Chief among these proposals are: 1) "Pre-emptive" wars should be launched,
even if there is no meaningful provocation or imminent threat, whenever
the U.S. thinks a country may be amassing too much power and/or could
provide some sort of competition in the "benevolent hegemony" region. A
later corollary rethinks the country's atomic policy: nuclear weapons
would no longer be considered defensive, but could be used offensively in
support of political/economic ends; so-called "mini-nukes" could be
employed in these regional wars. 2) International treaties and opinion are
to be ignored whenever they interfere with U.S. imperial goals. 3) The new
policies "will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe
and Northeast Asia."
In short, the Bush Administration seems to see the U.S., admiringly, as a
New Rome, an empire with its foreign legions, and threat of
"shock-and-awe" attacks, including with nuclear weapons, keeping the
outlying colonies, and potential competitors, in line. Those who aren't
fully in accord with these goals better get out of the way; "you're either
with us or against us."
"FIXING INTELLIGENCE AROUND THE POLICY"
8. Paul O'Neill's wonderment at the early emphasis on making war on Iraq
was well-placed. Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair secretly were
colluding precisely to launch that war, even while they were telling their
skeptical publics that there were no plans to do so. We now know that Bush
told some U.S. Senators in March of 2002
"Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out," and that Blair and Bush
agreed in July 2002 to
launch such a war. (Four years earlier, when talking with his
speechwriter about a possible run for President,
then-Governor Bush said of Iraq: "If I have a chance to
invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.")
Even today, Bush hauls out his
retread lie that he did everything possible to avoid war and
was hoping to forestall it through diplomacy. In the latest
White House/Downing Street Memo, we learn that he even
considered provoking Saddam into providing a casus belli by flying a plane
low over Iraq painted with United Nations insignia on it, in hopes that
Iraq would shoot it down. Likewise, Bush continues to lie that Saddam
would not let the U.N. inspectors back in to verify that he had no WMD;
Saddam did let them in, the inspectors weren't finding anything, and Bush
quickly launched his attack.
Neither country had the proof required about Saddam's supposed caches of
WMD, so, according to the top-secret
Downing Street Memos, which were leaked to the British press
in mid-2005, it was decided to "fix the intelligence around the policy."
In other words, Bush&Co. would move the war plans forward and, in the
interim, try to cobble together some reasonable-sounding "intelligence"
that could justify the invasion. Hence, Cheney's red-hot anger that the
CIA couldn't, or wouldn't, come up with the proof required, so Rumsfeld
then established his own in-house Office of Special Plans, staffed with
PNAC political types rather than intelligence analysts. The required
"intelligence" was pasted together from unreliable raw data and rumors
from dubious exiles supplied by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.
That "intelligence" was stove-piped directly to Cheney in the White House,
thus avoiding having to vet it through the government's professional
analysts, and the green light was turned on, with Powell delivering the
laughable pack of lies to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003. The
Council wouldn't vote for a specific authorization for war and so Bush
hastily launched "shock-and-awe" bombing and the ground-invasion of that
country before the international community could organize itself
effectively to resist.
Bush two months later, standing under a huge "Mission Accomplished"
banner, declared that the U.S. "has prevailed" over the Iraqi enemy.
Expecting to be welcomed as "liberators," and with no Plan B to rely on in
case that didn't happen, the U.S. soon became bogged down fighting a
mostly nationalist insurgency that continues until this day, one that grew
in ferocity because the U.S. was responsible not only for an enormous loss
of Iraqi civilians as "collateral damage," numbered in the tens of
thousands, but also because of lack of employment for young men and the
much-publicized torture and humiliation of thousands of detained Iraqis.
Iraq then became a magnet, and
perfect training ground, for jihadist fighters from all over
the Middle East.
SUMMARY & PNAC'S FUTURE PLANS
Everyone loves a winner, and American citizens are no different. Bush's
approval numbers were unusually high after his "Mission Accomplished"
speech. The situation is quite different today, with Bush's numbers down
into the low-30s (Cheney is at 18%!), and with a strong majority believing
the Iraq War cannot be won.
