The New American Century

Somewhere in here is the New American Century document which I heard mentioned by a politician over the last few days. Written by Rumsfeld and Cheney back in 1998-ish it allegedly states that invading and taking over Iraq was the first stage in effectively taking over and controlling the Middle East for the benefit of the US. In other words the ‘smoking gun’ us doves have been looking for in the whole “this is a war for oil” thang.

I’m going to have a good dig through when I have more time / am not on dialup, but if you find it yourself, so link to it in the comments.

Update: found it

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

This entry was posted in Posts. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The New American Century

  1. Dad says:

    I’m sorry, Pete. I just don’t see what the fuss is about, other than the signatories are all Republicans. Clinton was a ditherer who wanted to please all the people all the time. It is only natural that those with more focused ideas and ideals would write a letter with this degree of firmness.

    The past 12 years of UN ineptitude has largely resulted from George Bush’s decision not to pursue Saddam beyond the borders of Kuwait in 1991and then from Clinton’s lassitude. 9/11 changed everything as far as the US is concerned. I am pleased to note that the majority of the British Government feels the same way about what has to be done.

    The future is not going to be easy one way of the other. Personally, if things go wrong as a result of the Allies doing something, that is better than things going wrong because the Allies did nothing. And doing nothing will cause things to go wrong, in my opinion (of course!)

  2. Brian says:

    The problem is, many of those men are now in the Bush administration.

    In another document on the same web site, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, they say that the purpose of the American military in the modern world is “Pax Americana.” They also say that to achieve their sinister goals, they want a “new Pearl Harbor” (their exact words) to galvinize the people to agree with them. That document was written in September 2000. (I’m not suggesting they caused 9/11, but the point is that they exploited those deaths for their own vile purpose, and planned to do so in the wake of such an attack for at least three years.)

    This is not to say that it is about oil per se. Their goal is not profit but rather control. These men are like a swarm of locusts — they enter an area and devour it.

    If you doubt that Pax Americana is a bad philosophy, read about Pax Romana. Same kind of goals, same kind of suffering from conquered people. Despite Rumsfeld’s recent lie on TV that he is not out to conquer Iraq, that is PRECISELY his intention. That’s what Pax Americana means. It means you conquer anyone who could concievely pose a threat to you in some future time.

    The reason this becomes a treasonous action, in adittion to being un-American, is that the CIA’s official, non-classified report to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said that this unprovoked attack on Iraq will serve as an engine that produces terrorists on a massive scale. Before, when bin Laden suggested to potential recruits that America intended to conquer the Middle East, he was lying. Now, with Rumsfeld et al. in power, he is telling the truth. Historically, the most efficient way to rally the masses to your cause has been to suggest that they have been attacked. With PNAC’s policy, they HAVE been attacked. Even Saudi Arabia has stated that a n unprovoked war on Iraq — which is what this is — would be considered by them to be “an act of aggression.” That statement was made by their Foreign Minister, the equivilent of Colin Powell.

    This is why in my opinion Congress much impeach this man on the charge of having comitted treason against the great nation of the United States of America. He is a damned dirty traitor and belongs behind bars.

    –Brian, 25 m from Silicon Valley, former US Navy submariner.

  3. pete says:

    Hmm, I instinctively get wary of both these kinds of comments. To clean and easy. World is more complicated than that. This is getting a bit warbloggery, but if that’s what you want to do in my comments then that’s fine.