All the money literally disappeared in a couple of months without a single school, hospital or bridge ever being built. ibid.
The so-called Abu Ghraib scandal shook the world. ibid.
This is not just a Republican takeover, this is a very specific wing of the Republican Party. It’s Neo-Conservatives, it’s unilateralist, it doesn’t believe in the rule of law. It doesn’t believe you have to tell the public the truth. William Hartung, fellow World Policy Institute
Iraq was the target because Neo-Conservatives wanted to remake the governments of the Middle East, to secure long-term US access to oil, to open the economies to American investment and to protect Israel through installation of governments friendly to the United States. David Moberg
The present wars in the Middle East and Asia are down to the Project for The New American Century. And its aims – that the USA should be dominant on land, at sea, in the air, in space, in cyberspace. To what benefit? What drove the British Empire? The need to dominate. David Halpin, The Vortex Sucks Ever Louder, Alternative View II conference 31st May 2009
The Project for a New American Century founded in 1997 was run by Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Wolfowitz and of course Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. And the Project for the New American Century called for a New World Order in its writings that can be viewed at their website. They said there needed to be a Pearl Harbor Event to speed up the New World Order. And to get the American people behind a national draft. And behind a war of aggression against sixty-two countries. A war that Bush has said will last generations. Alex Jones, Police State III: Total Enslavement
Saddam Hussein wasn’t a threat but that he provided a convenient pretext to get the oil in Iraq ... It was also about setting the precedent for the New World Order to invade sovereign nations. ibid.
Further the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic event like a new Pearl Harbor. Project For a New American Century: Rebuilding America’s Defences, Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century p51, 10 of the 27 participants in the Bush government
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. The United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy, win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars. The United States must reposition forces to respond to twenty-first century strategic realities by shifting permanently based forces to south-east Europe and south-east Asia. The Army’s annual budget must increase to the $90 to $95 billion level. ibid. @ Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force
While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. ibid.
A military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. ibid. @ Statement of Principles 1997
Project for the New American Century: this blueprint of global domination which was published before the accession of Bush to the White House, it is essentially a blueprint – it identifies the stages to this war ... Michel Chossudovsky, lecture 25th September 2003
It is a story that begins as the Cold War ends. A story about a group of self-identified radical conservatives on the right-wing extreme of the Republican Party. A group of intellectuals and policy makers who saw the fall of the Soviet Union and communism not as an opportunity to scale back America’s Cold War military machine, but as an opportunity to build up its size and scale. To use military force more aggressively and unilaterally. To construct a new unchallenged American Empire. Hijacking Catastrophe
At its core the document revived the Wolfowitz doctrine. It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to a hundred billion dollars, to deny other nations the use of outer space and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and pre-emptively in the world. ibid.
In all its previous incarnations and long before 9/11 and the current War on Terror the Wolfowitz doctrine had identified regime change in Iraq as a crucial first step toward global domination by force. In a widely circulated letter to President Clinton in 1998 the members for the Project for the New American Century challenged the President to act forcefully and militarily to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Two years later George W Bush would hand-pick many of these Neo-Conservatives for key foreign policy posts in the Pentagon and the State Department. Once installed in government positions, as recent interviews with a number of former members of the Bush administration have revealed, the group maintained its long-standing focus on Iraq. A focus that intensified after the attacks of September 11. ibid. Julian Bond
Much of what these men wanted is coming true. They urged that the US abandon the Antiballistic Missile Treaty: it has. They wanted the establishment of more permanent US military bases abroad: that is happening in the Philippines and in Georgia and will likely happen in Iraq. They urged regime change as a goal of foreign wars, not just in Iraq. They wanted the US as a global constabulary. 9/11 Coincidences
The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. In itself this goes a long way to explaining the things it does around the world. At present it’s conducting a War on Terror, or more accurately, a campaign against opposition to US domination. Others prefer to call it the beginnings of the Third World War. The United States has an insatiable appetite for conflict. Since going into Korea in the 1950s it’s been at war with someone or other in some corner of the globe non-stop right up to the present day. This drive is now led by the weapons manufacturers themselves. ibid.
Paul Wolfowitz began working on a plan that he eventually called The Project for the New American Century. A 21st century dominated by the United States. The US would use its unprecedented economic and military power to impose democratic values and protect American interests if necessary by pre-emptive force. The Fifth Estate: The Lies That Led to War, CBS 2012
In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting phase, the Defense Department asserts that America’s political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union.
A 46-page document that has been circulating at the highest levels of the Pentagon for weeks, and which Defense Secretary Dick Cheney expects to release later this month, states that part of the American mission will be ‘convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests’.
The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behaviour and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy. The New York Times article Patrick E Tyler 8th March 1992, ‘US Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop a One-Superpower World’
Our most fundamental goal is to deter or defeat attack from whatever source ... The second goal is to strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defense against aggression, build habits of cooperation, avoid the renationalization of security policies, and provide security at lower costs and with lower risks for all. Our preference for a collective response to preclude threats or, if necessary, to deal with them is a key feature of our regional defense strategy. The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the US and our allies. Paul Wolfowitz (co-author Scooter Libby), Defense Planning Guidance 1994-9, 16th April redraft
One of the primary tasks we face today in shaping the future is carrying long standing alliances into the new era, and turning old enmities into new cooperative relationships. If we and other leading democracies continue to build a democratic security community, a much safer world is likely to emerge. If we act separately, many other problems could result. ibid.
Certain situations like the crisis leading to the Gulf War are likely to engender ad hoc coalitions. We should plan to maximize the value of such coalitions. This may include specialized roles for our forces as well as developing cooperative practices with others. ibid.
While the United States cannot become the world’s policeman and assume responsibility for solving every international security problem, neither can we allow our critical interests to depend solely on international mechanisms that can be blocked by countries whose interests may be very different than our own. Where our allies’ interests are directly affected, we must expect them to take an appropriate share of the responsibility, and in some cases play the leading role; but we maintain the capabilities for addressing selectively those security problems that threaten our own interests. ibid.