Feel free to copy the URL (web address) to this story and email it to your\r\nfriends and family. Do not forward the whole story as the referenced links\r\nwill likely not appear correctly, making it difficult for your reader to see the\r\ndocumentation. Use the URL only.<\/u><\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
War On Iraq? Ten Years From Now, What Will You Tell Your Children? <\/b><\/p>\r\n
By a concerned historian<\/i><\/p>\r\n
The bottom-line is that there are other ways to solve the \"Iraq\r\nproblem,\" and containment has worked for over ten years. Furthermore, the Bush\r\nadministration planned to invade Iraq four years ago (see Sunday\r\nHerald, a respected U.K newspaper). The U.S. mainstream media hasn't\r\nrushed to inform you of that little detail, and U.S.\r\ncommentators that address this fact usually joke about conspiracy theories\r\nto lessen the chance of taking heat from angry letters to the editor and irate\r\nmedia bosses. <\/p>\r\n
War with Iraq is primarily about oil. The terrorism arguments have some\r\ntruth, however. Propaganda never works, after all, if there isn't some\r\nmeasure of truth behind the message. But the fact is, \"our\" action could\r\ninspire thousands of new terrorists. Nevertheless, even the Washington Post<\/i> speaks openly\r\nabout oil being the key issue -- on it's front page, no less. Although you have to read between the lines\r\n(WP,\r\nSept. 15, 2002). <\/p>\r\n
Within a couple of years, the world is likely going to reach the midpoint of\r\nall petroleum product extraction. Many oil industry executives know this,\r\nand that's why BP has changed it's slogan to \"Beyond Petroleum,\"\r\nleaving \"British Petroleum\" in the dust bin of marketing\r\nhistory. Highly respected industry scientists like Dr. Colin Campbell talk\r\nabout the issue (e.g., RealVideo\r\nPresentation [in English after the five minute German intro]; here are the slides\r\nhe used in that presentation). Even the U.S. Geological Survey documents\r\nnote that the midpoint is not far off. The Middle East and the Caspian\r\nregions house the world's largest untapped resources, and the U.S. seeks to\r\ncontrol them. Don't take my word for it. Just read Zbigniew\r\nBrzezinski's book, The\r\nGrand Chessboard: American Primacy and It's Geostrategic Imperatives. \r\nBetter still, just enter that title into an internet search engine and read articles\r\nabout it, like this revealing one by Mike Ferner, a former Navy serviceman. \r\nNo sense in giving royalty revenue to Brzezinski. As a member of the foreign\r\npolicy elite on par with Henry Kissinger, he doesn't need your money.<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
WARS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS BUILT ON LIES <\/i><\/b><\/p>\r\n
Does the U.S. Government use propaganda and outright lies to get the American\r\npeople to buy into wars? Study history and you will be shocked. You\r\nwill find that propaganda and lies are the norm, rather than the\r\nexception. For example, take the 1990-91 Gulf War. Check out this Christian\r\nScience Monitor article, (In War, Some Facts Less Than Factual<\/i>,\r\nSeptember 6, 2002; backup google cache). \r\nChicanery ran amuck, and even a U.S. public relations firm created a bogus story\r\nfor testimony to Congress, lying about how babies were thrown on the floor by\r\nIraqi soldiers busting Kuwaiti incubators. The publisher of Harpers\r\nMagazine<\/i>, John MacArthur, documents this and discusses it in two radio\r\nshort interviews with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now (part\r\n1) (part\r\n2). He's not alone in documenting this chapter in recent history, but\r\nthat radio interview offers a good summary and further context on the general\r\nphenomena of lies used to make Americans want war. There's even some\r\nindication that George Bush Sr.'s ambassador, April Glaspie, provided Saddam\r\nHussein with the impression that the U.S. would not act against an Iraqi\r\ninvasion of Kuwait. The\r\ntrue history on this episode is a bit murky, but there can be no refuting\r\nthe fact that lies and propaganda ran amuck once Hussein had already invaded.<\/p>\r\n
So, what is the U.S. up to today? Given a leaked story that first\r\nsurfaced in the Times of London, one of the most reputable newspapers in the\r\nworld, we now know that the Bush administration is planning to spend $200\r\nmillion of our tax dollars for PR firm actions and other propaganda. A\r\ncommentary on this and the link to the original Times of London article can be\r\nseen by clicking\r\nhere (the link to the Times of London story is at the bottom).<\/p>\r\n
