PNAC - Project for the New American Century - Is It For Real?

Here is something that I have stumbled upon every now and again, never
really read anything about it here, so I will now bring it up:

PNAC (Project for a New American Century). It's supposed to be a blueprint not too far from the Bush Administration's National Security Strategy, and headed up by Cheney, and others on the panel are now key members of the Administration. So the story goes:

PNAC.info Exposing the Project for the New American Century,

Project for the New American Century
(webpage)

Rebuilding America's Defenses
(a 90 page report that requires Adobe Reader). There is an abreviated copy somewhere that I have read, (but unfortunately can not find at the moment) and if there is any truth to it, I found it to be fascinating, and frightening.

Anyway, there are lots and lots of links and stuff to read about the whole thing. What I'm wondering, however is whether there is any truth to it or not. If there is truth to it, I'm surprised that I haven't seen it here at ATS.

Although, it's quite possible that I missed it. I do that far too often.

Any feedback from anyone?

CyberKat

Its,stuff they give here in Europe to understand the neo-conservatists ...

Its about the mic being reactivated back to the old days of military might scary stuff butt thats just one of the many possibility's of the iraqi war...

I have seen it discussed on ats somwhere very deep

and forgotten.

i think it will be clear next us election how strong the pnac idea is iff you see back the same tendency of the current administraty then youl have an answer how credibell it is that the pnac ideology is a live or not.

Yes, PNAC is one of MANY think-tanks that operate for both sides in Washington. They are constantly putting out hypothetical scenarios for political consumption. The organization and documents are real.

I know of one thread on "Rebuilding America's Defenses" , found here.

As I posted there in reference to a supposed mention of the invasion of Iraq :

The document mentions "force presence". This is simply the presence of forces in the region. Nowhere is a regime change, invasion, or other action against any Middle Eastern country mentioned. This is simply a long-term strategy document, the likes of which the U.S. government and think tanks have used throughout the years.

The one thing I forgot to mention in my original post, and strangely, it was thinking about just that that for some reason got me thinking about what I had read before about PNAC, and partially why I wanted to post it.

That was that somewhere in one of those many documents, it is stated that Cheney had remarked that it would be almost impossible to talk the American Public into a war against Iraq - not without something like another Pearl Harbor.

Did he, to the best of anyone's knowledge really say or write that? And if so, was 9/11 "another Pearl Harbor"?

Just a few former members of PNAC who are now or were in the past (there are a bunch more than this) members of the Bush administration include:

Dpty Sec. of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
Dpty Sec. of State Richard Armitage
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
VP Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Vice President Cheney

The white paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was published in September of 2000, prior to the election of 2000, and about a year prior to 9-11. It advocated, among other things (pasting from the document itself so any capitalization isn't for emphasis on my part):

"effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defenses," as a "prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence."

"HOMELAND DEFENSE."

"budget levels to be increased to 3.5 to 3.8 percent of the GDP."

"MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance."

"RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the “Base Force” outlined by the" (first) "Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million."

"REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia."

"CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control."

Some interesting quotes include:

"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

"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."

"We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself."

"Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has."

"adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons"

"the theater-war analysis done for the QDR assumed that Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein each could begin a war – perhaps even while employing chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons – and the United States would make no effort to unseat militarily either ruler. In both cases, 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 and conduct post-combat stability operations."

"Keeping the American peace requires the U.S. military to undertake a broad array of missions today and rise to very different challenges tomorrow, but there can be no retreat from these missions without compromising American leadership and the benevolent order it secures."

"U.S. nuclear superiority is nothing to be ashamed of; rather, it will be an essential element in preserving American leadership in a more complex and chaotic world."

The above is not meant to imply or indict anyone or anything. I'm just trying to answer the questions asked. It should be pointed out that of all the PNAC members that are or were part of the current administration, the only ones who were signatories of the paper were Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dov Sakheim.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
[...........................] The white paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was published in September of 2000, prior to the election of 2000, and about a year prior to 9-11. It advocated, among other things [...........]

[............] Some interestingt quotes include: [..................] "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

A year prior to 9-11, which makes me wonder if that "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" could really have been 9-11 in the planning.

