PNAC & the Bush White House

I’m always amazed to learn that some people are still not aware of the players inside the Bush administration. Recently, I was asked this question, What does The Project for the New American Century have to do with the Bush administration?

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is composed of a group of men (I frankly don’t know whether there are any women in it) that had long advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein for various reasons, including oil, the necessity to project American power in the Middle East, the need to protect an ally (Israel), and to prevent Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction. On January of 1998 the group sent a letter to president Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein:

“In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.” [letter]

Moreover, the same group sent another letter to the then majority leader in the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, urging that Congress exert pressure on the White House to persue the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Please note that this is five years before Mr. Bush warned us of the “grave and gathering danger in Iraq” if we did not do something soon. Now, if you scroll down, you’ll see the list of signatories on the letter addressed to president Clinton. If you’ve followed the events and players surrounding the Bush White House over the past couple of years, there ought to be a couple of names that immediately jump out at you, for example: Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld & Paul Wolfowitz — just to name some of major players.

Furthermore, if you were to do a search on the signatories to the letter, you’d find that many of them ended up working in the Bush administration, in various governmental positions*:

Elliott Abrams
http://uscirf.gov/cirfPages/bio_Abrams.php3?scale=1152s

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Elliott_Abrams

Richard L. Armitage
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/2991.htm

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_L._Armitage

William J. Bennett
http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/wbennett.htm

Jeffrey Bergner
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Jeffrey_Bergner&redirect=no

John Bolton
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010221-6.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_Bolton

Paula Dobriansky
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010312-9.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Paula_Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama
http://www.bioethics.gov/about/fukuyama.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Francis_Fukuyama

Robert Kagan

Zalmay Khalilzad
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010523-7.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Zalmay_Khalilzad

William Kristol
http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm

Richard Perle
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/04/text/20010406-7.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_Perle

Peter W. Rodman
http://www.dod.mil/policy/isa/bios/peter_w_rodman.html

Donald Rumsfeld
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/secdef_bio.html

William Schneider, Jr.

Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/depsecdef_bio.html

R. James Woolsey

Robert B. Zoellick
http://us-mission.ch/BIOS/Zoellick.htm

(*Note that for those individuals without links I could not find any relevant information.)

Moreover, some — here and elsewhere — contend (me among them) that the Bush administration exploited 9/11 and exaggerated the threat that Saddam Hussein posed in order to pursue an elective war against Iraq. Many point to the Bush administration’s appointment of many of the above individuals to key posts, as a sign that there existed in the administration a predisposition to see Iraq as an enemy — even when it did not pose a threat to the US. Futhermore, many point to a document published by PNAC, which hints at a “larger plan” involving Iraq, the Middle East and the US military. That document includes this graft:

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event � like a new Pearl Harbor.” [Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, p. 51. PDF]

The above statement is offered in the context of “transforming” the US military into a more “mobile” and “nimble” fighting force; however, when placed in the context on 9/11 and its Pearl Harbor like psychological affect on the nation, one can understand how the authors of the document — that is, the members of PNAC — saw 9/11 as the opportunity to enact their plans for the Middle East, Iraq and the US military. For example, one of PNAC’s goals was to transform the military, and to do so they needed to illustrate how a more “mobile” and “nimble” force could be effectively used in combat. Now, if you recall, before going into Iraq the administration (namely, Rumsfeld) argued that we would need less troops than what the Pentagon was asking for. Now, the Pentagon lost that argument, so we went into Iraq with a lot less troops than was required to secure the country after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Of course, we’re now paying for this blunder. However, Mr. Rumsfeld, as a member of and signatory to the PNAC letter, for ideological reasons, chose to go into Iraq with less troops than what the Pentagon had originally requested.

Finally, the signatories to PNAC’s Statement of Principles include the following: Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and others.

To say that the Bush administration did not have plans for Iraq long before 9/11 is simply not borne out by the record. Now, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event � like a new Pearl Harbor” who knows when the Bush administration would’ve invaded Iraq; however, it’s clear that 9/11 presented the Bush administration the perfect rationale to go into Iraq and then enact the plans laid out by PNAC to remove Hussein, transform the military and project US power in the Middle East.

