New American Century...

[Roadtoad]

So I'm cruising around, checking out another site where I post, and I find this link, and some information about same:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I think to myself, "Wait a minute: Didn't Wayne Grabert mention this very thing?" (Didn't I screw up my comprehension of same?)

I'm all for a strong defense of the United States, but frankly, what I'm reading here is scaring me. How are we to pay for it, (reasonably)? How will you gather sufficient troops to man the trenches? And is this even a reasonable idea in this day and age?

RandFan? Wayne? Aero? Your thoughts?

[Roadtoad]

This is from the Statement of Principles. I've a few questions at the end...

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. 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. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. 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. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. 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.

----------

1. Where will we find in the decision to increase our national military spending the requisite budgetary discipline? I've read repeatedly about military appropriations for such things as the damned Sgt. York DIVAD gun, which not only couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, but the barnyard either. Whole books have been written about how Pentagon buyers were treated to junkets by the contractors, and a friend of mine was ending his military career investigating this very thing. (Air Force CID: busted a number of folks, too.)

Additionally, what steps are being taken to insure that we are spending our capital effectively, and not just buying "sexy" high tech weapons.

2. What criteria is being developed to determine who's a friend and who's a foe? And who will be charged with that task, and who will oversee its implementation?

Further, what would constitute "hostile" action, and what would determine our response? Would that response be appropriate to the action?

3. How are we defining "political and economic freedom?" Our track record here is checkered at best, and while acting in our own self interest is a good move, one might wonder if it might be a wise move to clearly define what we're discussing here, and define the means and methodology for effecting this. (Hal, you might be closer to this one than most.)

Further, what role is the United States military to play in this? Will we see more intervention actions like we see in Kosovo, Haiti, and Bosnia? Or will they be used in a more traditional sense? And, again, is this the wisest use of our force?

4. How are we defining our role, and is this something we're carving in stone, or is this something relatively fluid? Again, criteria, and background would be helpful.

Just a few more thoughts.

[corplinx]

This is really simple. We used to use the the military like a sledge hammer. Carpet bombings, napalm, large infantry invasions. Starting with Clinton, our presidents have recognized the need for the military to become more like a surgical needle. We can effectively reduce the size of the infantry. No more sending wave after wave of men into melee until you make your objective.

In short, I think we can spend less and do more. I dont think ghastly large defense budgets are necessary anymore.

We can effectively destroy any invading force before it ever gets within striking distance of the american mainland.

With modern gps and satellite technology, precision guided weapons, special operations support, and close air support; we simply no longer need tons of redundant infantry and armored vehicles.

I hope Rumsfeld get this right.... We can save money and have a better military. Clinton was right......

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by corplinx
This is really simple. We used to use the the military like a sledge hammer. Carpet bombings, napalm, large infantry invasions. Starting with Clinton, our presidents have recognized the need for the military to become more like a surgical needle. We can effectively reduce the size of the infantry. No more sending wave after wave of men into melee until you make your objective.

In short, I think we can spend less and do more. I dont think ghastly large defense budgets are necessary anymore.

We can effectively destroy any invading force before it ever gets within striking distance of the american mainland.

With modern gps and satellite technology, precision guided weapons, special operations support, and close air support; we simply no longer need tons of redundant infantry and armored vehicles.

I hope Rumsfeld get this right.... We can save money and have a better military. Clinton was right......

Possibly, yes. But at the same time, is this possibly even a JUST use of our military?

On paper, it sounds so good. BUT, our nation's track record in foreign affairs is abysmal, and quite frankly, putting this precise, skilled force in the hands of someone who is either incompetent, or evil, is a huge danger. So much depends on who we put into the Oval Office, while at the same time, you have to look long and hard at the entrenched bureaucracy that's running things. Damned if you do...

You're right, though, about Clinton, to an extent. I think someone on another thread addressed this, though.

[kedo1981]

Wayne Grabert (I promise I will not call him grabass anymore) and his/her ilk expressed the belief that this document meant the eminent conquest of the earth by the Bush administration, (or seemed to at least).
Some of the ideas in the document are a bit extreme but it’s not exactly Mien Kempt (sic) either.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by kedo1981
Wayne Grabert (I promise I will not call him grabass anymore) and his/her ilk expressed the belief that this document meant the eminent conquest of the earth by the Bush administration, (or seemed to at least).
Some of the ideas in the document are a bit extreme but it’s not exactly Mien Kempt (sic) either.

They are not proposing the conquest of the earth by the Bush administration. They know it will take a succession of administrations to accomplish their goal. That is why it is called "Project for a New American Century".

