Comments on: Comments on 20025

Post number 20025

tpoh.org — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:17:13 -0800

"Pax Americana" "The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)."

By: RobbieFal

RobbieFal — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:31:52 -0800

yeah.. this couldn't possibly backfire. Right?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:47:36 -0800

[the report calls for] the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US; i, for one, would like to fart in the general direction of our new texan overlords.

By: i blame your mother

i blame your mother — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:53:28 -0800

From the article: "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." It's not terrorism if we are the ones using it. It's a political lubricant for inserting democracy into oppressive regimes. That, to me, is a terrifying quote taken at any level. While one assumes that they are fantasizing about taking out a Saddamesque leader by targeting him with a designer virus, there are echos of genocide in a statement like that, intentional or not.

By: malphigian

malphigian — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:53:53 -0800

'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' If this is real this is an amazingly bad leak for the Bush administration. Apologies for my ignorance, but how trustworthy is the Sunday Herald?

By: malphigian

malphigian — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:55:37 -0800

Er, just so I'm clear, I realize this is a think tank report, not a "leaked" administration document. I just want to be clear that we're getting an accurate report of the document.

By: bwerdmuller

bwerdmuller — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:05:18 -0800

Perhaps a silly question, but are they likely to release the full text ..? This goes a little deeper than just being a bad leak for the government; it's the kind of thing you read and have to read again because you don't really believe it ...

By: mediareport

mediareport — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:12:19 -0800

Honestly, does anyone need a think tank document to convince them that Cheney and his energy pals have been planning "regime change" in Iraq since the day he became Bush's candidate for Vice President? It's interesting to consider the possibility that one of the reasons Republicans fought so hard to win the Florida thing was because the forces that want a Pax Americana (and the idea's hardly new) knew this was their best shot at locking down some Middle East oil of their own. And we already know they were willing to deal with the Taliban. 9/11 just made it easier. *contemplates the notion of the United States as a deficit-ridden empire trying to control the entire world* Yeah, sign me up for *that* one.

By: malphigian

malphigian — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:12:24 -0800

There is a web site for the "Think Tank" (emphasis on the Tank... I'll be here all the week): newamericancentury.org Looks like it would have the doc available, but its unfortunately down.

By: kliuless

kliuless — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:23:35 -0800

hmmmm, i wrote something like that in highschool... as a joke, next to my AIDS manifesto to cure the world of 'sinners'. that'd explain all the sabre-rattling against china after the elections i guess. i always wondered about that, thank you :)

"Why of course the people don't want war ... Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering, Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich

more patriotism, less national(ist-social)ism please! unless the threat is real of course, oh wait :) who should you believe? LIFE, LIBERTY... AND THE PURSUIT OF ALL WHO THREATEN IT!

By: rsinha

rsinha — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:28:42 -0800

Here is the Google cache for the article (pdf file viewed as html). I think it is the right article.

By: badzen

badzen — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:33:39 -0800

*weak attempt at geek humor ahead* maybe i'm cynical, but i'm not sure how seriously i can take a group who both maintains a page on geocities and has a wacky mix of imageready and dreamweaver code on their primary site now, if that URL had a dynamic php / flash interface, well, THEN I'd be scared...

By: destro

destro — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:50:32 -0800

I don't know what's up with this newspaper. They're reporting that the UN has already agreed to allow the invasion of Iraq. If you read the article, you'll realize that the writer's making a guess, but there's no way to tell from the headline. Sounds like yellow journalism to me.

By: Shane

Shane — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:13:12 -0800

The implications of a blueprint like this... Wow. Let's just say, if this is valid, it's something everyone should be looking at. And probably almost no one will...

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:20:36 -0800

Is there any way to verify that this document was read by any of the players mentioned in the Sunday Herald article? Cheney and Co., ltd, were not mentioned by name in the report... As much as I would love to find a smoking gun linking Cheney to ambitions of world domination, I am not convinced that this is that evidence.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:47:35 -0800

I would love to find a smoking gun linking Cheney to ambitions of world domination Uh, the constant drumbeating for an unnecessary invasion of Iraq doesn't qualify?

By: SealWyf

SealWyf — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:01:53 -0800

Even if this document is a forgery, there is enough well-documented wickedness to justify our concern. Such as the ploy reported in today's Washington Post, to offer a share of Iraq's oil to countries that help us overthrow Saddam Hussein.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:12:56 -0800

Uh, the constant drumbeating for an unnecessary invasion of Iraq doesn't qualify? Hey, I don't need to be convinced. I believe a written document of this sort could convince some of the 56% of Americans who are non-believers out there.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:39:42 -0800

"The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'." Here is an excellent article about the Libby/Wolfowitz document, which was discussed in this thread.

