US Intelligence Report: Bush Wrong about Iran

[RRocket]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”

Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.

But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”

The estimate does not say when American intelligence agencies learned that the weapons program had been halted, but a statement issued by Donald Kerr, the principal director of national intelligence, said the document was being made public “since our understanding of Iran’s capabilities has changed.”

Rather than painting Iran as a rogue, irrational nation determined to join the club of nations with the bomb, the estimate states Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.” The administration called new attention to the threat posed by Iran earlier this year when President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.

Yet at the same time officials were airing these dire warnings about the Iranian threat, analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency were secretly concluding that Iran’s nuclear weapons work halted years ago and that international pressure on the Islamic regime in Tehran was working.

Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, portrayed the assessment as “directly challenging some of this administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran.” He said he hoped the administration “appropriately adjusts its rhetoric and policy,” and called for a “a diplomatic surge necessary to effectively address the challenges posed by Iran.”

But the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, quickly issued a statement describing the N.I.E. as containing positive news rather than reflecting intelligence mistakes.

“It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Hadley said. “It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”

“The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the administration has been trying to do,” Mr. Hadley said.

The new report comes out just over five years after a deeply flawed N.I.E. concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program — an estimate that led to congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, although most of the report’s conclusions turned out to be wrong.

Intelligence officials said that the specter of the botched 2002 N.I.E. hung over their deliberations over the Iran assessment, leading them to treat the document with particular caution.

“We felt that we needed to scrub all the assessments and sources to make sure we weren’t misleading ourselves,” said one senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity.




Will Americans FINALLY be able to sleep at night now??


So we find out Bush was lying/deceiving America about Iran, just like he did with Iraq. WTF is with this Administration craving conflict?

 

[fossten]

Will Americans FINALLY be able to sleep at night now??


So we find out Bush was lying/deceiving America about Iran, just like he did with Iraq. WTF is with this Administration craving conflict?

The answer to your question lies in the quote below.

The estimate does not say when American intelligence agencies learned that the weapons program had been halted, but a statement issued by Donald Kerr, the principal director of national intelligence, said the document was being made public “since our understanding of Iran’s capabilities has changed.”

If Bush knew about it, say, in the last 12-18 months, then you are absolutely right. If not, then maybe not. I'm not into Bush bashing unless there's an actual smoking gun. I believe that there are some secrets that need to be kept from the American people, mostly in terms of national security. But there have definitely been hints of military action and economic sanctions have already been taken on Iran, hurting their economy.

What did Bush know and when did he know it seems to be an important question at this point, and it would be a sign of good faith for Bush to tell us that. I'm afraid if he remains silent on this issue it could ruin his credibility and possibly his legacy.

I must admit that what remained of my faith in Bush has been shaken by this story, if not blasted into pieces. I hope we find out more, and soon.

Edit: In the interests of intellectual honesty, here's another take on the story from National Review Online:

Revisionism and The Iranian Non-Bomb [Victor Davis Hanson]


The latest news from Iran about the supposed abandonment in 2003 of the effort to produce a Bomb — if even remotely accurate — presents somewhat of a dilemma for liberal Democrats.

Are they now to suggest that Republicans have been warmongering over a nonexistent threat for partisan purposes? But to advance that belief is also to concede that, Iran, like Libya, likely came to a conjecture around (say early spring 2003?) that it was not wise for regimes to conceal WMD programs, given the unpredictable, but lethal American military reaction.

After all, what critic would wish now to grant that one result of the 2003 war-aside from the real chance that Iraq can stabilize and function under the only consensual government in the region-might have been the elimination for some time of two growing and potentially nuclear threats to American security, quite apart from Saddam Hussein?

War is unpredictable and instead of "no blood for oil" (oil went from $20 something to $90 something a barrel after the war, enriching Iraq and the Arab Gulf region at our expense), perhaps the cry, post facto, should have been "no blood for the elimination of nukes."

In the meantime, expect a variety of rebuttals to this assurance that for 4 years the Iranians haven't gotten much closer to producing weapons grade materials.

