Roots of Neocon Foreign Policy

KISSweb’s 8/14/07 recap of Greenwald’s focus on the beltway Neocon’s seizure of U.S. foreign policy has its roots in a 1997 mission statement of the Project for the New American Century, a Neocon think tank and policy advocacy group. The excepted preamble and tenants of this mission statement are:

“The history of the 20th Century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

1. We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

2. We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies, and to challenge regimes hostile to our interest and values;

3. We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

4. We need to accept responsibility for American’s unique role in preserving the extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today, but it is necessary if the U.S. is to build on the successes of this past century and ensure our security and our greatness in the next.”

The charter signers of this mission were Elliot Abrams (right wing State Dept. functionary), Gary Bauer (Christian Coalition leader) Wm. Bennet (Drug Czar), Jeb Bush (ex Gov. of FL), Steve Forbes (Editor), I. Lewis Libby (felon), Dan Quayle (exVP), Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz (Assist Sec of Defense Dept, architect of the Iraq war and how did such a bright guy get into this compared to a dummy like Quayle?) and Dick Cheney (if this surprises you, you don’t know Dick), to name a few. There are some logical flaws in each section.

Preamble

Shaping circumstance and meeting threats before they become dire sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, viability depends on the definitions. Violations of international law, i.e. invasion of Iraq are a grotesque manifestation of this Preamble.

1. A misapplication of principle: global responsibilities need to be based on an international consensus, not U.S. unilateral aggression.

2. Strengthening our ties to democratic allies was the anti-thesis of the Bush approach to Iraq, i.e. alienating and freezing allies out of the Iraq war initiative and challenging regimes hostile to our interest and values has to be based on accurate, unbiased assessments totally absent in the Iraq war decision.

3... Promoting the cause of political and economic freedom abroad does not include violating international law by invading other countries arbitrarily.

4. .Accept responsibility for American’s unique role in preserving the extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles cannot be exercised by selective observation of international law (i.e. if you aren’t friendly, rule of law is out, if you are friendly, we’ll follow the law).

Closer

Little of Bush Administration policy is remotely based on U.S. successes or is analogous to the challenges and the responses of the U.S. to the international threats of the 20th century.