainable model of national success " to all the world, to set

people, and their markets, free – as long as no " regional or global

challenges to America's leadership " arise, of course.

 

But there will be costs to taking up what Thomas Donnelly, the

principal author of the PNAC blueprint, calls " the free man's burden. "

Donnelly, a former journalist and legislative aide, wrote in the

journal Foreign Affairs last year that America should look to its

" imperial past " as a guide to its future. Reviewing The Savage Wars of

Peace, a pro-Empire book by journalist Max Boot, Donnelly cites

approvingly the " pacification " of the Philippines by American forces

in 1898-1900, in which at least 100,000 Filipinos were killed in a bid

for independence. He also points to the U.S. Army's success in

subduing the Native American tribes in a series of small wars, and,

closer to our time, the efficient " constabulatory operation " in

Panama, which was invaded by the first President Bush in 1989. Similar

" savage wars of peace " – pacifications, counterinsurgencies, police

actions, invasions – will be required to maintain the new American

Empire, says Donnelly.

 

And here too, George W. Bush has clearly echoed the thinking of the

PNAC members who now surround him in the White House. Speaking at a

Republican fundraiser last August, the President seemed keenly aware

of the heavy price in blood and treasure the nation will have to pay

to maintain its imperium in the New American Century: " There's no

telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland. "

 

The Beautiful Song of War

These texts spring from the Dominators' quasi-religious cult of

" American exceptionalism, " the belief in the unique and utter goodness

of the American soul – embodied chiefly by the nation's moneyed elite,

of course – and the irredeemable, metaphysical evil of all those who

would oppose or criticize the elite's righteous (and conveniently

self-serving) policies.

 

Anyone still " puzzled " over the Bush Regime's behavior need only look

to these documents for enlightenment. They have long been available to

the media – which accepted Bush's transparent campaign lies about a

" more humble foreign policy " at face value – but have only now started

attracting wider notice, in the New Yorker this spring, and this week

in the Glasgow Sunday Herald.

 

The documents explain America's relentless march across Afghanistan,

Central Asia and soon into the Middle East. They explain the Bush

Regime's otherwise unfathomable rejection of international law, its

fanatical devotion to so-called " missile defense, " its gargantuan

increases in military spending – even its antediluvian energy policy,

which mandates the continued primacy of oil and gas in the world

economy. (They can't conquer the sun or monopolize the wind, so

there's no profit, no leverage for personal gain and geopolitical

power in pursuing viable alternatives to oil.) The Sept. 11 attacks

gave the Regime a pretext for greatly accelerating this published

program of global dominance, but they would have pursued it in any case.

 

So there will be war: either soon, after immediately the November

mid-term elections, or – in the event that Iraq's new offer for

inspections is accepted – then later, after some " provocation " or

" obstruction, " no doubt in good time before the 2004 presidential

vote. The purse-lipped rhetoric about " evil " and " moral clarity " is

just so much desert sand being thrown in our eyes. Backstage, the Bush

Regime is playing Mafia-style hardball, warning reluctant allies to

get on board now, or else miss out on their cut of the loot when

America – not a " democratic Iraq " – divvies up Saddam's oilfields: a

shakedown detailed last week by the Economist, among many others.

 

The Dominators dream of empire. Not only will it extend their temporal

power, they believe it will also give them immortality. Indeed, one of

their chief gurus, Reaganite firebreather Michael Ledeen, says that if

the Dominators have the courage to reject " clever diplomacy " and " just

wage total war " to subjugate the Middle East, " our children will sing

great songs about us years from now. " * This madness, this bin

Laden-like megalomania is now driving the hijacked American republic –

and the world – to murderous upheaval.

 

It's all there in the text, set down in black and white.

 

Read it and weep.

 

Chris Floyd