 

[MonsterMark]

So we find out Bush was lying/deceiving America about Iran, just like he did with Iraq. WTF is with this Administration craving conflict?

:shifty: :shifty: :shifty: Here we go again.

Hey look! Another one of 'em crawled out from under a rock.

I better chase him back.

War on Terror Update
Confidence in War on Terror Near Highest Level of Bush’s Second Term

Trust on Issues
Health Care is Top Issue for Most Democrats, National Security for Most Republicans

President Bush Job Approval
Bush Job Approval at 37% For Month of November

I guess I don't need to post where CONGRESS's approval numbers are.

 

[MonsterMark]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

B.S. !!!

I'll wait for the Israelis to weigh in.

I guess we'll have to wait for the Israelis to take care of it for us.

'US report should not deter world'
In response to Israeli speculation that the report's findings would weaken American-backed support for military action against Iran, Barak emphasized that the issue of its nuclear program was still relevant.

"It is possible that this is correct, but I do not think that it is our place to make assessments about US [policy]. It is our responsibility to ensure that the correct things are done. Constantly speaking about the Iranian threat, as we have done recently, is not the right thing to do… words do not stop missiles," Barak told Army Radio.

 

[fossten]

RRocket, Bush just confirmed that the NIE also states that Iran is still enriching uranium and have 3000 centrifuges. How does that jibe with the premise that Iran halted the program back in 2003? Isn't it possible that they halted it, but then started it back up again?

 

[MonsterMark]

Attention All Azzhats around LvC.

Iran does not intend on using a nuclear bomb. They intend on covertly making it and giving it away. Let someone else do their dirty work for them.

People are clueless and don't understand the evil side of human nature.

But I guess this can all be stopped if we get a mountainside of liberals together holding hands and singing 'Give Peace A Chance'.

 

[fossten]

Attention All Azzhats around LvC.

Iran does not intend on using a nuclear bomb. They intend on covertly making it and giving it away. Let someone else do their dirty work for them.

People are clueless and don't understand the evil side of human nature.

But I guess this can all be stopped if we get a mountainside of liberals together holding hands and singing 'Give Peace A Chance'.

So Proclaimeth the Grand Proclamator and Tolerator of Azzhats.

Not making fun of you Bryan, I just thought your "Tap tap, is this thing on" headline was funny.

 

[fossten]

Whoops! Hillary spoke out on Iran a month ago!

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071...opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html

[snip]

Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.

On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.

 

[shagdrum]

You realize, this report is totally opinion based, as opposed to fact based.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/03/america/cia.php

"The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is most likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies 'do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.'"​

MonsterMark, you wanted Israel to comment, here ya go:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546799748&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Israel believes Iran restarted nuclear arms work...

The threat of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons must not be underestimated, was the message government officials sent out on Tuesday after the release of a US intelligence report claiming that Teheran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 but was continuing to enrich uranium.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that he was familiar with the report that had been shown to him by US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during the Annapolis peace summit last week.

"I am familiar with the American intelligence assessment," Barak said following a meeting with Hungarian Chief of Staff Gen. Andras Havril. "Nevertheless, I say again that Iran is today a central threat on the world and the State of Israel."

He said that the world and Israel needed to take steps to confront the threat and to thwart it.

"There is a lot that can be done with regard to the Iranian nuclear program but it is important to mention that words do not stop missiles," the defense minister said. "Action is needed in the form of sanctions, in the diplomatic sphere and in other spheres as well."

Last month, Barak said that a military operation was a viable option for dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat.

"We cannot take any option off the table and we need to study operational aspects," Barak said at a Labor Party meeting in Beersheba. "This is not just for the coming months but also for the coming two years."

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said at the opening of a meeting with the Italian deputy prime minister that the report only emphasizes and strengthens the need for the international community to tighten sanctions on Iran so that it will not be able to produce nuclear weapons.

According to Olmert, the report's findings were brought up during his meetings with Washington officials soon after the Middle East Peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland last week.

Regardless of the fact that the report said that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons plan, the fact was that such a plan did indeed exist until 2003.