By: MidasMulligan

MidasMulligan — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:45:38 -0800

Just curious - I'd have thought that by now MeFi would have already demonstrated (at least to its own staisfaction, and within the confines of its own somewhat narrow perspective) that the US/Bush/Cheney is evil. Is there actually some sort of buzz that posters get from putting up the virtually daily barrage of this sort of "evidence"? The theme has almost turned into a peculiar sort of MeFi religion. "Bush is evil. Cheney is evil. See, this article proves it.", screams the preacher. "Hear hear! Amen brother!", responds the choir. Now and then someone will make the mistake actually begging to differ - but this only serves to whip the true believers into a further frenzy, and pretty much generates the same sort of reaction that a Hindu asserting that there might be more than one god would provoke in a church full of enraged Pentacostals. Isn't it getting a little boring?

By: malphigian

malphigian — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:57:43 -0800

MidasMulligan: I agree there are way too many of these posts, but I also think your comment would have been more appropriate on MeTa. No doubt its frustrating being a conservative amongst the largely lefty mefi populace, but that doesn't mean you need to be so reductionist about everyone's opinions. On this particular thread, I have yet to see any supporting evidence that Cheney, Rumsfield or other key Bush administration had anything to do with this report.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:09:56 -0800

The Bushies better disown this. Pronto.

By: moz

moz — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:12:32 -0800

MidasMulligan: ... Isn't it getting a little boring? i think there is little point to addressing the politics of the thread or the people discussing it. i found your comment the more boring. On this particular thread, I have yet to see any supporting evidence that Cheney, Rumsfield or other key Bush administration had anything to do with this report. malphigian's got the right idea.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:13:05 -0800

MidasMulligan, once again you avoid specifics completely, preferring to comment only in vague terms and make ridiculously general accusations of unfair bias against the (apparantly monolithic) left on MeFi. It seems the entire site is biased against...what, exactly? A position you have yet to articulate, let alone defend? Puh-lease. Anyway, it's kind of a specialty of yours. Just thought I'd mention it's getting very noticeable.

By: djeo

djeo — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:16:17 -0800

In the grand scheme of political flavors I largely consider myself smack in the middle of mainstream moderation. My voter card says that I am a republican but I'm the most liberal republican I know of. That said I find it somewhat amusing that I feel like a raging Reaganaut when I read MeFi. The flip side is that every time the Bush Adminstration does something that I can't make sense of I find myself slipping a little bit further to the left. I'm sure I speak for a lot of people when I wonder why our beloved Administration thinks it's appropriate to perpetually nudge the fence-sitters into the camp of the opposition. Am I out of line to want an explanation from Washington that makes sense? Hell no.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:18:43 -0800

"men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love..." -Tam Dalyell. hmmm, Tam has embraced the laurels of peace, which is fine, glad to see the families changed since his ancestor brought back thrumbscrews from his 'Visit' to Russia. but lets give ole General Tam a break, not everyone escapes the Tower.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:22:13 -0800

i said cheney was evil all along. he is just "my kinda evil" err, ahh, ya. (runs) anyone remember Nixons "madman" theory? does anyone find no comparison?

By: kaemaril

kaemaril — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:33:56 -0800

malphigian: On this particular thread, I have yet to see any supporting evidence that Cheney, Rumsfield or other key Bush administration had anything to do with this report. Hey, no worries, we can simply follow the example of the present US administration, and manufacture some :)

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:44:43 -0800

advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool like AIDS?

By: newlydead

newlydead — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 16:31:09 -0800

PNAC's vision, as articulated by its founders and associates [Cheney among them], anti-apologetically favors a Pax Americana backed by superior military power and a will to confront--unilaterally, if necessary--any emerging or potential regional or global power before it can threaten Washington's interests or position. Its core ideas appear to be based in large part on a 1992 Pentagon strategy document drafted by Wolfowitz and Libby that was drastically toned down at the insistence of Bush Sr.'s top foreign policy aides, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, before its final publication. It is a vision that is clearly at variance with the more modest and multilateralist sentiments of the vast majority of the American public, according to polls taken over the past decade. Of course, there is no direct connection to the report in question.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 16:32:53 -0800

That said I find it somewhat amusing that I feel like a raging Reaganaut when I read MeFi. Not sure what you mean there, but this really should be a MeTa thread, as malphigian suggested. Hey, malphigian, I forget, are you on the Lefty or Righty team? Regardless, I definitely appreciated your research and skeptical questions in this thread.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 17:18:13 -0800

MeTa, for anyone who wants to discuss MidasMulligan's point about "a peculiar sort of MeFi religion."