Dear God, even if you support the war on Iraq, it should anger you to a boil\r\nthat virtually every war America has fought has been pushed upon the American\r\npeople with a host of lies and propaganda meant to whip the populous into a\r\nfrenzy. Americans are not stupid, and most Americans are not\r\npacifists. Most of us will support war when there is valid, real and sound\r\nlogic. But the fact is, most wars are not about easily digestible\r\nlogic. Wars are usually the byproduct of economic system\r\nnecessities. Bush knows he can't ask you to go to war for the preservation\r\nof the petroleum economy (plastics, fertilizers, etc., never mind gasoline and\r\nnatural gas for electricity, heating and cooking) for another 25 years, a war to\r\nbuy time to extract remaining value in the petroleum economy while permitting\r\nthe gradual establishment of alternative energy production. Ask yourself why the\r\nBush administration approves of hydrogen fuel cell cars that are ten years away\r\nand which will be part and parcel of a hydrogen economy that will be controlled\r\nby the current oil industry companies, while at the same time, the U.S.\r\ngovernment provides little to no economic incentives like tax breaks on hybrid\r\ncards that exist today, cars that would reduce oil industry profits in the next\r\nten years. <\/p>\r\n
Sure, fighting terrorism is frosting on the cake. We are supposed to get\r\nthat frosting, if you believe Bush. But don't delude yourself. The cake itself is global empire, and\r\nwhether or not we actually lessen future terrorism by invading Iraq in \"regime\r\nchange\" (drop the euphemisms, OK) is debatable. The fact is,\r\nAmericans are not stupid. That's why our government constantly lies to\r\nus. Take it as a compliment.<\/p>\r\n
If you study history, you will find many other examples of propaganda and\r\nrevisionist history deconstructed with the passage of time. Some examples\r\ninclude:<\/p>\r\n
* The Dec. 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor was not only allowed to happen, but\r\nFDR executed a carefully developed plan to lead the Japanese into the\r\nattack. At the time, Americans were sick of \"European Wars,\"\r\nfresh off World War I, the war that President Wilson told us would make the\r\nworld \"safe for democracy.\" In 1940, over seventy percent of the\r\nAmerican population didn't want anything to do with World War II. FDR had\r\nto change public opinion, and could conveniently slow down Japan at the same\r\ntime by threatening Japan's access to oil. (Sources: one;\r\ntwo; three\r\n.... and many others; ultimately, I believe WWII was a \"just\r\nwar,\" excluding the nuclear bombing of Japan and the firebombing of Dresden\r\nto be sure, but FDR nevertheless lied, and it took 50 years for the revisionist\r\nhistory to be fully deconstructed)<\/p>\r\n
* The 1898 Spanish-American war was pushed on America by calls to\r\n\"Remember the Maine.\" But in fact, Spain didn't blow up\r\nour ship in Cuba. It was either an accidental explosion of the ship's\r\nboiler, or a U.S.-planned explosion of the ship's boiler. This is beyond\r\nquestion and fully documented.<\/p>\r\n
* The Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam that got Congress to give President Lyndon<\/span>\r\nJohnson<\/span> <\/span>a \"blank check\" was in fact\r\nbogus<\/p>\r\n And on and on.... Nothing herein is conspiracy theory. It's all thoroughly\r\ndocumented historical fact. Study history and you'll find many other\r\nexamples.<\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n THE U.S. IS NOW HONEST AND PUBLIC ABOUT \"OUR\" <\/i><\/b>EMPIRE<\/i><\/b><\/p>\r\n The U.S. foreign policy establishment openly discusses the merits and issues\r\nrelated to U.S. global empire. Don't take my word for it. Just read Foreign\r\nAffairs<\/i>, the most respected and influential foreign policy journal in the\r\nentire world, published by the Council on Foreign Relations. A prime\r\nexample can be found in an article in the current (September\/October) issue\r\ntitled \"America's Imperial Ambition,\" by Georgetown University\r\nprofessor G John Ikenberry. Ikenberry notes that America \"will use\r\nits unrivalled military power to manage the global order.