"The US still plans to continue to try to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons. We will make every effort - first and foremost with our friends in the US - to prevent the production of this type of weapon," he said.

In response to Israeli speculation that the report's findings would weaken American-backed support for military action against Iran, Barak emphasized that the issue of its nuclear program was still relevant.

"It is possible that this is correct, but I do not think that it is our place to make assessments about US [policy]. It is our responsibility to ensure that the correct things are done. Constantly speaking about the Iranian threat, as we have done recently, is not the right thing to do… words do not stop missiles," Barak told Army Radio.

"There are differences in the assessments of different organizations in the world about this, and only time will tell who is right," he added.

National Infrastructures Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said that irrespective of the US intelligence report, "Israel must continue to act in every way against the Iranian nuclear threat."

"This report is totally fine, it makes me smile, but on the other hand Israel and the defense establishment are working under the premise that Iran is in fact heading directly towards [a nuclear weapon]" Ben Eliezer told Army Radio, adding, "This is exactly one of the issues over which the state of Israel must take no risk."

Similarly, government officials said Monday night that the new report had not lessened Israeli concerns, since enriched uranium can be used both for civilian and military purposes.

According to the report, Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003 under international pressure but is continuing to enrich uranium. That means it may still be able to develop a weapon between 2010 and 2015, senior US intelligence officials said Monday.​

 

[04SCTLS]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/04/BL2007120401026.html?hpid=topnews



Neck-Snapping Spin From the President

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, December 4, 2007; 2:10 PM

By concluding that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago, the national intelligence estimate released yesterday undermined a key element of President Bush's foreign policy. It raised questions about whether the president and vice president knowingly misled the public about the danger posed by Iran. And it added to Bush's profound credibility problems with the American people and the international community.

But to hear Bush talk about it at the White House press conference this morning, the new NIE vindicated his beliefs and makes his warnings about Iran more potent.
It was neck-snapping spin even by Bush standards. He intentionally misread the report's central point, failed to acknowledge a huge change in his argument for why Iran is dangerous and exhibited pure bullheaded stubbornness.

When Chicago Tribune reporter Mark Silva noted that Bush appeared dispirited and asked if he was troubled about what this would do to his credibility, Bush replied: "No, I'm feeling pretty spirited, pretty good about life, and have made the decision to come before you so I can explain the NIE. And I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world. Quite the contrary. I'm using this NIE as an opportunity to continue to rally our colleagues and allies. . . .

"And so, you know, kind of Psychology 101 ain't working. It's just not working, you know? I am -- I understand the issues. I clearly see the problems and I'm going to use the NIE to continue to rally the international community for the sake of peace."

Yesterday's report came as something as a shock to the general public. Bush and Vice President Cheney have long asserted that Iran was actively seeking nuclear weapons, and Cheney, in particular, had been accelerating what some observers saw as a drumbeat for war. But the nation's 16 intelligence agencies didn't come to their conclusion overnight. In fact, this NIE had been in the works for 18 months, during which some of its authors were reportedly harried by Cheney for not being sufficiently hawkish.

So what did Bush know and when did he know it?

Bush insisted today that he had not been formally briefed on the NIE until last week, and that his director of national intelligence simply told him in August that there was some new information. "He didn't tell me what the information was," Bush said. "He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze."

Bush insisted the NIE would not lead to any changes in policy. "I'm saying that I believed before the NIE that Iran was dangerous, and I believe after the NIE that Iran is dangerous."

But even if he wouldn't admit it, his central indictment against the Iranian government has suddenly become a great deal more nebulous: "The NIE says this is a country that had a covert nuclear weapons program, which, by the way, they have failed to disclose, even today," Bush said. "The danger is, is that they can enrich [uranium], play like they got a civilian [nuclear] program -- or have a civilian program, or claim it's a civilian program -- and pass the knowledge to a covert military program. And then the danger is, is at some point in the future, they show up with a weapon."

Not exactly a mushroom cloud -- or even a smoking gun.

