Mission Accomplished: The 2001 Military Coup
The "Rebuilding America's Defenses" docmument put out by the Project for the New American Century in 2000 lamented the lack of growth in defense spending (aka contracts for cronies), which was about $275 billion in 1999.
The stated goals of this group, who became our military and foreign policy leaders in 2001, was to:
And it coyly noted, "To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations."
It yearned to effect regime change in Iraq, regardless of the presence of Saddam Hussein as its leader.
It lamented that if we don't meet the defense requirements, discussed in loving detail, then the cost "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."
"Security" in this context is the same as "security" in Iraq, i.e. the threat of violence, armed occupation, and warfighting. And "uniquely friendly" to these people means no one complains about resource theft when you are threatening to blow shit up.
Mostly, it is a document of warmongers and profiteers concerened about the end of the Cold War, concerned about talk of a peace dividend. Or in their words:
"In short, anything less than a clear two-war capacity threatens to devolve into a no-war strategy." And, "At current budget levels, a modernization or transformation strategy is in danger of becoming a “no-war” strategy."
Concerend about no wars. Peace as threat. Concerned about "sharp reductions made by the Clinton Administration from the amount projected in the final Bush defense plan." Concerned, when all is said and done, about their market -- fighting/corpse production -- the type of "world order" they desire.
Finally, there are the famous lines all-but-welcoming a terrorist attack of massive, spectacular proportions:
"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."
Mission accomplished: The U.S. Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a $612.5 billion defense spending bill for fiscal 2009, including $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No-war threat averted. Two wars undeway. Defense spending skyrocketing.
The country they're "defending"? Never actually part of the equation. That should be obvious to almost everyone by now.
1997 PNAC signatories:
Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz
The "Rebuilding America's Defenses" docmument put out by the Project for the New American Century in 2000 lamented the lack of growth in defense spending (aka contracts for cronies), which was about $275 billion in 1999.
The stated goals of this group, who became our military and foreign policy leaders in 2001, was to:
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• 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 it coyly noted, "To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations."
It yearned to effect regime change in Iraq, regardless of the presence of Saddam Hussein as its leader.
It lamented that if we don't meet the defense requirements, discussed in loving detail, then the cost "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."
"Security" in this context is the same as "security" in Iraq, i.e. the threat of violence, armed occupation, and warfighting. And "uniquely friendly" to these people means no one complains about resource theft when you are threatening to blow shit up.
Mostly, it is a document of warmongers and profiteers concerened about the end of the Cold War, concerned about talk of a peace dividend. Or in their words:
"In short, anything less than a clear two-war capacity threatens to devolve into a no-war strategy." And, "At current budget levels, a modernization or transformation strategy is in danger of becoming a “no-war” strategy."
Concerend about no wars. Peace as threat. Concerned about "sharp reductions made by the Clinton Administration from the amount projected in the final Bush defense plan." Concerned, when all is said and done, about their market -- fighting/corpse production -- the type of "world order" they desire.
Finally, there are the famous lines all-but-welcoming a terrorist attack of massive, spectacular proportions:
"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."
Mission accomplished: The U.S. Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a $612.5 billion defense spending bill for fiscal 2009, including $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No-war threat averted. Two wars undeway. Defense spending skyrocketing.
The country they're "defending"? Never actually part of the equation. That should be obvious to almost everyone by now.
1997 PNAC signatories:
Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz
