Project for the New American Century

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

Project for the New American Century
PNAC.png
Formation1997
Extinction2006
TypePublic policy think tank
Location
Websitenewamericancentury.org
 
Jump to: navigation, search
Project for the New American Century
PNAC.png
Formation1997
Extinction2006
TypePublic policy think tank
Location
Websitenewamericancentury.org

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. established in 1997 as a non-profit educational organization founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC was the view that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2][3] With its members in numerous key administrative positions, the PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[4][5]

History[edit]

Statement of Principles[edit]

PNAC's first public act was releasing a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997, which was signed by both its members and a variety of other notable conservative politicians and journalists (see Signatories to Statement of Principles). The statement began by framing a series of questions, which the rest of the document proposes to answer:

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?[3]

In response to these questions, the PNAC states its aim to "remind America" of "lessons" learned from American history, drawing the following "four consequences" for America in 1997:

  • 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;
  • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
  • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; [and]
  • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

While "Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today," the "Statement of Principles" concludes, "it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."[3]

Calls for regime change in Iraq during Clinton years[edit]

The goal of regime change in Iraq remained the consistent position of PNAC throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis.[6][7]

Richard Perle, who later became a core member of PNAC, was involved in similar activities to those pursued by PNAC after its formal organization. For instance, in 1996 Perle composed a report that proposed regime changes in order to restructure power in the Middle East. The report was titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm and called for removing Saddam Hussein from power, as well as other ideas to bring change to the region. The report was delivered to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[8] Two years later, in 1998, Perle and other core members of the PNAC—Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, and John Bolton—"were among the signatories of a letter to President Clinton calling for the removal of Hussein."[8] Clinton did seek regime change in Iraq, and this position was sanctioned by the United Nations[citation needed]. These UN sanctions were considered ineffective by the neoconservative forces driving the PNAC.[9]

The PNAC core members followed up these early efforts with a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott,[10] urging Congress to act. The PNAC also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton had signed into law.[11]

On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.[12]

On November 16, 1998, citing Iraq's demand for the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors and the removal of Richard Butler as head of the inspections regime, Kristol called again for regime change in an editorial in his online magazine, The Weekly Standard: "... any sustained bombing and missile campaign against Iraq should be part of any overall political-military strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power."[13] Kristol states that Paul Wolfowitz and others believed that the goal was to create "a 'liberated zone' in southern Iraq that would provide a safe haven where opponents of Saddam could rally and organize a credible alternative to the present regime ... The liberated zone would have to be protected by U.S. military might, both from the air and, if necessary, on the ground."

In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective, questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.[14]

Rebuilding America's Defenses[edit]

In September 2000, the PNAC published a controversial 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century. The report, which lists as project chairmen Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt and, as principal author, Thomas Donnelly, quotes from the PNAC's June 1997 "Statement of Principles" and proceeds "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."[15][16]

The report argues:

The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. It has, over the past decade, provided the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth and the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself.[15]

After its title page, the report features a page entitled "About the Project for the New American Century", quoting key passages from its 1997 "Statement of Principles":

In its "Preface", in highlighted boxes, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that it aims to:

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:

  • defend the American homeland;
  • fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
  • perform the "constabulary" duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
  • transform U.S. forces to exploit the "revolution in military affairs";

and that

To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary

allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. 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 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. (iv)

It specifies the following goals:

MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey "tilt-rotor" aircraft for the Marine Corps.

CANCEL "ROADBLOCK" PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier,[17] and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.[18]
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.
EXPLOIT THE "REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS" to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which

  • maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,
  • produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually. (v)

The report emphasizes:

Fulfilling these requirements is essential if America is to retain its militarily dominant status for the coming decades. Conversely, the failure to meet any of these needs must result in some form of strategic retreat. At current levels of defense spending, the only option is to try ineffectually to “manage” increasingly large risks: paying for today's needs by shortchanging tomorrow's; withdrawing from constabulary missions to retain strength for large-scale wars; "choosing" between presence in Europe or presence in Asia; and so on. These are bad choices. They are also false economies. The "savings" from withdrawing from the Balkans, for example, will not free up anywhere near the magnitude of funds needed for military modernization or transformation. But these are false economies in other, more profound ways as well. The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity. (v-vi)