The apparent change in Bush's red line for Iran -- no longer the possession or even the pursuit of nuclear weapons but the knowledge of how to make them -- is highly reminiscent of the linguistic contortions Bush executed after it was established that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Hours before sending American troops into Iraq, Bush had expressed"no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." But by late 2004, he shifted to justifying the invasion because Hussein "retained the knowledge, the materials, the means, and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction."


Bush's new mantra is: "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." But one of the most telling moments of the press conference came when Bush entirely ducked a question posed by New York Times reporter Steven Lee Myers: "The Non-Proliferation treaty doesn't prohibit a country like Iran from having the knowledge to enrich uranium. Are you setting a different standard, in this case, and a different international obligation on Iran? And is that going to complicate the efforts to keep the pressure on when it comes to sanctions at the United Nations?"

In his meandering non-response Bush insisted that "the Iranian people must understand that the tone and actions of their government are that which is isolating them."

Credibility Problems

Even before Bush's press conference, a new raft of problems for the president were coming into focus.

Peter Baker and Robin Wright write in today's Washington Post: "President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.

"The new intelligence report released yesterday not only undercut the administration's alarming rhetoric over Iran's nuclear ambitions but could also throttle Bush's effort to ratchet up international sanctions and take off the table the possibility of preemptive military action before the end of his presidency."

National security adviser Stephen Hadley "said Bush was first told in August or September about intelligence indicating Iran had halted its weapons program, but was advised it would take time to evaluate. Vice President Cheney, Hadley and other top officials were briefed the week before last. Intelligence officials formalized their conclusions on Tuesday and briefed Bush the next day."

Brian Williams reported on NBC News: "This means, among other things, that during last week's Middle East peace conference where so much of the talk was centered around the Iran threat, US intelligence officials had information indicating they knew better, and the administration said so today."

Jonathan S. Landay writes for McClatchy Newspapers that the new findings "deal another blow to the administration's credibility and influence, already battered by its use of bogus and exaggerated intelligence to justify its 2003 invasion of Iraq."

What Changed?

Dafna Linzer and Joby Warrick write in The Washington Post that the new estimate was "evidence, to many observers, of the intelligence agencies' new willingness to question assumptions and assert their independence from policymakers. . . .

"'The key judgments show that the intelligence community has learned its lessons from the Iraq debacle,' said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), who chairs the Senate intelligence committee. He was referring to long-standing Democratic allegations that intelligence on Iraq was skewed to help promote the administration's desire for war.

"In this case, Rockefeller said, 'it has issued judgments that break sharply with its own previous assessments, and they reflect a real difference from the views espoused by top administration officials.'"

William J. Broad and David E. Sanger write in the New York Times: "The assessment does not explain -- unless it is addressed in more than 130 pages still marked classified -- how the May 2005 conclusion that Iran was still pressing ahead with a nuclear weapons program went awry. . . .

"The problem the administration faces now is that it is declaring that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons development with the same certainty that it insisted two years ago that the program was speeding ahead."

The Drum Beat Ends?

Steven Lee Myers writes in the New York Times: "Until Monday, 2008 seemed to be a year destined to be consumed, at least when it comes to foreign policy, by the prospects of confrontation with Iran.

"There are still hawks in the administration, Vice President Dick Cheney chief among them, who view Iran with deep suspicion. But for now at least, the main argument for a military conflict with Iran -- widely rumored and feared, judging by antiwar protesters that often greet Mr. Bush during his travels -- is off the table for the foreseeable future.

"As Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, put it, the intelligence finding removes, 'if nothing else, the urgency that we have to attack Iran, or knock out facilities.' He added: 'I don't think you can overstate the importance of this.'

"The White House struggled to portray the estimate as a validation of Mr. Bush's strategy, a contention that required swimming against the tide of Mr. Bush's and Mr. Cheney's occasionally apocalyptic language."

Fred Kaplan writes for Slate: "Skeptics of war have rarely been so legitimized. Vice President Cheney has never been so isolated. If Bush were to order an attack under these circumstances, he would risk a major eruption in the chain of command, even a constitutional crisis, among many other crises. It seems extremely unlikely that even he would do that."

Wither the Hardliners?


