-Caveat Lector-

28 January 2003 Tuesday 24 Ziqa'ad 1423
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
http://www.dawn.com/2003/01/28/int12.htm
Military spending is inadequate: Hawks tell Bush
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON: If there was any doubt about the global ambitions of the
Bush administration hawks, it was dispelled this weekend when a group of
influential right-wing figures complained that the current military budget
of almost $400 billion - greater than the world's 15 next biggest military
establishments combined - is not enough to sustain US strategy abroad.

In a letter to the president released on the eve of his State of the Union
address, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), whose alumni
include both figures close to Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and Vice
President Dick Cheney, as well as most of their top aides, called for
increasing the defence budget by as much as $100 billion next year.

"Today's military is simply too small for the missions it must perform", said
the letter whose signatories included mainly key neo-conservatives, former
Reagan administration officials, and a number of individuals close to big
defence manufacturers like Lockheed Martin. "By every measure, current
defence spending is inadequate for a military with global responsibilities"

The letter, which also suggested that Washington should prepare for
confrontations with North Korea, Iran, and China, is to be published in the
'Weekly Standard,' the Rupert Murdoch-financed neo-conservative journal
edited by William Kristol, PNAC's co-founder and chairman.

Publication of the letter comes as public confidence in Bush's leadership,
and particularly his apparent eagerness to invade Iraq, has slipped
substantially, according to recent by recent polls.

The same surveys show increasing concern as well about his management
of the economy, including the return of $300 billion budget deficits fuelled
mostly by military and security-related spending and tax cuts.

It also comes as veteran foreign-policy analysts here and abroad are
warning that anti-American sentiment is rising sharply in both the Muslim
world and among US allies in both Europe and North-east Asia due to the
perception that the Bush administration is insensitive to their views and
seeks permanent military domination of Eurasia.

In his State of the Union Address on Tuesday (today), Bush is expected to
lay out his budget and other priorities for the coming year. In the
following days, the administration will make specific budget requests.

If the administration asks increases urged by PNAC, public concerns about
Bush's intentions both here and abroad are likely to rise steeply.

On the other hand, PNAC's past letters, particularly its recommendations
on its anti-terrorist campaign and Middle Eastern policy, have anticipated
to a remarkable degree the administration's policy evolution.

Just nine days after the Sept 11, 2001, attacks, PNAC issued an open letter
that called on Bush to take his anti-terrorist war beyond Afghanistan by
ousting Saddam Hussein in Iraq, severing ties with the Palestinian
Authority, and preparing for action against Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in
Lebanon.

PNAC in many ways is the latest incarnation of a series of hawkish groups
dominated by Jewish neo-conservatives dating back to the 1970s, when
they fought the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party and combined with
Republicans like Rumsfeld to oppose detente with Moscow.

Midge Decter and her husband, Norman Podhoretz, for example, helped
found the Committee on the Present Danger in the late 1970s and the
Committee for the Free World in the early 1980s which Decter co-chaired
with Rumsfeld. Both signed the new letter.

Founded formally in 1997, PNAC works mainly as a front group for the
coalition of neo-conservatives, hard-right Republicans, and Christian Right
activists behind what has come to be called Bush's "neo-imperialist "
policies. Among its charter members were Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their
chief deputies, Paul Wolfowitz and I Lewis Libby, respectively, as well as a
dozen other top administration policy-makers today.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, PNAC produced a book-length
blueprint for the incoming administration called 'Present Dangers' edited
by Kristol and Robert Kagan, another signer and prominent neo-
conservative.

PNAC is closely tied to the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute
(AEI) from which it rents office space, and whose leading lights include
Perle, former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Lynne Cheney, the
vice president's spouse.

The administration, which already won an $80 billion increase in the
defence budget for fiscal 2003, has called for further increases up to $442
billion by 2007. But hawks have warned that this will not match what is
needed if Bush's global ambitions are to be realized.

"A year into this activist foreign policy," wrote Frederick Kagan, a military
historian and Robert Kagan's brother, late last year, "the defence agencies
that will prosecute the 'war on terrorism' remained starved of resources.
Increases of some $100 billion annually or more - over and above the
increases already called for - will be necessary to provide for a defence
establishment able to fulfil the president's national security strategy."

The hawks insist this is realistic, because an increase of $100 billion will
bring the defence budget's percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) to
only four per cent, still lower in percentage terms than what the
Pentagon received in the mid-1980s. "Less than a nickel on the dollar for
American security in the 21st century is cheap at the price," according to
the letter.

It enumerates the challenges that US power must address, noting that the
ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan was "an essential first step' ' and that
"an overwhelming military coalition (is) now ready to end the threat of
Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq."

"Removing Saddam is but the first step toward reconstructing a decent
government in Iraq and carrying out your strategic vision for the Middle
East. Other rogue states remain a major problem," the letter added.

"Indeed we now confront the two-war scenario: Even as we deploy forces
for war against Iraq, North Korea, has abrogated its agreement to
terminate its nuclear weapons development and threatens war if it is not
appeased. The third member of the 'axis of evil,' Iran, has likewise stepped
up its nuclear efforts," it argued.

It notes that the stabilization of Afghanistan remains to be secured, while
"the war is also carrying US troops across the border into Pakistan." In
addition, Washington has committed itself "to a long-term military presence
in Central Asia," while attacks in Bali and in the Philippines "show how this
war has spared to Southeast Asia."

"In East Asia, China, as your own administration says, is 'pursuing advanced
military capabilities that can threaten its neighbours' - our democratic
allies - and derail its own internal political and economic modernisation,"
the letter said. "With US troops stretched as they are, it is a serious
question of whether we could respond adequately to a Korean crisis or a
sudden confrontation in the Taiwan Strait."

"In sum, there is an increasingly dangerous gap between our strategic ends
and our military means, and the Bush Doctrine cannot be carried out
effectively without a larger military force," it asserts. -Dawn/The InterPress
News Service.




Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)






© The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2003
Forwarded for your information.  The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do
not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera-
tions.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and
rumoured by many.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is
written in Holy Scriptures.  Do not believe in anything merely on
the authority of teachers, elders or wise men.  Believe only after
careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief,
from the Kalama Sut

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to