Home

For many Americans it is difficult to accept that our government would lead us
to war without the purist of intentions. Our safety and well being must surely be
at the top of the list. For most of us, our well-being is simple: keeping danger at
bay, away from our door step. For those who run governments, though, there is
a perception: the only safe environment is the controllable environment. In
today's international neighborhood we cannot simply throw up a wall around
America to be safe. Protectionism is not enough. It’s necessary for our country
to actively participate in world affairs. As a nation, we encounter a myriad of
different countries and cultures in various kinds of relationships. How we
engage this world community will send us in widely divergent directions,
depending upon our relative strength (economically and militarily) and our
leaders' view of the world and its people. We can seek mutual cooperation. In
some instances, it is prudent to approach from a standpoint of humility: seeking
help from other nations. We can compete. Or, if we are powerful, we can chose
dominance. Our course is charted by our leadership; which, in this country,
changes radically every four to eight years.

My attempt here, in Part I, is to shed some light on the characteristics of a
leadership that took power in the United States in January 2001. My intention is
not to indict, but instead, to offer historical background of the foreign policy
positions and, in Part II, the philosophy of several key individuals. These
people are important because they constitute what appears to be the ready-
made cabinet and advisory council that awaited President Bush II upon his
inauguration. This background information is necessary. It's necessary to
understand the culture and mindset of the players and the international
intentions of the administration that has now been unmasked by the Downing
Street Memos.

Throughout the 1990’s, during the Clinton years, conservatives who had gained
a foothold in the Reagan and Bush I administrations were, to a degree, at loose
ends. They had been pushed out of power. But they certainly were not ready to
be sidelined. They had concerns about world conditions, and especially, how
these conditions might impact their view of America's international position.
They had ideas and possible solutions to problems, but were consistently
ignored. They knew their principles would never be considered, much less
implemented under what they perceived as the wishy-washy, liberal Clinton
administration. So they continued to develop and publish their principles and to
perfect their plan. They were waiting "in the wings".

In 1997, a conservative think tank, “Project for the New American Century”, was
formed. It was comprised of many of those who became politically significant
during the pre-Clinton administrations. Included in the group of original
signatories to the Statement of Principles for the PNAC were Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Jeb Bush, I Lewis Libby, Elliot
Abrams, William Bennett, Steve Forbes and others.

By perusing the mountain of writings that came out of the PNAC during the 90’s,
a set of core beliefs become readily apparent: 1. Within the group, there was a
genuine concern for the safety of the United States and it’s position in the
world. 2. They were then, and are still today, convinced: America, as the only
true world power, has a responsibility to the world. First: the United States must
protect itself at all costs; secondly: America must fashion the rest of the world to
mirror our democracy to insure our continued safety. Only then, will the world
be stable. To the typical citizen, these goals seem logical and, maybe, even
laudable.

Most everyone would agree: this is the “ultimate” plan for the US. To conceive
this plan, though, requires an arrogant disregard for those who might oppose or
disagree, externally and/or internally. “What’s good for General Bullmoose is
good for the USA”, played humorously in Lil’ Abner, but loses all humor in real
life. When expanded to the international stage, the results can be disastrous.

To implement the PNAC core beliefs, certain actions were and continue to be
deemed necessary: 1. We must take control and maintain dominance over any
and all opposition; militarily, if necessary. 2. We must have stable access and
control over all necessary physical assets (oil, energy & strategic military
placement) to display our world presence and military might; this will ward off
any threat to our safety.

A Study of PNAC position papers and writings during the Clinton era reveals an
overriding preoccupation with Iraq: Saddam had to be removed. Securing Iraq
was the preeminent first step toward achieving the ultimate goal of a strong
presence in the heart of the Middle East. In a January 1998 letter to President
Clinton, PNAC pleaded with the President to drop his policy of containment and
to remove Saddam Hussein. “If Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver
weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along
the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends
and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of
the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard”. (underline added).
Signatories to this letter: John Bolton, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul
Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Elliot Abrams, William Bennett, Richard Armitage,
James Woolsey and others
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

So here we have a powerful, self-appointed group of administrative advisors,
working to develop policy and strategies that will guarantee America’s
leadership position into the 21st Century. These people are extremely
intelligent, highly experienced and well schooled in the operation of our
Federal Government. They have developed a very sophisticated plan. Which,
in retrospect, seems to have been adopted by the Bush Administration. And in
January 2001, this cast takes center stage as the nucleus of the Bush
administration.

The downside: these people have been working in isolation, reinforcing each
other's thoughts. They have not been privy to what has gone on inside the
government for 8 years. They are not aware of current intelligence reports or
intelligence activities. And when it into power, the new administration discards
virtually all of the information accumulated during the Clinton years.

Of greater concern, is the fact that many of these advisors studied and now
embrace the philosophies of Leo Strauss. See Part II.