Mark Mazzetti writes in the New York Times: "In interviews on Monday, some administration officials expressed skepticism about the conclusions reached in the new report, saying they doubted that American intelligence agencies had a firm grasp of the Iranian government's intentions."

But Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times quotes John R. Bolton, formerly the Bush administration's ambassador to the United Nations: "Asked what effect the document might have on the debate within the Bush administration, Bolton said: 'There really isn't any debate. Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates have fundamentally won. This is an NIE very conveniently teed up for what the administration has been doing.'"

Hadley's Task


Bush's comments today were foreshadowed by national security adviser Hadley, who went before the press corps yesterday afternoon to explain how the NIE proved the administration was right.

"On balance, the estimate is good news," he said. "On one hand, it confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it tells us that we have made some progress in trying to ensure that that does not happen."
Here is Bush less than two months ago, at his Oct. 17 press conference:

Question: "But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?"

Bush: "I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.

"But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously."

A few days later, on Oct. 21, Cheney described Iran with the kind of war-like fervor reminiscent of his warnings before the Iraq invasion.

Cheney spoke of "the inescapable reality of Iran's nuclear program; a program they claim is strictly for energy purposes, but which they have worked hard to conceal; a program carried out in complete defiance of the international community and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this. . . .

"The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."


The USA Today editorial board hails "the apparent return of intelligence developed without political meddling. The pre-Iraq war NIE became notorious because of White House political interference and the lack of rigor in sourcing and reporting. Its assertions were almost all disproved, and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction proved to be a mirage. The latest NIE may or may not turn out to be right, but it at least appears to be untainted."

Glenn Greenwald writes for Salon that "yet again, [Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency,] has been completely vindicated, and our Serious Foreign Policy Experts exposed as serial fabricators, fear-mongerers and hysterics."



I"M SHOCKED, SHOCKED! that Bush and Cheney have mislead the American public.
They never let the facts stand in the way of their hype and secret plans.
I know you guys like them but my previous posts about Pax Americana and 9/11 being just an excuse to put 10 year old American Empire plans into action vindicate my opinion of them.
They are not to be trusted or even given the benefit of the doubt.
I for one will be glad to see them gone.

 

[shagdrum]

again, this report is nothing but a "consensus or opinion". It isn't based on facts. Israel still thinks that they are goin for nukes, and they have arguably the best intelligence in the world. It is interesting to see that people who wouldn't believe anything our intelligence community said about Iraq in the build up to war, or any "doom and gloom" predictions about Iran and it's nuclear capability, are so quick to believe them when it fits their agenda.

I really don't see how this proves anything related to that "pax americana" piece of propaganda. Any comparison of Vietnam to Iraq (outside of media influence in public perception of), is absurd and blatantly opportunistic. The piece in you previous post is based as much on fact as anything Michael Moore has ever directed. There is no proof; repeat NO PROOF of the Bush admin "misleading" the public on Iraq. To claim it is fact is blatant distortion. And if you are gonna try and dispove that last statement, direct sources please. No op-ed piece by an "unbiased" columnist, like David Olive,or secondary sources that are 95% opinion and 5% reality.

 

[04SCTLS]

Isreal will take care of itself.
History has taught them not to put their security
in the hands of others.
They take care of these kind of threats against them
as they have shown.
Maybe we should leave this to them as they seem to know what
to do when.

 

[shagdrum]

Isreal will take care of itself.
History has taught them not to put their security
in the hands of others.
They take care of these kind of threats against them
as they have shown.
Maybe we should leave this to them as they seem to know what
to do when.

True...
Any comment on Israeli intelligence vs. the "consensus" opinion of the U.S. intelligence community?

 

[04SCTLS]

so you would consider this from the Cristian Science Monitor propaganda?
I posted a lot more articles than just David Olive.
Perhaps you missed them....


A Bush vision of Pax Americana
National strategy, released Friday, calls for US dominance to expand global peace.

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON –
After laying out what may be the boldest restatement of US national security strategy in half a century, the Bush administration is pressing forward to implement it in the high-profile case of Iraq.