In relation to the Persian Gulf, citing particularly Iraq and Iran, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the [Persian] Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.–Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."[15]

One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars."[15]

Post-9/11 call for regime change in Iraq[edit]

On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq", or regime change:

...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[5][19]

From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq.[20] On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[21][22][23][24]

In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.[1]

Human Rights and the EU Arms Embargo[edit]

In 2005, the European Union considered lifting the arms embargo placed on Beijing. The embargo was put in place after the events at Tiananmen Square in 1989. The PNAC, along with other concerned countries, composed a letter to Javier Solana, asking that the EU not lift the embargo until three conditions were met:

  1. A general amnesty of all prisoners of conscience, including those imprisoned in connection to peaceful protest in 1989, and public trials by independent court for those charged with 'criminal' acts.
  2. A reversal of the official verdict on the 1989 movement as a 'counter-revolution riot,' allowing an independent 'truth commission' to investigate and provide a comprehensive account of the killings, torture, and arbitrary detention, and bringing to justice those responsible for the violations of human rights involved.
  3. Adoption and implementation of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights, taking concrete actions to enforce other international human rights conventions and treaties that China has joined.

The justification for these conditions was explained as follows:

"Doing away with this sanction without corresponding improvements in human rights ... would send the wrong signal to the Chinese people, including especially those of us who lost loved ones, who are persecuted, and for all Chinese who continue to struggle for the ideal that inspired the 1989 movement."[25]

End of the organization[edit]

By the end of 2006, PNAC was "reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website [with a] a single employee … left to wrap things up", according to the BBC News.[26] According to Tom Barry, "The glory days of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) quickly passed."[27] In 2006, Gary Schmitt, former executive director of the PNAC, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and director of its program in Advanced Strategic Studies, stated that PNAC had come to a natural end:

When the project started, it was not intended to go forever. That is why we are shutting it down. We would have had to spend too much time raising money for it and it has already done its job. We felt at the time that there were flaws in American foreign policy, that it was neo-isolationist. We tried to resurrect a Reaganite policy. Our view has been adopted. Even during the Clinton administration we had an effect, with Madeleine Albright [then secretary of state] saying that the United States was 'the indispensable nation'. But our ideas have not necessarily dominated. We did not have anyone sitting on Bush's shoulder. So the work now is to see how they are implemented.[26]

Controversies[edit]

US global supremacy[edit]

According to critics, including Paul Reynolds, the neoconservative PNAC aimed to promote American "hegemony" and "full-spectrum" dominance in its publications.[28][29][30][31]

Ebrahim Afsah, in "Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy – The Origins of the Current Neo-Conservative Revolution in US Strategic Thinking", published in the German Law Journal, cited Jochen Bölsche's view that the goal of the PNAC was world dominance or global hegemony by the United States.[32][33] According to Bölsche, Rebuilding America's Defenses "was developed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby, and is devoted to matters of 'maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.'"[32][33]

George Monbiot, a political activist from the United Kingdom, stated: "...to pretend that this battle begins and ends in Iraq requires a willful denial of the context in which it occurs. That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to suit itself."[34]

PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan countered such criticism in his statement during a debate on whether or not "The United States Is, and Should Be, an Empire":

"There is a vital distinction between being powerful--even most powerful in the world--and being an empire. Economic expansion does not equal imperialism, and there is no such thing as "cultural imperialism". If America is an empire, then why was it unable to mobilize its subjects to support the war against Saddam Hussein? America is not an empire, and its power stems from voluntary associations and alliances. American hegemony is relatively well accepted because people all over the world know that U.S. forces will eventually withdraw from the occupied territories.