\" You can\r\nsee part of this article at the Foreign Affairs<\/i> website,\r\nbut they only show the first part of articles to non-subscribers (any American\r\nuniversity library will have the journal in their stacks). Alternatively,\r\nyou can read a summary of the article in the reputable Asian\r\nTimes. No two ways about it, the Bush administration\r\n\"neo-conservative\" Chicken Hawks have an aggressive\r\n\"understanding\" of what Pax Americana means. For perspective and\r\nlinks to further information, check out this San\r\nFrancisco Chronicle editorial. <\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n BE ABLE TO LOOK AT YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR AND TO FACE YOUR KIDS<\/i><\/b><\/p>\r\n Don't be lazy. Get out and join demonstrators calling for alternatives\r\nto war. Fax, call and write your Congressional representatives (don't\r\nemail or sign those web petitions because those are ignored, in part, because\r\nCongress knows those channels are too easily manipulated, and therefore not truly\r\nrepresentative). Those actions do make a difference. Bush, after\r\nall, wasn't initially going to bother with the U.N. A contributing factor\r\nin his decision to go to the U.N. was the Democrats slowly getting half a spine\r\nas an increasing number of average Americans flooded Congress with messages of\r\nopposition (never\r\nmind the fact that the media has, for the most part, not reported this fact).<\/p>\r\n How will you look at your children in the years to come if you didn't make a\r\nstand? Sure, we may not be able to stop this war. But the point is\r\nthat if you do nothing, you have to live with yourself. <\/p>\r\n I don't profess to have the answers, and I'm not a pacifist. But I know\r\nwhen I'm being lied to, and I know that this particular war will not serve our\r\nlong-term interest. Containment has worked against Iraq and we have no\r\nreason to rush our other alternatives because containment addresses the red\r\nherring argument about Iraq working on nukes and other weapons of mass\r\ndestruction. We can have containment while strong sanctions and disarmament\r\nefforts take place. Iraq doesn't represent a clear and present\r\ndanger in the immediate future -- period, end of report. Any statement to\r\nthe contrary is a lie. And to all of you that think war can be the answer,\r\nfine... Maybe in a year or two, if the situation changes, a war may be\r\njustified. But stop the lies. Even the CIA is talking about Iraq\r\nhaving the ability to finalize nuclear production in a minimum of seven years,\r\nand weapons inspectors can find fissionable material for \"dirty bombs\"\r\nmore easily than just about any other type of dangerous substance because\r\nnuclear material radiation is more easily detected than other substances that\r\ncan be used in weapons of mass destruction. And sure, Saddam Hussein is a\r\ncruel dictator that represses his own people and has used chemical weapons on\r\nhis own people. But\r\nthe United States helped him build those weapons and we didn't do squat when he\r\nused them on his own people. The fact is that the dictates of\r\ngeopolitical strategy come with policies that are contradictory when set\r\nside-by-side and with the removal of intervening years. <\/p>\r\n Enough innocent people have died already (over 500,000 Iraqi children under sanctions\r\naccording to the U.N.), and constantly throwing military might around in an\r\nunstable region could quite literally result in global nuclear war and the\r\nextinction of humanity. You think I'm exaggerating? Sadly, I'm\r\nnot. Only the probability is debatable. Israel has already informed the world she will likely retaliate if\r\nIraq attacks with missiles (regardless of what Iraq's missiles carry). \r\nThat could lead to various chain reactions, regardless of what Israel\r\ndecides to use. And the fact is, the U.S. and Russian missile early\r\nwarning systems have had scores of false alarms. We were 30 seconds away\r\nfrom extinction when Yeltsin's generals were telling him the U.S. had launched a\r\nsurprise nuclear attack in 1995. The U.S. has a first-strike nuclear\r\ndoctrine, so Moscow is edgy when their early warning systems sound false alarms (even though the media almost never discusses this in public). It\r\nturned out to be the launch of a satellite that went off course in time to have\r\nthe Russians realize it wasn't a rocket heading for Moscow. All of this is\r\ndocumented by Dr. Helen Caldicott (see below). A domino-style regional\r\nconflict might happen in the Middle East, and that could stress these early warning systems,\r\ntriggering accidental nuclear war. India and Pakistan might go on edge too,\r\ncompounding the risk of computer-generated nuclear war. Humanity dances at\r\nthe risk of Murphy's Law. One of these days, we could all be vaporized or die in\r\nglobal nuclear winter. Ignorance is not bliss, it's a game of Russian roulette,\r\nand the stakes are human extinction. <\/p>\r\n Don't read into my statement incorrectly. I'm not a wishy-washy liberal\r\nthinker, and you can argue that the odds of the extinction scenario is\r\nlow. But don't lie to