The United States has been the world's only superpower at least since the fall of the Berlin Wall, but defining what that might mean, in terms of America's role in the world, has been taking shape more slowly.

The Bush administration's first National Security Strategy, released Friday, takes an unprecedented step away from cold-war views to confront a world beset by the likes of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda terrorists.

More broadly, the 31-page document asserts American dominance as the lone superpower – a status no rival power will be allowed to challenge.

And it provides a reason the world should accept this state of affairs: the expansion of peace and more freedom. A Pax Americana will be "in the service of a balance of power that favors freedom."

Critics are already describing the new strategy as arrogant and dangerous – a far cry from the tone of humility in foreign affairs promised in President Bush's inaugural address. To supporters, it represents an overdue codification of America's mission of global leadership.

"It's a very far-reaching and comprehensive statement, and it's likely to endure as a bedrock element in American thinking in this post cold war world," says Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow for US foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.

On one thing analysts on both sides agree: In many ways it merely makes explicit what has been US practice for years.

"If you look at our history with Latin America, you could cast much of previous policy as imposing regime changes on the basis that if we don't act, bad things will happen. But to boldly declare such a policy, that's new," says Richard Stoll, professor of political science at Rice University.

Where the Truman-era doctrine of containment had fallen with the Berlin Wall, the Bush document makes a case for preemptive response when there is evidence of an "imminent threat."

At the same time, it details significant new development aid, including a 50 percent rise in US aid to countries that commit to economic freedom and pro-growth policies. The document also proposes a goal of doubling the size of the world's poorest economies within a decade .

When President Truman made the case for a new US strategic doctrine in 1950, the world was still reeling from the carnage of World War II. Communist rivals with the aim of world dominance threatened the peace. A rapid buildup of US military power and presence in strategic areas was needed to contain them, he said.

To Bush and his advisers, the dangers in the post-9/11 world come not from strong states but from weak ones that nurture terrorists with the capacity to create great chaos "for less than it costs to purchase a single tank," the report says.

The first test for this new strategy is Iraq, which the US says poses an immediate threat to world security. The president has also cast the Iraq threat as a test of the credibility of world institutions.

His Sept. 12 speech to the UN General Assembly directed a bright light on how the UN handles enforcement of its own resolutions, and spurred an intense burst of activity to revive enforcement of some 16 Security Council resolutions.

Last week, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said that he would accept UN weapons inspectors back into the country without conditions.

In New York, US and British diplomats responded by urging a new UN resolution setting a timetable for inspectors to do their work, and specifying consequences if that deadline is not met – as well as other conditions on the search for biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons.

Many members of the UN Security Council say they do not want to take up a military option at this time. And on Saturday, the Iraqi president said that his country would not cooperate with any resolution that is different than those previously voted.

THESE ongoing discussions, including direct talks between President Bush and key leaders, involve some of the most complex and focused diplomatic efforts of the Bush presidency. On Friday, President Bush spoke for half-an-hour with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who favors improved weapons inspection but has not backed use of force. Russia has historic ties to Iraq, as well as billions in outstanding loans.

One usual ally, with whom there has been little discussion, is Germany, where a cabinet official was cited in press reports as comparing President Bush's methods to those of Hitler.

"The Germans won't be able to ask for a permanent seat at the UN [Security Council] for quite some time," says Dominique Moisi, deputy director of the French Institute for International Relations in Paris. France has been moving closer to the US position. He explains that "President Chirac was really alarmed at the level of anti-French bashing in America and [a] priority was to establish a more normal relation with America. Now, we're much closer to America than Germany."

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is taking a similar broad resolution to the US Congress, which is expected to pass authorization to use force before breaking in mid-October.

"The Democrats have been perplexed, maybe even timid as to how they react to the Iraqi crisis," says the former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D) of Indiana, now director of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. "A good many of the Democrats just want to get it off the agenda and get on to other issues before the election."

The end of an era: new threats, new strategies

For us the role of military power is to serve the national purpose by deterring an attack upon us while we seek by other means to create an environment in which our free society can flourish....

