--- strategie per la comunicazione indipendente http://www.rekombinant.org/media-activism ---
Questa è la risposta all'articolo di Jay Bookman di cui è stato inserito il link nell'ultimo numero di rekombinant: è tratto dal sito http://www.newamericancentury.org/ , sito ufficiale del "Project for the New American Century". Nella dichiarazione dei principi di questa organizzazione, autodefinitasi "a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership" è possibile osservarvare, fra gli altri, i nomi di Jeb Bush e Dick Cheney. Ciao a tutti Alan http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-100602.htm Reaction to 'Bush's Real Goal in Iraq': Comparing America to Ancient Empires is 'ludicrous' Donald Kagan The Atlanta Journal and Constitution October 6, 2002 In an article last Sunday, Jay Bookman revealed a remarkable discovery: A report called "Rebuilding America's Defenses," written for the Project for the New American Century, "seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy." I was co-chairman of the effort, and I wish I had known in September 2000, when the report was published, and since then that our work would be so influential, for until now I had no idea that it had any effect at all. We had aimed to finish our assignment in time for the presidential campaign. We were appalled by the lack of interest in these important issues displayed by both parties. The Clinton administration had cut the defense forces that had so brilliantly won the Gulf War to the point that even their military leaders were complaining of their inability to carry out the national defense strategy, and the Republicans in Congress joined in the effort. Our military forces were inadequate in size, equipment and training. They were underpaid and overstretched. The combination of shortcomings was damaging morale to the point that we were losing badly needed, well-trained and experienced men and women and finding it hard to recruit replacements. All this damaged our readiness to meet challenges now. Developments in communications technology have produced a revolution in military affairs that will make our current weapons and ways of fighting obsolete in the foreseeable future. Our current level of spending devoted to transforming our military is inadequate to meet its demands, too. A failed mission. The mission of the group we assembled was to study the condition of our defenses, to recommend a policy aimed at preserving peace in the world and defending America's security and interests, to propose the best size and structure for our defense establishment, and to be as clear and specific as possible. We hoped that our report would help focus the attention of the candidates and the media on this most important issue they were neglecting. We failed. Almost all the people we invited to take part in our deliberations who later joined the current Bush administration attended no more than one meeting, said little and made it clear that they did not agree with our analysis and recommendations. Neither the presidential candidates nor the media paid any attention to what we wrote. When the Bush administration took office it largely continued the policies of its predecessor. It sought only small increases in the defense budget that would address only the most pressing needs to improve the quality of life of our servicemen and women. This left the problems of inadequate force size and equipment, readiness and the transformation of our forces essentially as they were. Some of us criticized the new administration for these shortcomings. None of its members, including those we had called upon to help us in our deliberations, supported our complaints. This situation changed only after the attacks on our country on Sept. 11, 2001. Some of us find the funds allocated and requested since then still inadequate to achieve what is needed. I believe events since then have amply justified the concerns we expressed in our report and made the need to carry out our recommendations more pressing than ever. I regret that the Bush administration did not take them more seriously before the attacks and hope they will have some influence now. Ignorance and confusion Bookman's article also misunderstands the view of America's role in the world presented by the report. He says that its authors seek "a full-fledged global empire." Conceding that we do not speak of any such thing, he says we "shy away from such terms as empire." We did not shy away from the term, because we never thought of it. I think it would be a very bad idea and entirely inconsistent with the kind of nation the United States is and should continue to be. All comparisons between America's current place in the world and anything legitimately called an empire in the past reveal ignorance and confusion about any reasonable meaning of the concept empire, especially the comparison with the Roman Empire, which Bookman makes. The Romans acquired the greatest part of their empire by direct military conquest, subjected their people to Roman law, and imposed taxes and compulsory military service under Roman command. They deprived their subjects of freedom and autonomy. With variations, such arrangements characterized the many empires that have existed over the centuries. U.S. doesn't dominate, it leads To compare the United States with any such empire is ludicrous. It holds no land outside the 50 states without the consent of its people. Victorious in World War I, it withdrew from Europe entirely. Victorious in World War II, it liberated Western Europe, occupied defeated Germany until its democracy could take hold and pumped great sums of money into helping its allies and former enemies achieve unprecedented prosperity. Invited to lead them in defense against the menace of the Soviet Union, the United States spent its money and employed its forces far from home, not for conquest but to protect its allies. It has welcomed the formation of a European Union that is entirely independent of the United States, is a formidable competitor in the world economy and feels entirely free to criticize, remain aloof from and oppose American policies, with no fear of military reprisal. That is not how empires behave. We do not believe in an American empire. That is why the report speaks of American leadership, not domination. Because of its superior military and economic strength, its leading role in defeating two great totalitarian threats to the world and its uniquely broad interests around the world, it cannot escape the burdens and responsibilities of taking a leading part in establishing and preserving a peaceful order in the world. Over the years, extended periods of peace have been rare in a world divided into multiple states. My study of history convinces me that unilateral disarmament, the avoidance of international commitments, and teaching and preaching of the evils of war are of no avail in preventing war. What seems to work best, even though imperfectly, is the possession by those states who wish to preserve the peace of the preponderant power and of the will to accept the burdens and responsibilities required to achieve that purpose. Difficult task looms The current situation in the world assigns America a central and indispensable role in the establishment and preservation of peace. I believe that the best way to achieve those goals is the same as the one that carried us all safely through the Cold War, as the welcome leader of a coalition of friends and allies. That has never been an easy task. For all the overwhelming interests we have in common, our separate national goals threaten to divide us from time to time. As the disparity in strength between the United States and its allies grows, and as the hostility of disruptive forces is directed at the United States and not, for the moment, at its allies, those allies grow more reluctant to carry their share of the burden, and more suspicious of U.S. motives and power. In the past such problems have been overcome not merely by patience and persuasion but, more effectively, by the courage, strength and determination of the United States. When America has made clear its intention to take action, its formerly reluctant allies have invariably not opposed it and have usually joined in. None of that is possible without a foreign and defense policy that recognizes reality and makes its plans accordingly, and a military force ready to meet the great challenge presented by the 21st century. That is why we wrote our report, which, regrettably, was not the basis for the policies of the current administration. Because I believe that events have demonstrated its wisdom, I hope it will have greater influence in the future. Donald Kagan is Sterling professor of classics and history at Yale University. His latest book is "While America Sleeps: Self-Delusion, Military Weakness and the Threat to Peace Today." ___________________________________________ Rekombinant http://www.rekombinant.org