By following the PNAC precepts, the costs have been huge in troops and
treasure, and in damage to America's reputation. Bush&Co. may well be
losing the larger war around the globe: the U.S. now lacks moral stature
and standing in much of the world, is revealed as a liar for all to see
(no WMDs in Iraq, no connection to 9/11, no quick handing-over the interim
reins of government to the Iraqis as initially promised), has destroyed a
good share of the United Nation's effectiveness and prestige, is
needlessly alienating our traditional allies, is infuriating key elements
of the Muslim world (especially in the Middle East), and providing
political and emotional ammunition for anti-U.S. terrorists, etc.
Already, we're talking about half a trillion -- trillion, with a T! --
dollars in costs for the Iraq War and reconstruction. And PNAC is deeply
involved in preparing the ground for Bush's next war, which may either be
a ground invasion of Iran or, more likely, a joint Israeli/U.S. or
U.S./U.K. air assault on that country's fledgling nuclear facilities and
scientific laboratories. The propaganda assault against Iran already has
begun, and it is eerily similar to the pre-Iraq war propaganda. It would
appear that the evidence is once again being "fixed around the policy."
The consequences of such an assault on Iran -- unlike Iraq, Iran is a
formidable Mideast power -- are barely addressed.
One can believe that maybe PNAC sincerely believes its rhetoric -- that
instituting U.S.-style "free-markets" and "democratically-elected"
governments in Iraq and the other authoritarian-run countries of the
Islamic Middle East will be good both for the citizens of that region and
for American interests, but even if that were true, it's clear that these
neo-con incompetents are not operating in the world of Middle Eastern
realities.
These are armchair theoreticians, most of whom made sure not to serve in
the military in Vietnam, who truly believed, for example, that the Iraqis
would welcome the invading U.S. forces with bouquets of flowers and kisses
when they "liberated" their country from the horribleness of Saddam
Hussein's reign. Most Iraqis, especially the majority Shias, were happy to
be freed from Saddam's long reign of terror. But, as it stands now, U.S.
military forces are more likely to remain trapped in a political/religious
quagmire for years there, given that so many of the Shia population, along
with the rebellious minority Sunnis, just want the occupying soldiers to
leave.
BIG ON IDEAS, SMALL ON REAL-WORLD BRAINS
even if there is no meaningful provocation or imminent threat, whenever
the U.S. thinks a country may be amassing too much power and/or could
provide some sort of competition in the "benevolent hegemony" region. A
later corollary rethinks the country's atomic policy: nuclear weapons
would no longer be considered defensive, but could be used offensively in
support of political/economic ends; so-called "mini-nukes" could be
employed in these regional wars. 2) International treaties and opinion are
to be ignored whenever they interfere with U.S. imperial goals. 3) The new
policies "will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe
and Northeast Asia."
In short, the Bush Administration seems to see the U.S., admiringly, as a
New Rome, an empire with its foreign legions, and threat of
"shock-and-awe" attacks, including with nuclear weapons, keeping the
outlying colonies, and potential competitors, in line. Those who aren't
fully in accord with these goals better get out of the way; "you're either
with us or against us."
"FIXING INTELLIGENCE AROUND THE POLICY"
was well-placed. Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair secretly were
colluding precisely to launch that war, even while they were telling their
skeptical publics that there were no plans to do so. We now know that Bush
told some U.S. Senators in March of 2002
"Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out," and that Blair and Bush
agreed in July 2002 to
launch such a war. (Four years earlier, when talking with his
speechwriter about a possible run for President,
then-Governor Bush said of Iraq: "If I have a chance to
invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.")
Even today, Bush hauls out his
retread lie that he did everything possible to avoid war and
was hoping to forestall it through diplomacy. In the latest
White House/Downing Street Memo, we learn that he even
considered provoking Saddam into providing a casus belli by flying a plane
low over Iraq painted with United Nations insignia on it, in hopes that
Iraq would shoot it down. Likewise, Bush continues to lie that Saddam
would not let the U.N. inspectors back in to verify that he had no WMD;
Saddam did let them in, the inspectors weren't finding anything, and Bush
quickly launched his attack.
Neither country had the proof required about Saddam's supposed caches of
WMD, so, according to the top-secret
Downing Street Memos, which were leaked to the British press
in mid-2005, it was decided to "fix the intelligence around the policy."