Our free society, confronted by a threat to its basic values, naturally will take such action, including the use of military force, as may be required to protect those values.... [Military measures should not be] so excessive or misdirected as to make us enemies of the people....

– 1950 Truman administration NSC-68

It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first....

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

– 2002 Bush administration National Security Strategy

 

[fossten]

The liberals have a problem. If they believe the NIE means that Iran is no longer pursuing nukes as of 2003, they must acknowledge (if and when they are challenged) that this is a direct result of Bush's aggressive policy toward Iraq, a la Muammar Qaddafi's capitulation and disassembly of Libya's nuke program at the same time. On the other hand, if they want to continue to cling to the belief that the Iraq invasion accomplished nothing, then they must discredit the analysis that says that Iran is playing it straight. They cannot have it both ways.

 

[shagdrum]

The liberals have a problem. If they believe the NIE means that Iran is no longer pursuing nukes as of 2003, they must acknowledge (if and when they are challenged) that this is a direct result of Bush's aggressive policy toward Iraq, a la Muammar Qaddafi's capitulation and disassembly of Libya's nuke program at the same time. On the other hand, if they want to continue to cling to the belief that the Iraq invasion accomplished nothing, then they must discredit the analysis that says that Iran is playing it straight. They cannot have it both ways.

Good point, the one caviate being "if" they are challenged. We all know that, for the most part, the libs in power won't be challenged on this by the media. The DNC canidates are boycotting Fox News to avoid hard questions, and if someone challenged queen Hillary on this, she would turn the story into how much of an @$$hole the person asking the question is, in the subsequent days.


Sorry, 04SCTLS, I missed that. Gonna eat first, then read it. I did skim it and I am assuming that article was written around 2002-2003, correct? (wanna keep it in the proper context).

 

[04SCTLS]

Yes that article was from 2002.
If you reread my Pax Americana post
there's others with links.
IMO the Iraq war has been misrepresented
to the american public.

 

[shagdrum]

The article simply spells out Bush's policy of pre-emption. What stands out to me first as I read it was the quote by Professor Richard Stoll;

"If you look at our history with Latin America, you could cast much of previous policy as imposing regime changes on the basis that if we don't act, bad things will happen. But to boldly declare such a policy, that's new"​

"you could cast" should read "you could spin", as that is what Stoll is doing. When have we "imposed" regime change? A change to democracy, isn't an imposition of a new regime, it is a change in government. Usually a change from a regime to the most natural form of government know; democracy. You can't "impose" freewill, which, by extension, seems to be suggested here.

outside of that, it just shows that this dramatic change in American foreign policy, which has always happened when a new threat arises, and was called for after 9/11. A change in tone from "humility" in Bush's original presidental campaign to now is good. 9/11 changed the whole foreign policy dynamic. I doubt the 'humility" would be the correct term, though. Would love to hear his justification for that. Conservatives have always been stronger on foreign policy and defense then democrats. Appeasement has never worked, neither have international organizations like the UN (which is a failure and utter joke, just like the League of Nations before it).

The German official claiming Bush's policies are like Hitler's is patently absurd. We aren't trying to take over the world (or any countries for that matter).

Is there something more people are gleaning from this article, because it doesn't have much. Judging by some of the posts around it, I would assume people are trying to use this article to say we are becoming "imperialist" which is absurd. When have we ever forcefully extended our territory by establishing domination?

 

[shagdrum]

Yes that article was from 2002.
If you reread my Pax Americana post
there's others with links.
IMO the Iraq war has been misrepresented
to the american public.

Misrepresented by who? If you are saying the media, then "yes", absolutely. They misrepresented (and still do) the war, intentionally.

 

[shagdrum]

Are you talking about this article?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm

By JAY BOOKMAN
29 September 2002.

Follow links for greater depth.

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

'Constabulary duties'

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States,the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

Effect on allies

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.

One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.

"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.

"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

Costly global commitment

Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.

Kagan is more blunt.

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."

The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.

That's what this is about.