The effect of declaring that the United States is an empire would not only be factually wrong, but strategically catastrophic. Contrary to the exploitative purposes of the British, the American intentions of spreading democracy and individual rights are incompatible with the notion of an empire. The genius of American power is expressed in the movie The Godfather II, where, like Hyman Roth, the United States has always made money for its partners. America has not turned countries in which it intervened into deserts; it enriched them. Even the Russians knew they could surrender after the Cold War without being subjected to occupation."[35]

Excessive focus on military strategies, neglect of diplomatic strategies[edit]

Jeffrey Record, of the Strategic Studies Institute, in his monograph Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, Gabriel Kolko, research professor emeritus at York University in Toronto, and author of Another Century of War? (The New Press, 2002), in his article published in CounterPunch, and William Rivers Pitt, in Truthout, respectively, argued that the PNAC's goals of military hegemony exaggerated what the military can accomplish, that they failed to recognize "the limits of US power", and that favoring pre-emptive exercise of military might over diplomatic strategies could have "adverse side effects."[36][37][38] (Paul Reynolds and Max Boot have made similar observations.[28][29])

The Sydney Morning Herald published an English translation of an article published in German in Der Spiegel summarizing former President Jimmy Carter's position and stating that President Carter:

judges the PNAC agenda in the same way. At first, argues Carter, Bush responded to the challenge of September 11 in an effective and intelligent way, "but in the meantime a group of conservatives worked to get approval for their long held ambitions under the mantle of 'the war on terror'."

The restrictions on civil rights in the US and at Guantanamo, cancellation of international accords, "contempt for the rest of the world", and finally an attack on Iraq "although there is no threat to the US from Baghdad" - all these things will have devastating consequences, according to Carter.

"This entire unilateralism", warns the ex-President, "will increasingly isolate the US from those nations that we need in order to do battle with terrorism".[32]

"New Pearl Harbor"[edit]

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, 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" (51).[15]

Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as journalist Mark Danner,[39] journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[40] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[41] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.

Inexperienced in realities of war[edit]

Former US Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin and UK Labour MP and Father of the House of Commons, Tam Dalyell, criticized PNAC members for promoting policies which support an idealized version of war, even though only a handful of PNAC members have served in the military or, if they served, had never seen combat.[42]

As quoted in Paul Reynolds' BBC News report, David Rothkopf stated:

Their [The Project for the New American Century's] signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened. The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a region that has been less than susceptible to democracy. Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception and horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own ideas and the incompetence of the Bush administration.[26]

In discussing the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000), Neil MacKay, investigations editor for the Scottish Sunday Herald, quoted Tam Dalyell: "'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. These are the thought processes of fanaticist Americans who want to control the world.'"[43]

Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"[44]

PNAC role in promoting invasion of Iraq[edit]

Commentators from divergent parts of the political spectrum––such as Democracy Now! and American Free Press, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Jody Williams and former Republican Congressmen Pete McCloskey and Paul Findley––voiced their concerns about the influence of the PNAC on the decision by President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.[45][46] Some have regarded the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton, which urged him to embrace a plan for "the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power,"[12] and the large number of members of PNAC appointed to the Bush administration as evidence that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion.[47]

The television program Frontline, broadcast on PBS, presented the PNAC's letter to President Clinton as a notable event in the leadup to the Iraq war.[48]

Media commentators have found it significant that signatories to the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton (and some of its other position papers, letters, and reports) included such later Bush administration officials as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abrams.[28][36][39][48]

Future biological weapons that can "target" specific genotypes[edit]

Main article: Ethnic bioweapon

Critics of the Project for the New American Century, including Austin American-Statesmen book reviewer Kip Keller, highlighted the following quote from PNAC's report "Rebuilding America's Defenses":

And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.

