http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded in early 1997 as a non-profit educational organization by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S President George W. Bush and strongly affected the George Bush administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4]
[edit] Background and history An initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a 501(c)(3) organization headed by William Kristol (Chairman) and Gary Schmitt (President),[1] the Project for the New American Century is funded in part by such organizations as the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.[5] On January 26, 1998, in the PNAC's open letter to President Bill Clinton, its members explicitly called for a U.S. ground campaign to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.[6] The goal of regime change remained their consistent position throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis.[7] They followed that up with a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott.[8] On November 16, 1998, citing Iraq's demand for the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors and the removal of Richard Butler as head of the inspections regime, William Kristol, co-founder of the PNAC and editor of The Weekly Standard, called again for regime change in an editorial in his online magazine: "...any sustained bombing and missile campaign against Iraq should be part of any overall political-military strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power."[9] Kristol states that Paul Wolfowitz and others believed that the goal was to create "a 'liberated zone' in southern Iraq that would provide a safe haven where opponents of Saddam could rally and organize a credible alternative to the present regime ... The liberated zone would have to be protected by U.S. military might, both from the air and, if necessary, on the ground." The PNAC also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton had signed into law.[10] In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective, questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.[11] In September 2000, the PNAC published a controversial 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century. >From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq. [12]. On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[13][14][15] [16] On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," or regime change: ...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[17] [4] In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.[1] According to Tom Barry, "The glory days of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) quickly passed but the website is still functioning and was updated as of Feb 8, 2007.[18][19] On Oct 4, 5:25 am, rigsy03 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is PNAC? Something non-agression? Hard to keep track of the > alphabet these days. > > On Oct 4, 4:19 am, "mike532 [ Republicans for Obama ]" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i think it is more about implementing the PNAC groups plans than > > confronting Russia > > > On Oct 4, 5:11 am, rigsy03 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The USA belligerence in the Middle East and Stans/India is really a > > > thrust against Russia. > > > > On Oct 4, 3:35 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Most people are against US belligerence against Iraq. Who is going to > > > > stop the US, not a capitalist apologist like Chomsky? Liberals are > > > > good for talking about what should be done, and then do nothing > > > > > mike532 [ Republicans for Obama ] wrote: > > > > > > Chomsky: "The Majority of the World Supports Iran" > > > > > > In an exclusive and wide-ranging interview, Chomsky discusses the > > > > > global politics of Iran's and India's attempts to become nuclear > > > > > powers. > > > > > On Wednesday night, in a vote of 86 to 13, the U.S. Senate passed a > > > > > historic nuclear deal with that will allow the United States to trade > > > > > with India in nuclear equipment and technology, and to supply India > > > > > with nuclear fuel for its power reactors. The deal is considered > > > > > hugely consequential by its supporters and opponents alike -- and a > > > > > significant victory for the Bush administration. > > > > > > Last month, Subrata Ghoshroy, a researcher in the Science, Technology > > > > > and Global Security Working Group at the Massachusetts Institute of > > > > > Technology, met with Noam Chomsky in his office at MIT, where he is > > > > > the institute professor of linguistics. "Before we started our > > > > > discussion," Ghoshroy writes, "Professor Chomsky asked me to give him > > > > > a little background information. I told him that I was researching > > > > > missile defense, space weapons and the U.S.-India nuclear deal." > > > > > Ghoshroy is a longtime critic of the U.S. missile defense program and > > > > > a former analyst at the Government Accountability Office who in 2006 > > > > > blew the whistle on the failure -- and attempted cover-up -- of a key > > > > > component of the program: a $26 billion weapon system that was the > > > > > "centerpiece" of the Bush administration's antimissile plan. > > > > > > Ghoshroy and Chomsky discussed the then-pending nuclear deal, which > > > > > would sanction trade hitherto prohibited by U.S. and international > > > > > laws because of India's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation > > > > > Treaty and the nuclear tests it conducted in 1998. Ghoshroy has > > > > > written several articles criticizing the U.S.-India deal as a triumph > > > > > of the business lobby -- an assessment Chomsky agreed with. He said > > > > > that Condoleezza Rice is actually on record admitting what is truly > > > > > behind this deal, which he characterized as a "non-proliferation > > > > > disaster." > > > > > > Ghoshroy's subsequent conversation with Chomsky touched on a number of > > > > > interweaving topics, including: India and the importance of the non- > > > > > aligned movement; the myths of free trade and the so-called "success" > > > > > of neoliberalism; Washington's historic opposition to promote new > > > > > world economic and information orders; Latin America's growing > > > > > independence; the West's hypocrisy over Iran's nuclear program -- and > > > > > MIT's ironic role in it during the shah's regime; and, finally, U.S. > > > > > elections and the prospects for change. > > > > > > The result is a two-part interview, the second of which will run on > > > > > AlterNet tomorrow. Part One begins with India, the Non-Aligned > > > > > Movement, and why a "majority of the world supports Iran." (The Non- > > > > > Aligned Movement, which consists of some 115 or more representatives > > > > > of "developing countries," originated at the Asia-Africa Conference in > > > > > Bandung, Indonesia, in 1955, which was convened mainly by newly > > > > > independent former colonies from Africa and Asia to develop joint > > > > > policies in international relations. Jawaharlal Nehru, then India's > > > > > prime minister, led the conference. There, "Third World" leaders > > > > > shared their similar problems of resisting the pressures of the major > > > > > powers, maintaining their independence and opposing colonialism and > > > > > neo-colonialism, especially Western domination. India continued its > > > > > vigorous participation and leadership role in NAM until the end of the > > > > > Cold War. For further reading, visit the NAM Web site.) > > > > > > ***- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