yourself. The probability is somewhere between\r\nzero and 1. It is not zero, and as a result, we live in an insane\r\nworld. By definition, extinction of humanity is insanity. I know all\r\nto well that the world is full of contradictions and that on some levels, it\r\nseems rational to many people that our global political and economic system is set-up the way\r\nthat it is. But the fact remains that while the system \"works,\"\r\nit simultaneously fails miserably. A system that, as a byproduct, creates\r\na world were extinction is possible is insane and worthy of CONSTANT calm\r\ndiscussion and analysis (not the crap we get on TV); furthermore, the\r\nimbalances created in a world that is capable of creating 500 people that own\r\nabout 50% of planet's wealth (versus a population in excess of 6,000,000,000) is also worthy\r\nof calm discussion and analysis. That's another ball of wax and beyond the\r\nscope of this open letter. But if\r\nyou want to end terrorism once and for all, some solution (I don't know what it\r\nis) to create a bit more equality in our world is the only way, regardless of\r\nthe fact that you are correct if you argue that poor nations and the Islamic\r\nworld has at least some (NOT ALL -- hardly) share of \"blame\" for their current\r\nstatus. Facing the possibility of the extinction of humanity, even the\r\nmega-rich have a vested interest in trying to figure out how to continue to\r\ndominate, but with a softer step. So, my message to the global elite: \r\nget a grip, or your great great grandchildren will never exist, and don't delude\r\nyourself (as some of you have) with eugenics, population control and\r\norchestrated genocides because that will not guarantee the existence of your\r\nfuture generations. The Samuel P. Huntington \"Clash\r\nof Civilizations\" paradigm may accurately describe the world in some<\/u><\/i>\r\nrespects, but\r\nfollowing that paradigm will doom your great great grandchildren -- they will\r\nnever exist. Truth be told, the global elite (and\/or their advisors)\r\nunderstand these truths, but they\r\ndon't know what paradigm can be put in place as an alternative that will simultaneously\r\npreserve their status. Sadly, the world will likely have to wait for all\r\nhell to break loose before the global elite sees it in their interest to embrace\r\nan alternative paradigm. But it will only take a few visionaries among\r\nthem, combined with the voices of the masses. <\/p>\r\n Dr. Helen Caldicott has spent nearly her entire life studying the risk that\r\nhumanity may extinguish itself. Her new book, The\r\nNew Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush's Military Industrial Complex is\r\nmandatory reading for anyone that cares about preventing the extinction of the\r\nhuman race (and it's a very readable book; it's not for egg-heads). \r\nYou can get a taste for her views by checking\r\nout this radio interview and speech. Forgive what may seem as a\r\ndigression from the discussion of Iraq, but in truth, everything is connected in\r\nthe often contradictory world of geopolitics. Heck, while I'm at it, I\r\nhave one more book recommendation for you: The\r\nWar on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001. \r\nNo other book will likely make you think as much as this one. It will blow\r\nyour mind.<\/p>\r\n I am not a communist, nor an anarchist. I'm not a revolutionary of any\r\nstripe. I do believe in the functioning of the capitalist system when\r\nthere is some balance provided by government (don't get me started on corruption\r\nin America), coupled with honest religion and spiritualism on the part of the\r\npopulation. Marx did have one thing right, however. Religion often\r\nis the opiate of the masses, and we definitely see this in parts of the\r\n\"religious right\" in America. To my fundamentalist\r\nChristian \"born again\" countrymen (this includes George W. Bush) that\r\nstand idly by for an eventual heaven, I ask you how you can believe biblical\r\nprophecy of Armageddon justifies the abrogation of many of Christ's other teachings\r\nin our nation's day-to-day lives? Hey, believe in the prophecies of\r\nrapture and Armageddon all you want. I'm OK with that, I guess... But acknowledge\r\nthe fact that you have a contradiction on your hands. You're ignoring many\r\nof Christ's other teachings on how you must live your lives. This\r\nparagraph is tangential, but still relevant even to agnostics and atheists (I'm\r\nsomewhat in that camp) because a great many of the \"leaders\" taking us\r\ndown the path to war believe in these fundamental and thoroughly contradictory tenants\r\nof the New Testament.