Sadly I see many of the same names shaping US foreign policy today that were shaping US policy thirty years ago in the days of the Cold War and Vietnam
Sadly I DON'T see any real lesson that have been learnt (IMHO)....
Sadly I DON'T see any peacemakers in this list or any expression of anything other than the maintenance of dominance and self interest by means of force.....
Once, it was the sole province of the President to control the nuclear arsenal.... recently this was extended to a certifiably insane Vice - President Dick Cheney....
Sorry but this alone scares me MORE than a bunch of tea-towel wearing mal-contents hiding in a dark cave somewhere in Tora Bora.... yelling "Death to America"
We here in Australia cannot change US foreign policy directly.... but we can make sure we elect a government that represents a saner viewpoint and world outlook....
It is for the people of the US to deal with the architects of current and thirty year old world outlook and approach to foreign policy.
If they choose not to do so at the ballot poll, then the world does have the right to assume that the majority of the people of America support the aims and views expressed by those they elected to power and those men of influence that hover shadowingly around the halls of power.
Those people's agendas are clear and have been for a decade ...
Quote:
When the Bush administration started lobbying for war with Iraq, they used as rationale a definition of preemption (generally meaning anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack) that was broadened to allow for the waging of a preventive war in which force may be used even without evidence of an imminent attack. They also were able to convince much of the American public that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks of 9/11, despite the fact that no evidence of a link has been uncovered. Consequently, many people supported the war on the basis of 1) a policy that has no legal basis in international law and 2) a totally unfounded claim of Iraqi guilt.
What most people do not know, however, is that certain high ranking officials in the Bush administration have been working for regime change in Iraq for the past decade, long before terrorism became an important issue for our country. In 1997 they formed an organization called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
Quote:
PNAC members on the Bush team include;
Vice-President Dick Cheney and his top national security assistant, I. Lewis Libby;
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld;
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz;
National Security Council member Eliot Abrams;
Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton;
Former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle.
Other PNAC members exerting influence on U.S. policy are the President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq Randy Scheunemann,
Republican Party leader Bruce Jackson
and current PNAC chairman William Kristol, conservative writer for the Weekly Standard.
Jeb Bush, the president's brother and governor of Florida, is also a member.
Quotes above from an article
HereThe full PNAC report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" can be seen
HereSome quotes from the above PNAC document....
Quote:
This report 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. Today, the United States has an unprecedented strategic opportunity.
It faces no immediate great-power challenge; it is blessed with wealthy, powerful and democratic allies in every part of the world; it is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in its history; and its political and economic principles are almost universally embraced. At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals.
Quote:
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;”
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. nuclear 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.
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.
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.
Quote:
At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.
Quote:
Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future.
Quote:
As will be argued more fully below, effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection of U.S. military forces abroad. Without it, weak states operating small arsenals of crude ballistic missiles, armed with basic nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction, will be a in a strong position to deter the United States from using conventional force, no matter the technological or other advantages we may enjoy.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership, tomorrow’s U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions:
• Global missile defenses. A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its allies and forward-deployed forces, must be constructed. This must be a layered system of land, sea, air and spacebased components.
• Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new “international commons” be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the “infosphere” will find it difficult to exert global political leadership.
• Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces. In exploiting the “revolution in military affairs,” the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces.
This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix of current and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new systems, organizations and operational concepts. This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions.
Quote:
But, over the longer term, maintaining control of space will inevitably require the application of force both in space and from space,
including but not limited to antimissile defenses and defensive systems capable of protecting U.S. and allied satellites
Quote:
We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself.
Backyard Aquaponics
