Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
) the Neoconservative Plan

) the Neoconservative Plan

|Views: 12|Likes:
Published by apto123

More info:

Published by: apto123 on Mar 04, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





(#1) The Neoconservative Planfor Global Dominance
Sources:The Sunday HeraldSeptember 15, 2002Title: "Bush Planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President"Author: Neil MackayHarper's MagazineOctober 2002Title: "Dick Cheney's Song of America"Author: David ArmstrongMother JonesMarch 2003Title: "The 30 Year Itch"Author: Robert DreyfussPilger.comDecember 12, 2002Title: "Hidden Agendas"Author: John Pilger Random Lengths NewsOctober 4, 2002Title: "Iraq Attack-The Aims and Origins of Bush's Plans"Author: Paul Rosenberg
 Project Censored wishes to acknowledge that Jim Lobe, the Washington, D.C. correspondent for  Inter Press Service (IPS), has been covering the ways in which neo-conservatives, using the Project  for the New American Century (PNAC) among other mechanisms, used the 9/11 attacks to pursuetheir own agenda of global dominance and reshaping the Middle East virtually from the outset of the Bush administration’s “war on terrorism.” For more information, please vist the following link:
http://www.ipsnews.net/focus/neo-cons/index.aspFaculty Evaluators: Phil Beard Ph.D. and Tom Lough Ph.D.Student Researcher: Dylan Citrin CumminsCorporate Media Partial Coverage:Atlantic Journal Constitution, 9/29/02, The President's Real goal in Iraq, By Jay BookmanOver the last year corporate media have made much of Saddam Hussein and his stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Rarely did the press or, especially, television address the possibilitythat larger strategies might also have driven the decision to invade Iraq. Broad political strategiesregarding foreign policy do indeed exist and are part of the public record. The following is asummary of the current strategies that have formed over the last 30 years; strategies that eclipse the
 pursuit of oil and that preceded Hussein's rise to power:In the 1970s, the United States and the Middle East were embroiled in a tug-of-war over oil. At thetime, American military presence in the Gulf was fairly insignificant and the prospect of seizingcontrol of Arab oil fields by force was pretty unattainable. Still, the idea of this level of dominancewas very attractive to a group of hard-line, pro-military Washington insiders that included bothDemocrats and Republicans. Eventually labeled "neoconservatives," this circle of influentialstrategists played important roles in the Defense Departments of Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr., atconservative think tanks throughout the '80s and '90s, and today occupies several key posts in theWhite House, Pentagon, and State Department. Most principal among them are:
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, our current Vice-President and Defense Secretary respectively,who have been closely aligned since they served with the Ford administration in the 1970s;
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the key architect of the post-war reconstruction of Iraq;
Richard Perle, past-chairman and still-member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board that hasgreat influence over foreign military policies;
William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and founder of the powerful, neo-conservativethink-tank, Project for a New American Century.In the 1970s, however, neither high-level politicos, nor the American people, shared the priorities of this small group of military strategists. In 1979 the Shah of Iran fell and U.S. political sway in theregion was greatly jeopardized. In 1980, the Carter Doctrine declared the Gulf "a zone of U.S.influence." It warned (especially the Soviets) that any attempt to gain control of the Persian Gulf region would be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the U.S. and repelled by any meansnecessary, including military force. This was followed by the creation of the Rapid DeploymentForce — a military program specifically designed to rush several thousand U.S. troops to the Gulf on short notice.Under President Reagan, the Rapid Deployment Force was transformed into the U.S. CentralCommand that oversaw the area from eastern Africa to Afghanistan. Bases and support facilitieswere established throughout the Gulf region, and alliances were expanded with countries such asIsrael, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.Since the first Gulf War, the U.S. has built a network of military bases that now almost completelyencircle the oil fields of the Persian Gulf.In 1989, following the end of the Cold War and just prior to the Gulf War, Dick Cheney, ColinPowell, and Paul Wolfowitz produced the 'Defense Planning Guidance' report advocating U.S.military dominance around the globe. The Plan called for the United States to maintain and grow inmilitary superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge us on the world stage. Usingwords like 'preemptive' and military 'forward presence,’ the plan called for the U.S. to be dominantover friends and foes alike. It concluded with the assertion that the U.S. can best attain this position by making itself 'absolutely powerful.'The 1989 plan was spawned after the fall of the Soviet Union. Without the traditional threat tonational security, Cheney, Powell and Wolfowitz knew that the military budget would dwindlewithout new enemies and threats. In an attempt to salvage defense funding, Cheney and companyconstructed a plan to fill the 'threat blank'. On August 2, 1990 President Bush called a press
conference. He explained that the threat of global war had significantly receded, but in its wake anew danger arose. This unforeseen threat to national security could come from any angle and fromany power.Iraq, by a remarkable coincidence, invaded Northern Kuwait later the same day.Cheney et al. were out of political power for the eight years of Clinton’s presidency. During thistime the neo-conservatives founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The mostinfluential product of the PNAC was a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defense,"(www.newamericancentury.org) which called for U.S. military dominance and control of globaleconomic markets.With the election of George W. Bush, the authors of the plan were returned to power: Cheney asvice president, Powell as Secretary of State, and Wolfowitz in the number two spot at the Pentagon.With the old Defense Planning Guidance as the skeleton, the three went back to the drawing board.When their new plan was complete, it included contributions from Wolfowitz's boss DonaldRumsfeld. The old 'preemptive' attacks have now become 'unwarned attacks.' The Powell-Cheneydoctrine of military 'forward presence' has been replaced by 'forward deterrence.' The U.S. standsready to invade any country deemed a possible threat to our economic interests.
Update by David Armstrong
 Just days after this story appeared, the Bush administration unveiled its “new” National SecurityStrategy, which effectively validated the article’s main thesis. The NSS makes clear that theadministration will pursue a policy of pre-emption and overwhelming military superiority aimed atensuring US dominance. Since that time, the major media have generally come around to the pointof view presented in the article. The New York Times, which originally rejected the article’s premise, now makes a virtual mantra of the notion that the current security strategy is little morethan a warmed-over version of the policy drafted during the first Bush administration of preventingnew rivals from rising up to challenge the US in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse. Thearticle circulated widely, particularly in the run up to the war in Iraq, and was entered into theCongressional Record. It also became a topic of discussion on such outlets as the BBC, NPR,MSNBC, various talk radio shows, and European newspapers. In the process, it has substantiallyhelped shape the debate about the Bush administration’s foreign policy.
Update by Bob Dreyfuss
 For months leading up to the war against Iraq, it was widely assumed among critics of the war thata hidden motive for military action was Iraq's oil, not terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. Infact, "No Blood for Oil" became perhaps the leading slogan and bumper sticker of the peacemovement. Yet, there was very little examination in the media of the role of oil in American policytoward Iraq and the Persian Gulf, and what coverage did exist tended to pooh-pooh or debunk theidea that the war had anything to do with oil. So, I set out to place the war with Iraq in the contextof a decades-long U.S. strategy of building up a military presence in the region, arguing that even before the war, the U.S. had turned the Gulf into a U.S. protectorate. Perhaps most importantly, Ishowed that a motive behind the war was oil as a national security issue, as a strategic commodity,not as a commercial one — and that, in fact, most of the oil industry itself was either opposed to or ambivalent about the idea of war against Saddam Hussein. Yet the neoconservatives in the Bush

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->