In a review of a book on the history of eugenics in the United States, Keller cited the quote as an example of modern-day thinking that continues the tradition of eugenics, saying that the quote proposed "a sort of 'gene bomb'" and accusing the authors of supporting "the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group -- i.e., genocide, the ultimate eugenic practice".[49] The Project for a New American Century responded with a letter to the editor calling Keller's accusations "disgusting and utterly false" and stating that the quotation was intended to describe "threats the U. S. military may confront in the future" rather than weapons that the organization advocated developing.[50]

Persons associated with the PNAC[edit]

Project directors[edit]

[as listed on the PNAC website:]

Project staff[edit]

Former directors and staff[edit]

Signatories to Statement of Principles[edit]

Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports[16][edit]

Associations with Bush administration[edit]

After the election of George W. Bush in 2000, some of PNAC's members or signatories were appointed to key positions within the President's administration:

NamePosition(s) held
Elliott AbramsSpecial Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (2001–2002), Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs (2002–2005), Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (2005–2009) (all within the National Security Council)
Richard ArmitageDeputy Secretary of State (2001–2005)
John R. BoltonUnder-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001–2005), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2005–2006)
Dick CheneyVice President (2001–2009)
Eliot A. CohenMember of the Defense Policy Advisory Board (2007–2009)[62]
Seth CropseyDirector of the International Broadcasting Bureau (12/2002-12/2004)
Paula DobrianskyUnder-Secretary of State for Global Affairs (2001–2007)
Aaron FriedbergDeputy Assistant for National Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning, Office of the Vice President (2003–2005)
Francis FukuyamaMember of The President's Council on Bioethics (2001–2005)
Zalmay KhalilzadU.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (11/2003 - 6/2005), U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (6/2005 - 3/2007) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2007–2009)
I. Lewis "Scooter" LibbyChief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States (2001–2005)
Richard PerleChairman of the Board, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (2001–2003)
Peter W. RodmanAssistant Secretary of Defense for International Security (2001–2007)
Donald RumsfeldSecretary of Defense (2001–2006)
Randy ScheunemannMember of the U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute
Paul WolfowitzDeputy Secretary of Defense (2001–2005) 10th President of the World Bank (2005-2007)
Dov S. ZakheimDepartment of Defense Comptroller (2001–2004)
Robert B. ZoellickOffice of the United States Trade Representative (2001–2005), Deputy Secretary of State (2005–2006), 11th President of the World Bank (2007–2012)

See also[edit]