[....................] "REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia."

GWB had his Dad & Clinton go to Indonesia after the tsunami to talk "nicely" to the devastated people there while they were vulnerable, while having the Military bring them supplies, and "gently" let them know that while the rebuilding, etc... would be left totally to the victims, that there would be a U.S. Military presense. Could this be a way of "strategicly" establishing a Military base in one of the areas of the Globe where there was none before? As laid out in the above quote?

"CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control."

It seems as if the US has been trying to establish control over outerspace for a while now, and more recently, it certainly does seem as if they are trying hard to control cyberspace (the Internet).

Some interesting quotes include:


[..........................]
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 and conduct post-combat stability operations."

They certainly forsaw that! But have yet to do much about it, IMO.

"Keeping the American peace requires the U.S. military to undertake a broad array of missions today and rise to very different challenges tomorrow, but there can be no retreat from these missions without compromising American leadership and the benevolent order it secures."

Yeah, "Stay the course". Also makes me wonder if we have never been told of an exact exit strategy, becaue there possibly isn't one. It sounds to me (my opinion only, of course) that the government has no intention of bringing back any healthy, still able to function troops from Iraq. Perhaps move them to other new or established bases around the world, but not home.

[....................]

It should be pointed out that of all the PNAC members that are or were part of the current administration, the only ones who were signatories of the paper were Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dov Sakheim.

And of course, Dick Cheney

Good, interesting response, AceWombat04. Thank you.

More feedback anyone? As somehow this is starting to seem as if at least some of it really is falling into place, as outlined pre-9/11. I think.

Cheney wasn't a signatory of the paper, technically (just me being anal lol).

Yes, pretty much everything in the paper (repeated mention of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as if part of a triad almost, nuclear redeployment and better nuclear R&D, military modernization and transformation away from cold-war era strategy and footprint, homeland-defense emphasis, new Pearl Harbor, DoD budget increases - which until they exceeded them a while back mirrored the numbers in the paper precisely give or take - and so forth) have become policy.

I'm not saying whether I think that's a good thing or a bad thing, nor am I implying anything or suggesting anything. Just pointing it out.

To get a clear understanding, read their stuff, and then do a little perusing of the CFR and Trilateralist Commission.
Some want to think that PNAC is an American answer to the Elitist groups like the other two mentioned. I don't think so as there are crossovers. They are all different angles working toward the same goal.

TC, I have read a lot of the stuff put out by and about PNAC. I find it fascinating, a little too outrageous to be believable.....but lately, I have been seeing some of the stuff written in 2000 beginning to take shape. That, I find frightening.

As far as the CFR, isn't that the Council on Foreign Relations? If so, I have run into some of their stuff, but not really read it. On your recommendation, though, now I will. Thank you.

The Trilateralist Commission, I may have vaguely heard of, but know virtually nothing about. I will look them up also, as if I am to become interested in a subject, I would like to be aware of all aspects of it.

Thanks for your input.

Not sure how or if this is related, but I just ran across a publcation by Dick Cheney and apparently his wife:
Kings of the Hill: How Nine Powerful Men Changed the Course of American History.

Seems scarey, IMO.

Ace, I, too, have read this, I did read the PNAC proposal and also Bush's foreign policy, which was declared sometime inhis first year of presidency. They state pretty much the same goals. One of the things that I find really scary is the idea that it's OK for the U.S. to start a pre-emptive war for no reason other than that our govt thinks there MIGHT be a country planning to harm us. Considering the faulty intelligence that was used to start the Iraq war, this is indeed scary. We are also the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons, which is even scarier when you consider our "right" to strike preemptively, as stated by Bush, Cheney, et al.

Paul Wolfowitze was a major architect of our PNAC/foreign policy. The PNAC paper was written several years ago, before 2000, I believe.

-Forestlady

Is anything from this site real -- Project for the Old American Century

It's somewhat left-biased but there must be a little truth in it, no? I'm asking because I really don't know much about your politics (U.S.)

I've read some of the stuff in the PNAC manual mentioned earlier in the post -- just skimmed through it -- and some parts surprise me as well.

Here's an interesting read:

Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids
The author, Jim Marrs is an award-winning journalist and has written other conspiracy related books, notably Crossfire, about the JFK assassination.