<\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n SO, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\r\n So, what's it going to be? Are you going to get out on the street and PEACEFULLY\r\ndemonstrate? Are you going to contact your Congressional\r\nrepresentatives? Are you going to contact gatekeepers in the media,\r\ndemanding that they report on the fact that Congress has been flooded with\r\nmessages from Americans, messages that are over 95% against war with Iraq\r\n(opinion polls are deceptive by the way questions are asked, and although\r\n\"protestors\" are motivated and are thus messaging in a higher\r\npercentage relative to public opinion on the whole, I have no doubt that the\r\ntrue percentage of the American public that doesn't want war with Iraq is around\r\n70%)? <\/p>\r\n So, what's it going to be? Are you going to buy into the idea that you\r\nhave no power, no voice? If you do nothing, what are you going to tell\r\nyour children ten years from now? Hopefully, we'll all still be here.<\/p>\r\n Thank you for your time,<\/p>\r\n A concerned historian<\/p>\r\n Photo Credits: 1) Bush photo for \"fair use\" only under US\r\nCopyright law; source: Reuters, Kevin Lamarque; 2) Family at\r\nPortland demonstration, October 5, 2002, Portland\r\nIndyMedia.<\/i><\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","summary":"Read only if you have an open mind (and I know I'm going to get you looking even if you don't with this kind of summary ;-) Are we being lied to? Let me walk you through some history. Let me challenge you to look in the mirror and face your (future) children.","numcomment":3,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2002\/10\/america2.jpg","filesize":"15.5 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2002\/10\/19632.php","image":{"original":"\/uploads\/2002\/10\/america2.jpg","small":"\/uploads\/2002\/10\/america2.jpgthumb.jpg"}},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":19646,"heading":"Mr","article":"thanks for the clear care and time taken to write this open letter. I'll be sticking the link in a mass email to friends, i'd enourage anybody else to do the same. Find an excuse to email loads of people (my birthday gathering is mine :) or just send it them anyway... \r\n\r\nI'm in London btw: we had our 400,000 demo last weekend. At present someone i care about is on today's LA demo, hence my visit to LA indymedia.\r\n\r\nIt is refereshing to read an intelligent, calm and well referenced analysis, which should be accessible to anybody with the intelligence to be open. you'd hope.\r\nmany thanks.","author":"jim taylor","parent_id":19632,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2002-10-07 19:01:49","modified":"2002-10-07 19:01:49","fileurl":""},{"id":19705,"heading":"Why Bush Wants War: More Perspective","article":"Thanks Jim! Glad you found it food for thought :-)\r\n\r\nI was reading some stuff today and found this editorial. It's perspective from the mainstream media on some of the subjects I addressed.\r\n\r\nBest,\r\n\r\n-- concerned historian\r\n\r\nThe president's real goal in Iraq\r\nThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 29, 2002\r\nBy Jay Bookman\r\n\r\nBookman is the deputy editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.accessatlanta.com\/ajc\/opinion\/bookman\/\r\nbackup: http:\/\/www.zmag.org\/content\/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2412 \r\n\r\n"fair use" only\r\n-------------------\r\n\r\nThe official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.\r\n\r\nThe pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.\r\n\r\nIn recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.\r\n\r\nOnce that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?\r\n\r\nBecause we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.\r\n\r\nIn an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.\r\n\r\nAnd why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.\r\n\r\nAmong the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.\r\n\r\nPart of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.\r\nTo address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.\r\n\r\nIt dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."\r\n\r\nIn essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.\r\n\r\n"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."\r\nThe report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.\r\n\r\n"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "\r\n\r\nFamiliar themes\r\n\r\nOverall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.\r\n\r\nIt recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.\r\nIt advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.