Notes and references[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m "About PNAC", newamericancentury.org, n.d., accessed May 30, 2007: "Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt."
  2. ^ Home page of the Project for the New American Century, accessed May 30, 2007.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab Elliott Abrams, et al., "Statement of Principles", June 3, 1997, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 28, 2007.
  4. ^ "Empire builders - Neoconservatives and their blueprint for US power", The Christian Science Monitor (2004), accessed May 22, 2007.
  5. ^ a b The PNAC was often identified as a "neo-con" or "right-wing think tank" in profiles featured on the websites of "left-wing" and "progressive" "policy institute" and "media watchdog" organizations, which were critical of it; see, e.g., "Profile: Project for the New American Century", Right Web (International Relations Center), November 22, 2003, accessed June 1, 2007.
  6. ^ Kristol, William; Kagan, Robert (January 30, 1998). "Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough". The New York Times. 
  7. ^ Kristol, William; Kagan, Robert (February 26, 1998). "A 'Great Victory' for Iraq". The Washington Post. 
  8. ^ a b Wedel, Janine (2009). Shadow Elite. New York: Basic Books. p. 170. 
  9. ^ Arin, Kubilay Yado (2013): Think Tanks, the Brain Trusts of US Foreign Policy. (Wiesbaden: VS Springer) .
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Elliott Abrams, et al.,Letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, May 28, 1998, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 30, 2007.
  11. ^ "PUBLIC LAW 105–338—OCT. 31, 1998. IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998" Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, January 27, 1998, accessed June 20, 2014.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t "Open Letter to President Bill Clinton", January 16, 1998, accessed May 28, 2007.
  13. ^ William Kristol, "How to Attack Iraq", The Weekly Standard, November 16, 1998, editorial, online posting, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed May 30, 2007.
  14. ^ "MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS, FROM: MARK LAGON, SUBJECT: Iraq", January 7, 1999, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed May 30, 2007.
  15. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century". September 2000. Archived from the original on 24 January 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2007. 
  16. ^ a b At the end of the list of "Project Participants", on page 90 of Rebuilding America's Defenses, there appears the following statement: "The above list of individuals participated in at least one project meeting or contributed a paper for discussion. The report is a product solely of the Project for the New American Century and does not necessarily represent the views of the project participants or their affiliated institutions."
  17. ^ For additional information and projected building schedule [as updated]), see CVX aircraft carrier, Federation of American Scientists, updated October 15, 2000, accessed June 1, 2007.
  18. ^ In its emphasis on developing and deploying "Global Missile Defenses", the PNAC renews its call for the United States to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, from which the U.S. withdrew in 2002.
  19. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq William Kristol, et al., Letter to George W. Bush, September 20, 2001, newamericancentury.org, n.d., accessed June 20, 2014.
  20. ^ For example, William Kristol, "Liberate Iraq", The Weekly Standard, May 14, 2001, online posting, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 28, 2007.
  21. ^ Neil MacKay, "Former Bush Aide: US Plotted Iraq Invasion Long Before 9/11", The Wisdom Fund, Scottish Sunday Herald January 11, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007.
  22. ^ Gary Schmitt, "State of Terror: War by any other name . . .", The Weekly Standard November 20, 2000, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed June 1, 2007.
  23. ^ Gary Schmitt, "MEMORANDUM: TO: OPINION LEADERS, FROM: GARY SCHMITT, SUBJECT: Iraq - al Qaeda Connection", August 6, 2002, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed June 1, 2007.
  24. ^ Gary Schmitt, "MEMORANDUM: TO: OPINION LEADERS, FROM: WILLIAM KRISTOL, SUBJECT: Iraq and the War on Terror", August 21, 2002, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed June 1, 2007.
  25. ^ Bork, Ellen. "Human Rights and the EU Arms Embargo". Retrieved 2014-06-20. 
  26. ^ a b c Paul Reynolds, "End of the Neo-con Dream: The Neo-conservative Dream Faded in 2006", BBC News, December 21, 2006, accessed May 29, 2007.
  27. ^ Tom Barry, "Special Report: Rise and Demise of the New American Century", International Relations Center, June 28, 2006, accessed June 20, 2014.
  28. ^ a b c Paul Reynolds, "Analysis: Power Americana: The US Appears to Be Heading to War with Iraq Whatever Happens, with Implications for the Future Conduct of American Foreign Policy", BBC News, March 2, 2003, accessed May 29, 2007.
  29. ^ a b Max Boot, "Doctrine of the 'Big Enchilada'", The Washington Post, October 14, 2002, online posting, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 31, 2007.
  30. ^ Kristol, William; Kagan, Robert (October 25, 1999). "Reject the Global Buddy System". The New York Times 
  31. ^ Robert Kagan, "Multilateralism, American Style", The Washington Post, September 13, 2002, online posting, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 31, 2007.
  32. ^ a b c Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan - Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam", Der Spiegel March 4, 2003; English translation, "This War Came from a Think Tank", trans. Alun Breward, published in Margo Kingston,"A Think Tank War: Why Old Europe Says No", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 7, 2003, accessed May 28, 2007.