Does the Military Support Bush?

It’s widely known that the officer corps of the military is far more conservative than the U.S. population as a whole; accordingly, it’s not surprising that among the officer ranks support for Mr. Bush is likely to be extremely high. The enlisted ranks are a whole different animal, because they are far more diverse — in terms of race, educational levels, socio-economic background, etc. Now, one can easily understand why, in a time of conflict, one is likely to support one’s leader — no matter who he or she is; this phenomenon alone goes a long way at explaining why, at this time, the military is far more like to support the Commander-in-Chief. One has to wonder, though, about the levels of dissent that I know exist among the military ranks. Oftentimes, dissent in the military is not reported on because access to the troops is well regulated, and because the pentagon has cracked down on those servicemen and women that have spoken against the war.

Here’s an anecdote of a soldier from the 82nd Airborne:

“According to him, 75% of all soldiers want Bush defeated in the election and don’t care who defeats him; anger and resentment are high. He says that 90% of the officers remain far out of harm’s way, from lieutenants all the way up — and that only about 10% of the officer corps has some reasonable concern for the troops. There is general understanding that the officers are hiding in holes, or holding back in well-defended buildings and quite cavalier about sending troops out for assignments and errands that are frequently stupid, poorly planned, and dangerous.”

[...]

“Interestingly, he said that all enlisted men or officers in command positions have orders not to talk about their war experiences with the junior and fresh troops. He refuses — and tells those people under him everything he knows because he thinks it will help save their lives. When he went to Afghanistan at the beginning, basically nothing was told to them; he kept repeating “nothing.” And he said that their basic training in North Carolina was 180 degrees opposite of what they really needed to know for this kind of combat.” [Full post here]

You have to read the entire thing… it’s extremely powerful. Now, some may reflexively dismiss it, but from my experience I recognize the sentiments expressed in the post, and I know it — in general — to be true. I’ve recently spoken with some officers and enlisted men that served in Afghanistan and they all expressed the same level of frustration that this soldier from the 82nd spoke of.

I Still Belive

I am convinced that on November 2nd John Kerry will be CONCLUSIVELY elected president, unlike what occurred in 2000. Thereafter, Mr. Kerry will move to restore the international respect and goodwill that the Bush administration squandered over the past three and a half years.

I am hopeful and optimistic, and, like MANY MANY American citizens, I’m backing up my “faith with works;” so that on November 3rd I don’t wake up with this nagging question on my mind, “Did I do all I could do to put my country back on the right-track?”

I love my country, and I — and many others — recognize that what the Bush administration has wrought is not the kind of legacy I want to leave to those that come after me. Unfortunately, since 9/11, many well meaning Americans confused nationalism for patriotism, and in the process forgot about all those wonderful ideals and values that our country is supposed stand for. Just as a quick example of how down-is-up and up-is-down these days, Mr. Bush repeats over and over again that our boys are in Iraq to “fight for freedom”; however, here at home, Mr. Bush’s party — our Commander-in-Chief’s party — prohibits non-supporters from attending Republican rallies, unless they first sign an “oath of support” for Mr. Bush. [ref] In the other hand, Mr. Bush’s supporters are often seen at pro-Kerry rallies heckling the Democratic candidate.

I grew up believing in an America where dissent is viewed as legitimate, where dissent is tolerated and where our representatives are accountable to us. However, the Bush administration, and many of its supporters, do not belive in the kind of America that I grew up believing in. This is why I’m backing up my “faith with works,” so that others can grow up believing in the America I continue to belive in.

Bush is no Conservative

I provide the following as a description of the current American political landscape:

1. Most Americans don’t have an understanding of our own history and of political ideological terms like Liberal and Conservative in the academic/secular sense.

2. Americans are largely apolitical and, for various reasons, have in recent decades come to belive that the institutional political process is ineffective, unresponsive and inaccessible. Of course, this political apathy has been cultivated by both parties at various times, and for various reasons. However, a cursory glance at recent history would strongly suggest that this ploy has been more effectively used by the Right. Moreover, the point here is that because this apathy is true of a substantial segment of the American public, most of us have come to belive that change is not affected through political institutions nor through collective organization (i.e., marches, public rallies and the occasional civil disobedience).