\r\n\r\nIt urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.\r\n\r\nThat close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.\r\n\r\nPaul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.\r\n\r\n'Constabulary duties'\r\n\r\nBecause they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."\r\n\r\nTo preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."\r\n\r\nTo meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.\r\n\r\nMore specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.\r\nThe 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.\r\n\r\nEffect on allies\r\n\r\nThe defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.\r\n\r\nThe potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.\r\n\r\nOne is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.\r\n\r\nDonald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.\r\n\r\n"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.\r\n\r\n"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."\r\n\r\nAccepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.\r\n\r\nFor the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.\r\n\r\n"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."\r\n\r\nCostly global commitment\r\n\r\nRumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.\r\n\r\nKagan is more blunt.\r\n\r\n"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."\r\n\r\nThe cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.\r\n\r\nThe lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.\r\n\r\nNow, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.\r\n\r\nAre peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?\r\n\r\nIf we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.\r\n\r\nThat's what this is about.\r\n\r\n-------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\nSIDEBAR IN ARTICLE:\r\nCONTRIBUTORS TO 2000 REPORT\r\n\r\n"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy.\r\n\r\nPaul Wolfowitz\r\n\r\nPolitical science doctorate from University of Chicago and dean of the international relations program at Johns Hopkins University during the 1990s. Served in the Reagan State Department, moved to the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy. Sworn in as deputy defense secretary in March 2001.\r\n\r\nJohn Bolton\r\n\r\nYale Law grad who worked in the Reagan administration as an assistant attorney general. Switched to the State Department in the first Bush administration as assistant secretary for international organization affairs. Sworn in as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, May 2001.\r\n\r\nEliot Cohen\r\n\r\nHarvard doctorate in government who taught at Harvard and at the Naval War College. Now directs strategic studies at Johns Hopkins and is the author of several books on military strategy. Was on the Defense Department's policy planning staff in the first Bush administration and is now on Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board.\r\n\r\nI. Lewis Libby\r\n\r\nLaw degree from Columbia (Yale undergrad). Held advisory positions in the Reagan State Department. Was a partner in a Washington law firm in the late '80s before becoming deputy undersecretary of defense for policy in the first Bush administration (under Dick Cheney). Now is the vice president's chief of staff.\r\n\r\nDov Zakheim\r\n\r\nDoctorate in economics and politics from Oxford University. Worked on policy issues in the Reagan Defense Department and went into private defense consulting during the 1990s. Was foreign policy adviser to the 2000 Bush campaign. Sworn in as undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Pentagon, May 2001\r\n\r\nStephen Cambone\r\n\r\nPolitical science doctorate from Claremont Graduate School. Was in charge of strategic defense policy at the Defense Department in the first Bush administration. Now heads the Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation at the Defense Department.\r\n","author":"concerned historian","parent_id":19632,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2002-10-08 04:25:06","modified":"2002-10-08 04:25:06","fileurl":""},{"id":19710,"heading":"10 years from now","article":"..I'll tell my kids I did everything I could to stop the war including going to the October 6th protest in Westwood. History books will see the October 6th protests as having launched the nation wide grass roots effort by the people to reclaim their government and that their efforts stopped the war before it started.\r\n\r\nThat's what I'd like to tell my kids 10 years from now.","author":"..","parent_id":19632,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2002-10-08 06:14:26","modified":"2002-10-08 06:14:26","fileurl":""}]}