Blog Flux Directory Subscribe in NewsGator Online Subscribe with Bloglines http://www.wikio.com Blog directory
And, yes, I DO take it personally: Let's not forget PNAC... Or Wolfowitz... Or Libby... Or Kristol...
Mandy: Great blog!
Mark: Thanks to all the contributors on this blog. When I want to get information on the events that really matter, I come here.
Penny: I'm glad I found your blog (from a comment on Think Progress), it's comprehensive and very insightful.
Eric: Nice site....I enjoyed it and will be back.
nora kelly: I enjoy your site. Keep it up! I particularly like your insights on Latin America.
Alison: Loquacious as ever with a touch of elegance -- & right on target as usual!
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
- Noam Chomsky
Send tips and other comments to: profmarcus2010@yahoo.com /* ---- overrides for post page ---- */ .post { padding: 0; border: none; }

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Let's not forget PNAC... Or Wolfowitz... Or Libby... Or Kristol...

or cheney... or jeb bush... or rumsfeld... or zalmay khalilzad...

(see "statement of principles" on the website of project for the new american century for a list of all the accomplices...)

bushco has followed their world domination advice, nearly to the letter, and, four years on, look where it's gotten us... mired in iraq... alienated allies... the hatred of islamics around the world... and the consequences for the pnac crowd...? nada... in fact, quite the contrary... they're all still in seats of power and wolfowitz and khalilzad have been even further rewarded... wolfowitz now heads the world bank and khalilzad was appointed ambassador to afghanistan and now leads the embassy in iraq... not bad for being the ones to set us on such a disastrous course...

It was four years ago today that a little-known group called the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) published an open letter to President George W. Bush advising him on how precisely he should carry out his brand-new "war on terrorism".

In addition to ousting Afghanistan's Taliban, the letter's mostly neo-conservative signatories called for implementing regime change "by all necessary means" in Iraq, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the (Sep. 11) attack". It also urged "appropriate measures of retaliation" against Iran and Syria if they refused to comply with U.S. demands to cut off support Hizbollah, which they considered part of the terror network.

[...]

[W]hen the historical record of what the Bush administration has actually done in the region is compared with PNAC's recommendations, the correspondence can only be described as stunning.

[...]

So, four years later, how is PNAC is doing?

(more)

The short answer is not so well.

Because it represents a coalition of different, although like-minded varieties of hawks, its own influence -- or at least the perception of that influence -- is highly dependent on the coalition's unity.

But that unity began to fray even as U.S. troops were flowing into Iraq. Sensing that Rumsfeld, in particular, was not committed to using the kind of overwhelming force -- and keeping it there -- necessary for "transforming" Iraq (and the region), Kristol and Kagan, among other neo-conservatives, began attacking the defence secretary and have repeatedly called for his resignation.

Moreover, their tactical alliance with "liberal internationalists" -- mostly Democrats -- in appealing for the resources required for "nation-building" has, by many accounts, deeply offended Rumsfeld and other "assertive nationalists" in and outside the administration.

[...]

[T]he unanticipated and enormous costs associated with the occupation in Iraq -- to which might now be added the unanticipated and enormous costs of recovery from Hurricane Katrina -- has also demonstrated, both to some right-wing but budget-conscious nationalists, as well as to the rest of the world, that the money for the kind of military PNAC has always lobbied for is simply not available.

[...]

But it would be a mistake to believe that because PNAC and the coalition it represents are down, they must be out, particularly with respect to the other policy initiatives which they recommended four years ago.

Confrontation with Iran, particularly under the leadership of hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, is something that the coalition remains unified about, particularly with respect to the prospect of Tehran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

While PNAC has not explicitly addressed what to do about Iran, there is little question that the coalition -- like the hawks within the administration -- remains fundamentally united on its own hard-line policy and, in any event, an absolute refusal to directly engage the new government.

What to do about Syria is more uncertain, although more hawkish sectors within the coalition clearly favour "regime change", possibly with the help of cross-border attacks in the name of pre-empting the infiltration of insurgents into Iraq, as has been called for by Kristol, among others.

you don't have to listen too hard to hear the sabres rattling over iran and syria...

Submit To Propeller


And, yes, I DO take it personally home page