In other words, Bush&Co. would move the war plans forward and, in the
interim, try to cobble together some reasonable-sounding "intelligence"
that could justify the invasion. Hence, Cheney's red-hot anger that the
CIA couldn't, or wouldn't, come up with the proof required, so Rumsfeld
then established his own in-house Office of Special Plans, staffed with
PNAC political types rather than intelligence analysts. The required
"intelligence" was pasted together from unreliable raw data and rumors
from dubious exiles supplied by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.
That "intelligence" was stove-piped directly to Cheney in the White House,
thus avoiding having to vet it through the government's professional
analysts, and the green light was turned on, with Powell delivering the
laughable pack of lies to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003. The
Council wouldn't vote for a specific authorization for war and so Bush
hastily launched "shock-and-awe" bombing and the ground-invasion of that
country before the international community could organize itself
effectively to resist.
Bush two months later, standing under a huge "Mission Accomplished"
banner, declared that the U.S. "has prevailed" over the Iraqi enemy.
Expecting to be welcomed as "liberators," and with no Plan B to rely on in
case that didn't happen, the U.S. soon became bogged down fighting a
mostly nationalist insurgency that continues until this day, one that grew
in ferocity because the U.S. was responsible not only for an enormous loss
of Iraqi civilians as "collateral damage," numbered in the tens of
thousands, but also because of lack of employment for young men and the
much-publicized torture and humiliation of thousands of detained Iraqis.
Iraq then became a magnet, and
perfect training ground, for jihadist fighters from all over
the Middle East.
SUMMARY & PNAC'S FUTURE PLANS
Everyone loves a winner, and American citizens are no different. Bush's
approval numbers were unusually high after his "Mission Accomplished"
speech. The situation is quite different today, with Bush's numbers down
into the low-30s (Cheney is at 18%!), and with a strong majority believing
the Iraq War cannot be won.
By following the PNAC precepts, the costs have been huge in troops and
treasure, and in damage to America's reputation. Bush&Co. may well be
losing the larger war around the globe: the U.S. now lacks moral stature
and standing in much of the world, is revealed as a liar for all to see
(no WMDs in Iraq, no connection to 9/11, no quick handing-over the interim
reins of government to the Iraqis as initially promised), has destroyed a
good share of the United Nation's effectiveness and prestige, is
needlessly alienating our traditional allies, is infuriating key elements
of the Muslim world (especially in the Middle East), and providing
political and emotional ammunition for anti-U.S. terrorists, etc.
Already, we're talking about half a trillion -- trillion, with a T! --
dollars in costs for the Iraq War and reconstruction. And PNAC is deeply
involved in preparing the ground for Bush's next war, which may either be
a ground invasion of Iran or, more likely, a joint Israeli/U.S. or
U.S./U.K. air assault on that country's fledgling nuclear facilities and
scientific laboratories. The propaganda assault against Iran already has
begun, and it is eerily similar to the pre-Iraq war propaganda. It would
appear that the evidence is once again being "fixed around the policy."
The consequences of such an assault on Iran -- unlike Iraq, Iran is a
formidable Mideast power -- are barely addressed.
One can believe that maybe PNAC sincerely believes its rhetoric -- that
instituting U.S.-style "free-markets" and "democratically-elected"
governments in Iraq and the other authoritarian-run countries of the
Islamic Middle East will be good both for the citizens of that region and
for American interests, but even if that were true, it's clear that these
neo-con incompetents are not operating in the world of Middle Eastern
realities.
These are armchair theoreticians, most of whom made sure not to serve in
the military in Vietnam, who truly believed, for example, that the Iraqis
would welcome the invading U.S. forces with bouquets of flowers and kisses
when they "liberated" their country from the horribleness of Saddam
Hussein's reign. Most Iraqis, especially the majority Shias, were happy to
be freed from Saddam's long reign of terror. But, as it stands now, U.S.
military forces are more likely to remain trapped in a political/religious
quagmire for years there, given that so many of the Shia population, along
with the rebellious minority Sunnis, just want the occupying soldiers to
leave.
BIG ON IDEAS, SMALL ON REAL-WORLD BRAINS
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