By: sheauga

sheauga — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 17:51:37 -0800

I've referred to this before, but there's also a concept of creating a Pax Democratica, in which the US doesn't go it alone as a superpower, but rather joins up with other democratically-minded countries to make the best of a difficult world situation.

By: kliuless

kliuless — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 20:41:43 -0800

Is there any way to verify that this document was read by any of the players mentioned in the Sunday Herald article? Cheney and Co., ltd, were not mentioned in the report... from rsinha's link william kristol was chairman of "the Project" and has no small influence in the GOP! and honestly, having seen him debate i have a lot of respect for kristol :) and it does say it was "built upon the strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department in the waning days of the Bush Administration." like it reads like a military in search of a mission. "Across the globe, the trend is for a larger U.S. security perimeter, bringing with it new kinds of missions." almost sounds like a grant proposal in some respects :) and the argument? "...unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification ... for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf..." so replace Iraq with [X] and the Gulf with everywhere? it's also interesting that, "adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention." probable cause for the development of national missile defense? i think so! possible origin for 'the axis of evil'? possibly! all in all, it looks like the DoD is on script :) except it looks like instead of gunning for china, it has favored appeasement, and of course terrorism has gained relevance, allowing for the "revolution in military affairs." v.enlightening. like i thought the goal of an "american peace" aptly describes US foreign policy at the moment, clear insight into military minds :) and parts may yet be written in! "If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence." v.orwellian :) no mention of int'l treaties there! making the world safe for america! obviously the world would like to be remade in our image :) so god, so US! it is teh american way :) and if you don't like it, we will kill you. uh, now what is wrong with that statement? on its face it's only good for americans, but if everyone becomes american, what is the problem? see? internally, it is logically consistent. whether it stands up in practice, i guess we'll have to wait and see. will the rest of the world succeed in reining in the US? will the administration withstand the next election? i dunno, but we live in interesting times at least :) like i think it'd be supremely ironic if the US succeeded, but in the process diluted what it means to have an 'american identity'!

By: dhartung

dhartung — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 20:44:20 -0800

malphigian: Is it really an "amazingly bad leak" for the administration, that someone dug up a publicly available plan from a think tank (cum policy lobbyist) connected to the people who are now running the administration? Wow. That's some investigative reporting there, to find something that everyone inside the Beltway reviewed two years ago and promptly forgot as more-or-less generically hawkish background material. If you're a defense-oriented journalist, you probably have a dog-eared copy or two under a pile on a chair. The administration was very public about their idea, coming into office, that we'd been far too chummy with and easy on the ChiComs. Some of this was just residual Cold War anticommunism, but a good deal of it was of the better watch that sleeping giant variety. Still, they had scant likelihood of fully achieving their aims; they needed more money, and the Bushies (as opposed to the neocons who were working for the Bushies) looked to tax cuts and easy times: an echo of fights fought during the first Bush administration over "Most Favored Nation" status for China (the current version is roughly "Fast Track Authority"). The China dust-up was profoundly embarrassing to the free-trade types who dominated Bush's inner circle; they had thought the neocons were safely across the Potomac. Nor is it any great discovery that the administration was terribly anxious to do something about Iraq, which has been a monster-truck-sized tire around the US neck for a decade, and whose various ear-boxings on the part of the Clinton administration were widely viewed at the time as wholly inadequate. The administration deliberately took a "humbler" approach to Middle East policy partly in the hopes that lying low would de-"personalize" the confrontation (and perhaps allow time for it to solve itself, e.g. with a coup) and a lighter touch on Israel-Palestine would improve relations with the Arab world; this is hardly a sign that they were operating from a secret neocon blueprint. What 9/11 changed was giving these guys primary voices in the administration -- the free-traders are probably outflanked for a while to come. (It helps that China has become quite pliant in the face of our awakened perspective.) Their blueprint for a strategic military response has become the core of a strategic policy response. Still, you can't take this at face value as "administration policy" -- now they've got taxpayer jobs, they can't say anything controversial like "We must dominate East Asia lest China become a regional hegemon" without serious consequences. It's not clear that they'd ever get away with an openly coercive "Pax Americana" in the sense the PNAC types would prefer -- they have people to fight in their own party, after all. But jeez. Whaddaya think -- the Democrats out of office develop policy documents that say "America must be weaker; we must allow rivals to develop; we must not have a military that can achieve our diplomatic goals"?

