I just clicked onto the site while doing research for a totally unrelated subject, and was surprised. I've never heard of this think tank, nor heard it mentioned in the media. I think I need to read a few more papers and listen to the news more:) Is anyone else familiar with it? It's pretty interesting reading.
Project for the New American Century
by Cicatrix 6 Replies latest social current
-
-
Badger
PNAC is a neocon thinktank that has endoresed the Invasion of Iraq...in the mid 1990's. and the use of US military force to assert power and dominance over necessary resources (oil, metals) and to defend american (business) interests.
Liberals beat this drum when they claim that Bush is "sold out to corporate interests". Quite rightly, I might add.
Basically, they're in favor of american imperialism.
-
-
Cicatrix
Thanks Badger, I'll take a look at the anti after I get done with the official site. There's alot of reading there.
-
Phantom Stranger
New American Century Statement of Principles
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift (Still true). Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world (Still true). . They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives (Still true). . And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world (Still true). . And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations (Still true). . As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: 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 or 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 this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
? we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; ? we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; ? we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; ? we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz -
talesin
? we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
I don't like the sounds of this, but it's not surprising. I've heard of these guys, probly in one of the 'subversive' mags I like to read.
They're quite arrogant in announcing their mission is to run the world.
talesin
-
Phantom Stranger
At least they've got Dan Quayle on their side.