  33. ^ a b Ebrahim Afsah, "Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy – The Origins of the Current Neo-Conservative Revolution in US Strategic Thinking", The German Law Journal, No. 9 (September 2003), n. 5, citing Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan - Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam", Der Spiegel March 4, 2003.
  34. ^ George Monbiot, "A Wilful Blindness" ("Those who support the coming war with Iraq refuse to see that it has anything to do with US global domination"), monbiot.com (author's website archives), reposted from The Guardian, March 11, 2003, accessed May 28, 2007.
  35. ^ Qtd. by Gary Schmitt, "Response to Asmus and Pollack", newamericancentury.org, July 24, 2003, quoting Kagan's remarks in "A New Atlantic Initiative Debate" on "The United States Is, and Should Be, an Empire", held at the American Enterprise Institute on July 17, 2003.
  36. ^ a b William Rivers Pitt, "Of Gods and Mortals and Empire" ("Editorial: Truthout Perspective"), Truthout, February 21, 2003, accessed May 31, 2007.[dead link]
  37. ^ Jeffrey Record, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, online posting via washingtonpost.com, January 12, 2004, accessed May 30, 2007.
  38. ^ Gabriel Kolko, ""The Perils of the Pax Americana", CounterPunch, January 15, 2003, accessed May 30, 2007.
  39. ^ a b Qtd. in the film Hijacking Catastrophe, discussed in "Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire" (Transcript), Democracy Now!, September 10, 2004, accessed May 29, 2007.
  40. ^ John Pilger, "John Pilger Reveals the American Plan", New Statesman, December 16, 2002, accessed June 20, 2014.
  41. ^ Bernard Weiner, "A PNAC Primer: How We Got Into This Mess", CounterPunch May 28, 2003, accessed June 1, 2007.
  42. ^ Lionel Van Deerlin, Commentary, SignOnSanDiego.com, September 4, 2002, accessed June 1, 2007.
  43. ^ Neil MacKay, "Lets (sic) Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President", Scottish Sunday Herald, September 15, 2002, rpt. Information Clearing House (ICH), accessed June 1, 2007.
  44. ^ Eliot A. Cohen, "Hunting 'Chicken Hawks'", The Washington Post, September 5, 2002: A31, rpt. sais.jhu.edu (School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)), accessed June 1, 2007.
  45. ^ Amy Goodman, "The New Pearl Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind The 9/11 Attacks", Democracy Now!, May 26, 2004, accessed May 31, 2007. (Interviews with guests David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 and professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology at the Claremont School of Theology, in Claremont, California; and Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst at Senior Research Associates, in Summerville, Massachusetts.
  46. ^ "What They Said: Former Congressmen Assess U.S. Foreign Policy:, inc. "A Republican’s Case Against George W. Bush", by Paul Findley, and "The Need to Refocus Our Policy Priorities in The War on Terror", by Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey", Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA), April 2004: 20-25, accessed June 1, 2007.
  47. ^ Margie Burns, "Warriors Behind the Scenes Coached the Stars On Stage", The Washington Spectator, May 1, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007, updated November 16, 2013. (1 of 3 pages.)
  48. ^ a b "Chronology: The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine", The War Behind Closed Doors. Frontline, WGBH-TV (Boston, Massachusetts), Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), online posting February 20, 2003, accessed June 1, 2007.("Home page" includes menu of links to "Analysis", "Chronology", "Interviews", and "Discussion" as well as link to streaming video of the program.)
  49. ^ Keller, Kip (16 November 2003). "Eugenics didn't start in Nazi Germany 'War Against the Weak' describes U.S. role in killing of the 'unfit.'". Austin American-Statesman. p. K5. 
  50. ^ "Letter to the Editor of the Austin-American Statesman". Project for the New American Century. Retrieved 16 October 2012. 
  51. ^ a b Gary J. Schmitt is currently Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and Director of its program in Advanced Strategic Studies.
  52. ^ "Daniel McKivergan", newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed May 30, 2007.
  53. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag William Kristol, et al.,Letter to President G.W. Bush, April 3, 2002, newamericancentury.org, accessed June 20, 2014.
  54. ^ Nicholas Eberstadt is Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute.
  55. ^ Hillel Fradkin is Director, Center for Islam, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World, and Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute.
  56. ^ Tod Lindberg is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Editor of its publication Policy Review, founded by the Heritage Foundation.
  57. ^ A Complete List of PNAC Signatories and Contributing Writers
  58. ^ Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces, January 28, 2005, newamericancentury.org, accessed June 20, 2014.
  59. ^ Second Statement on Postwar Iraq, March 28, 2003, newamericancentury.org, accessed June 20, 2014.
  60. ^ Richard H. Shultz, Jr. is Professor of International Politics at Tufts University and Director, International Security Studies Program, which includes the Jebsen Center for Counterterrorism Studies at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
  61. ^ Letter to President Clinton on Kosovo and Milosevic, The Project for the New American Century, September 1998, accessed May 30, 2007.
  62. ^ Glenn Kessler, "Rice Names Critic Of Iraq Policy to Counselor's Post", The Washington Post, March 2, 2007: A05, accessed June 1, 2007.

External links[edit]