By: malphigian

malphigian — Sun, 15 Sep 2002 23:15:04 -0800

Dhartung: I attempted to correct my use of the word "leak" in the following post. The "amazingly bad" bit would be a direct link between Bush admin folks and the report. And it is amazingly telling, when the administration is crowing constantly about Saddam, but this report states Saddam is pretty much irrelevant to the issue. Of course, I guessed that already, but if Cheney wrote a report saying it that's pretty clear evidence to anyone that they are being completely duplicitous with the American people and the world. And I certainly hope the democrats have a plan different than American Empire ruling the world as it sees fit.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Mon, 16 Sep 2002 01:58:20 -0800

It took a fair amount of searching through Google's cache, but... Ladies and gentlemen, I'm pleased to present the full text of: "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century". Share and enjoy! (I'm going to pass a copy on to my local newspaper... )

By: Summer

Summer — Mon, 16 Sep 2002 04:35:48 -0800

hmmm, Tam has embraced the laurels of peace, which is fine, glad to see the families changed since his ancestor brought back thrumbscrews from his 'Visit' to Russia. but lets give ole General Tam a break, not everyone escapes the Tower. Yes, Clavdivs, the actions of a 17th century ancestor completely make a mockery of what Tam has to say.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Mon, 16 Sep 2002 08:54:10 -0800

18th century was it not. look at the pictures of both, well portrait. it is shocking. perhaps hes a vampire. I did not check Tam the newers bio. he some war hero? he rule india or something? Sho0t down a couple a Jerries did he? careful on the ancestor thingie, if meaningless, why have aritocracy. but i dont like Sir Misgivings' foaming on his Labour cloth about warfare. cheney draft dodger? some proof please. I'll eat my republican cloth garrot if he's one.

By: hoopyfrood

hoopyfrood — Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:10:53 -0800

clavdivs....Just about every pol(the 50 sometings from the vietnam error(sic) was a draft dodger. They had the $$$$ to stay in school or to defray their enlistment just long enough(not to mention my favorite dodge the air national guard, by the time you qualify to fly the war is either nearly over or because of daddies political clout you get assigned stateside)

By: hoopyfrood

hoopyfrood — Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:15:43 -0800

Remember what happened to Pax Romanna and Pax Britannia...they ended quite badly at great loss. I love the uk but they're basically the 3 rd world (well the second but same diffrence) in first world trappings aren't they.

By: Dean King

Dean King — Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:38:42 -0800

"Cheney, who served Bush's father as secretary of defense, received five draft deferments during Vietnam -- four as a student and one as a new father. The issue came up in 1989 when President Bush nominated Cheney for the defense post and the Senate held confirmation hearings. "'I don't regret the decisions I made,' Cheney told the senators then, saying he registered for the draft and complied with all the legal requirements. Cheney also told them he obtained student and marriage deferments because 'I had other priorities in the '60s than military service.'" from Senators mock Cheney on draft, Topeka Capital-Journal

By: timyang

timyang — Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:43:45 -0800

The Rumsfeld/Cheney connection: The New American Century's Statement of Principles names Rumsfeld and Cheney as two of its 25 signatories.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:22:52 -0800

hmmm, anyone have some mayo for my cloth garrot. But he did follow the law as did Clinton. i just take a little offense at sir Tam suggesting that the prez and Co. are getting out their childhood fantasies by playing "guns' in Iraq. I was going to mention the BP oil Co. but that is just bantering. HF-i love the brits, hell me family was brit until the 1850's (gram still goes on how her grandfather relinquished his allegiance to the Queen) i would not say GB is a third rate power.

By: Summer

Summer — Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:20:23 -0800

18th century was it not No. careful on the ancestor thingie, if meaningless, why have aritocracy I didn't know you believed in aristocracy. Monaco or Saudi Arabia would be a good place to live. i just take a little offense at sir Tam suggesting that the prez and Co. are getting out their childhood fantasies by playing "guns' in Iraq. Why? Tam Dalyell has raged about many wars including the Falklands and the Balkans (and probably the Gulf, although I don't recall). He criticises his own Government (and party) more than the US. I wish there were more like him, rather than the professional yes men and women that currently inhabit Parliament. He's an elected representative. I don't see why, if that's his point of view, he shouldn't express it just because you take exception to the fact he's Scottish nobility.

By: mkultra

mkultra — Mon, 16 Sep 2002 13:10:10 -0800

Whew, thanks, insomnia_lj! Check out page 4: Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these trans- formational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate. Ladies and gentlement, I present to you your Axis of Evil. And so it begins...

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Mon, 16 Sep 2002 13:26:26 -0800

summer, a point of view is fine (tee-hee) but Tams a little flippant with the childish remarks. Fine, he is a scottish...lord? Me girlfriend is a Bruce, can i be king? what i want to know is how many wars has he fought in.