In their minds, Reagan's defense spending bankrupted the USSR. They realize it is now a one-horse race. Ergo, there is no one to stop us now. Increased military spending will eventually require the usage of that military, so an enemy (or enemies) must be created.

Glad nothing like that is going on these days. If it did, I would really be scared.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrChinese


They are not proposing the conquest of the earth by the Bush administration. They know it will take a succession of administrations to accomplish their goal. That is why it is called "Project for a New American Century".

In their minds, Reagan's defense spending bankrupted the USSR. They realize it is now a one-horse race. Ergo, there is no one to stop us now. Increased military spending will eventually require the usage of that military, so an enemy (or enemies) must be created.

Glad nothing like that is going on these days. If it did, I would really be scared.

Are you saying you're glad there is no one to stop us?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I'm all for a strong defense of the United States, but frankly, what I'm reading here is scaring me. How are we to pay for it, (reasonably)? How will you gather sufficient troops to man the trenches? And is this even a reasonable idea in this day and age?

RandFan? Hi Roadtoad,

I'm flattered that you asked me my thoughts. I have done allot of thinking on this subject and some reading. Let me credit Wayne and Nova for giving me some additional insight. Though to be sure I wasn't completely naive as to geopolitics.

First let me say that the PNAC's agenda is contrary to the goals of many on the left. That being the case, politically the most efficient way to stop the PNAC is to discredit it and play to people's fears. Paint it dark and make subtle innuendo and not so subtle claims that the organization is evil and is akin to Stalinism or Nazism. This is of course demagoguery and can often be spotted by the use of emotional buzzwords and abundant rhetoric and light on evidence.

I note that your questions come directly from the site and are quite reasonable and are devoid of emotional pleadings aside from your stated fear (which seems quite reasonable). You are obviously searching for the truth. I commend you. I whish that I had more substance to give. I confess that I am new to the PNAC and I'm trying to research it in an objective fashion. I have not made up my mind even though a number of those involved I respect very much, most notably Dr. Charles Krauthammer (http://www.sagecrossroads.net/krauthammer.cfm). Though I think the world of him it would be wrong for me to blindly accept the goals of the PNAC based solely on his involvement (please note that Krauthammer served under Carter and was a speechwriter to Mondale).

Some of the propaganda you will hear in the near future about the PNAC,

Cheney's Monstrous Scheme (http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_010603_pnac.html)

There is a hunting lodge near Greybull, Wyoming where Dickie Dearest was obsessed with "A Most Dangerous Game" (human hunting) and addicted to the thrill of the sport of traumatizing his victims while satisfying his sick perversions. Although this "game" was devised to condition military personnel in survival and combat maneuvers, it was used on Cathy O'Brien and other slaves as a means to further conditioning of the mind to the realization there was no place to hide, as well as traumatization for ensuing programming. According to Cathy, this game had numerous variations on the primary theme of being stripped of clothing, turned loose in wilderness areas which were enclosed in secure military fencing, and hunted by men and dogs until caught, raped, and tortured. This is our Vice President! (Editors note - we'd like to make it clear that these allegations are just that, allegations, and are not proven by anything more than testimony). Such an ambitious and sweeping plan as the PNAC DEMANDS scrutiny. It is quite appropriate that people ask questions and demand answers. But let me ask you this one favor, be skeptical, but be skeptical of both the critics and the proponents.

The Proponents
William Kristol, Gary Bauer, Jeffrey Bell, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, Eliot Cohen, Seth Cropsey, Midge Decter, Thomas Donnelly, Aaron Friedberg, Hillel Fradkin, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Jeffrey Gedmin, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Charles Hill, Bruce P. Jackson, Eli S. Jacobs, Michael Joyce, Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Charles Krauthammer, John Lehman, Clifford May, Richard Perle, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, William Schneider, Jr., Richard H. Shultz, Henry Sokolski, Stephen J. Solarz, Vin Weber, Leon Wieseltier, Marshall Wittmann. Thanks again,

RandFan

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Tony


Are you saying you're glad there is no one to stop us?

Apparently my sarcasm was confusing...

I am saying that the US may need to create enemies to use its unchallenged might against, and that process appears to have started already.

You would have to admit that increasing our military spending - when there are no enemies of any substance in sight - seems a bit paranoid and excessive. In the current world environment, maintaining defense spending at current levels - or reducing them - would seem more prudent.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DrChinese


I am saying that the US may need to create enemies to use its unchallenged might against, and that process appears to have started already.



We seem to create enemies fast & furiously no matter which course we choose. Strange, huh?

PNAC sounds like the rational course to me, although unfortunately, this seems to discount the importance of China's military.