Several members of the right wing media, who you would recognize, were involved in the Project for a New American Century. Guys like Bill Kristol, Byron York, and many others speak openly about PNAC. In fact, it's a badge of honor among the neocons to have been involved with it.

There are so many of these ultra-right "think tanks" that are funded by corporate donors that it's hard to keep them straight any more. The entire strategy of the Republican party to try to win voters based on a "family values" agenda was the product of such a think tank. It's only recently started to be discussed among true conservatives that with all the talk of "values-based" voters and the Republican's being the party of values, that there hasn't been a single piece of legislations to come out of the congress since the GOP came to power in 1994 that actually encourages a socially conservative agenda. So, it's been a big boondoggle. Vote for someone to stop abortion, and they give tax breaks to the rich. Vote for someone to stop a "gay agenda" and medicare gets cut. Vote for more religion in schools, and funding for education is cut across the board.

Seriously, I encourage anyone to list a single bit of socially conservative legislation that's been enacted since the GOP came to power or even since both Congress and the White House has been Republican. The Red State voters have been the biggest suckers since P.T. Barnum. All they've gotten is talk talk talk.

Sorry people, but what is "GOP"? I keep seeing that written here and there but I still can't make any inferences as to what that is

GOP is short for "Grand Old Party", a nickname for the Republican Party. It was first used in 1876.

Nice work Cyberkat!
PNAC was spawned from the Straussian disciples from the University of Chicago. Leo Strauss was an economist and a devout Zionist whose students have included Irving Kristol [William's father], Wolfowitz, Perle, Stanley Hilton and Dick Cheney.
Hilton's thesis while there was about the creation of a new Pearl Harbor and the manipulation of a populous by fabricated fear. Hilton is now, btw, attempting to suit the govermnet over there 9/11 deceptions. He's having little luck getting anyone to hear this case.

Originally posted by YIAWETA
Nice work Cyberkat!
PNAC was spawned from the Straussian disciples from the University of Chicago. Leo Strauss was an economist and a devout Zionist whose students have included Irving Kristol [William's father], Wolfowitz, Perle, Stanley Hilton and Dick Cheney.
Hilton's thesis while there was about the creation of a new Pearl Harbor and the manipulation of a populous by fabricated fear. Hilton is now, btw, attempting to suit the govermnet over there 9/11 deceptions. He's having little luck getting anyone to hear this case.

Thank you, WIAWETA. You comment is appreciated and informative. I know (obviously) that there is much talk among groups like ours, and many others of 9/11 deceptions, etc.... but I didn't know that there is actually someone who sounds like a well studied man (just my opinion from what little I have heard of him) really attempting to sue over it.

I am afraid that if if hasn't received much luck in getting anyone to hear his case so far, that for reasons that are beyond me, he proably won't. I say this because if there was really, truly no cover-up, no attempt to manipulate the public through fabricated fear, etc..... then in all fairness, why else would any court refuse to hear both/all sides of someting so big that it has led to much speculation, had the world just about turned upside down and inside out? I'm afraid that no one will hear the case because it could easily open up a whole new can or worms that the Bush Administration is not up to dealing with.

I wish him luck anyway, however in getting his case heard - loudly!

it is only too bad that such brains that are behind this sinister plans dont do something good gor humanity for a change and realize, that on the grand scheme of things they are just tiny creatures with gigantic egos. One sunflare and it all burns. One shake of the pacha mama and we are all dust....and look what this people are doing. Shamefull....
I guess its suppose to happen and then backfire on them as it always has.
But many more will have to die and its going to get a lot worse before it gets better imho and like the quote from a famous movie goes, "their overconfidence will be their doom".

PNAC is scary stuff. Too bad very few people know about it.

Anybody here seen the three part BBC documentary about the neoconservatives, "The Power of Nightmares"? It's sad how most Bush critics praise it and say that it really expose's the neocons for what they are, when in fact the documentary intentionally leaves out all the really aggravating bits like PNAC and "Rebuilding America's Defenses". The documentary series is three hours long, it covers the history of neoconservatives from the 50's to today, but never mentions PNAC.