3. In America, the cult of the individual has been deified to such a degree that the value of collective action is completely ignored. Here’s what I mean, in America it would seem that every notable human accomplishment somehow miraculously sprung from the mind of ONE individual at a given point, and that that individual alone changed the course of things. This, of course, completely ignores the contributions that countless other people make so that that ONE person could accomplish whatever it is that she’s credited with.

4. Taken together: (1) A good portion of Americans tend to be ill-informed on political (not to mention historical and international) matters; (2) Americans have little faith that the political/electoral process is the best way to resolve the nation’s problems to begin with and, too, we lack the social capital (i.e., grassroots community foundations) to organize and effectively engage political institutions; and, finally, (3) since the cult of the individual is inculcated at a young age, we don’t naturally gravitate towards organized groups as a way to solve problems.

Now, I belive that the above condition has created a vacuum wherein a good segment of the American electorate, lacking a firm grounding on historical and secular Conservatism, have imbued one party (i.e., Republican) as the vessel for ALL the social and religious conservative values that they would like to see enforced/adopted in the country at large. What does this mean in practical terms? Well, because in America we have only two viable parties (Democratic and Republican), most people that align themselves with one party or the other have little alternative but to vote for that party or not vote at all. Therefore, since the Republican party has been largely co-opted by a strong and vocal social/religious segment of that party, traditional conservatives (i.e., conservatives in the secular, academic, budgetary and state vs. the individual sense) have been largely marginalized within the Republican party. (As an aside, this is the reason why many “traditional” or true conservatives in the Republican party are predicting a “civil war” within the party after the November elections. Also, this is the reason why some “traditional” or true conservatives have endorsed Mr. Kerry over the Republican candidate, Mr. Bush.) Accordingly, in America, labels like Liberal and Conservative, in the pedestrian sense, have come to signify one’s “social” and religious values, rather than what the two labels are generally understood to mean in the academic/Political Science field.

Moreover, the Bush administration is not conservative, in the “traditional” or true sense of the term, by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, the Bush administration borders on imperial as it has subverted the Constitution and federal law in pursuit of polices that compromise individual rights, and by holding itself above public accounting for its execution of the Iraq war.

Republican Shenanigans

Incredible! I guess our Republican friends belive that the examples cited below have not “occurred” — please note #3, where a Republican party official has admitted guilt in court. The most malignant of these offenses is #1. Given that we live in America — a shinning example of democracy to the rest of the world — all citizens should be OUTRAGED that anyone would tarnish the name of American democracy by preventing our fellow citizens from exercising their RIGHT to vote. I am pissed off about the Oregon and Nevada voter registration card destruction (#1), which I see as the sort of thing I have come to expect from the Republican party. In my eyes, with this example, that party has proven once again how their rhetoric is completely empty of meaning, and how they’ll do anything to win — even if it means subverting the Constitution and trampling on basic human decency (not to mention federal law).

1. Republicans tear Democratic voter registration cards:

“I personally witnessed my supervisor at VOA, together with her personal assistant, destroy completed registration forms that VOA employees had collected,” said Russell. “All of the destroyed registration forms were for registrants who indicated their party preference as ‘Democrat.’” (link)

2. Ohio Secretary of State, a Republican, tried to invalidate voter registration cards because some of those new voter registration cards did not conform to an “archaic” rule requiring that the cards be on 80 lbs paper. Since the initial announcement the Secretary of State backpedaled and is now allowing those new registration cards to be counted. (link)

3. Phone jamming, initiated by Republican campaign operatives to suppress Democrats from voting in 2002 congressional election.

“Chuck McGee, the former executive director of the state Republican Party, pleaded guilty a few months ago to paying $15,600 to a Virginia telemarketing company to make the calls that jammed the get-out-the vote lines of Democrats the morning of the 2002 election.” (link)