 

[04SCTLS]

sorry, the reasons for the war have been misrepresented.
We haven't taken any territory since we had a war with Mexico(but that's another story)
We do have a lot of bases over the world though.
We don't need to take over countries.
We'd rather have our corporations do business with them on favorable terms.
Perhaps you didn't read this article in my post.




View My Photo Gallery


Join Date: May 2007
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 231 The president's real goal in Iraq


http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle2319.htm



By JAY BOOKMAN
29 September 2002.

Follow links for greater depth.

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

'Constabulary duties'

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States,the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

Effect on allies

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.

One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.

"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.

"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

Costly global commitment

Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.

Kagan is more blunt.

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."

The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.

That's what this is about.






Why is it so hard to believe that 9/11 and Iraq were a convenient excuse to try to expand american power and influence and secure permanent bases there.
Of course you can't tell the people this is part of expanding the american empire and siezing our moment in history.

 

[shagdrum]

That article is (1) outdated, (2) highly inaccurate and (3) blatant spin. We have NEVER tried to "seize empire", as the article claims. We have done the "world police" thing before, but that isn't what Iraq is, by any means. In fact, to try and claim both, the author is contradicting himself.
Police action is using military force to fix a percieved wrong in a country where we have no national interest that rises to the level of being protected by the military. To "seize empire" is to go into a country purely to further a national interest. When we have acted as the international police, there has been nothing even remotely resembling imperialism going on. When we have removed a regime (which is the goal of any war, traditionally), we have established a democracy and left. This is in our own interest due to the democratic peace theory (democracies don't make war on one another). We don't stay and claim that the country is now a territory of America.

The author proves himself wrong in this statement:

why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled? Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran. In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.
​

For his theory to hold true we would have to be "dominating" Germany and Japan currently, we aren't.

"And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power."​

He ignores the fact that containment and deterrence didn't work and led to 45 years of tension that had the cold war become hot on a few occasions (Korean War, Vietnam War). Dismissing the option of containment and determent is just common sense, as they are policies that are proven failures. It could be argued that we did try deterrence with terrorism before 9/11, and we see how that turned out.

At this point in the article, the author has shown a gross misunderstanding or foreign policy and a willingness to spin facts to fit his own agenda as well ignore facts and common sense all together. The author is very being clever, but hardly reasonable and unbias, let alone wise.

[Bush's National Security Strategy] "In essence...lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence."
​

At this point in the article he is trading on credibility that he doesn't have for us to trust him in summarizing what the NSS Bush spelled out says. "Domination" is a very strong word, that is most likely inaccurate. "Domination" is most likely his hyperbolic intertpretation for the word "influence".

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.
​

According to the author, the similarity of Bush's NSS to a report by a conservative non-profit educational organization means that terrorism didn't play a part in the NSS. How do you make that leap in logic? It's either one or the other, not both?! The fact that both Bush and the Project for the New American Century, as conservatives, share similar values, views, ect. which may have led to the similarities is totally ignored by the author. The author also, doesn't seem to consider the idea that after 9/11 dictated a fundamental change in foreign policy that Bush thought this conservative groups ideas were good and incorporated them into his NSS. As the article goes on, the author seems more and more determined to spin the war on terror under Bush as imperialism, and all facts are to be spun that way.

 

[shagdrum]

sorry, the reasons for the war have been misrepresented.
We haven't taken any territory since we had a war with Mexico(but that's another story)
We do have a lot of bases over the world though.
We don't need to take over countries.
We'd rather have our corporations do business with them on favorable terms.

Again, misrepresented by who? Was the misrepresentation intentional? The article you just posted (and I reposted a just before you, sorry 'bout that) is a blatant misrepresentation worthy of Micheal Moore. Once you start saying corporations are part of american imperialism, you are grasping at straw, my friend.

Again, sorry about the double post.

 

[04SCTLS]

Well, believe what you will.
Ron Paul agrees with my view of american foreign policy since WWII.
Either way Bush Cheney is out in a year, and that's an incontrovertable fact.

 

[MonsterMark]

Either way Bush Cheney is out in a year, and that's an incontrovertable fact.

And if America is smart, we'll elect another Bush/Cheney pair to take over and 'Stay the Course'.