If you feel the same way, then please forward this to as many people as you can.

      Not surprisingly, this ambitious strategy for military domination and control of the planet, which is what it is after you strip away all the dross, is called "Pax Americana", with all that that name implies. (Dare we say it? Empire.) Ironically, it is the proponents of the policy that named it that. Their report resides on the web site of a conservative think tank called The Project for the New American Century. Released in September 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, the report is entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century". (Let's call it the "PNAC report" for short.) Project Co-Chairman: Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt. Principal Author: Thomas Donnelly.

      A September 29th, 2002 op-ed piece by Jay Bookman in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this to say about that odd similarity:

"In essence, [the White House National Security Strategy] 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 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."

··     Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, second to Donald Rumsfeld at the
             Pentagon.
··     John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for arms controland international security.
··     Eliot Cohen, member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board.
··     I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, VP Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.
··     Dov Zakheim, undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer
             for the Pentagon.
··     Stephen Cambone, heads the Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation at the
             Defense Department.

·· Withdraw from Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which frustrates "the development of useful ballistic missile defenses" in order to revive the Reagan era Star Wars program.

      Policy adopted pre 9/11, now a DONE DEAL.

      Funding for ballistic missile defenseR&D is included in the new 355 billion dollars defense budget.

      A missile defense shield has offensive as well as defensive capabilities, simply by being up there. As the report let slip:

      ". . . effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection of U.S. military forces abroad."

·· Development of small tactical nuclear warheads—bunker busters.

      A work in progress.

      First public mention by the administration was during the Afghanistan War as a desirable new weapon to add to the arsenal for blowing terrorists out of their caves. Supposedly we already have high tech bombs designed to do that without removing the mountain as well, but . . . always room for improvement.

·· End the moratorium on nuclear testing. "If the United States is to have a nuclear deterrent that is both effective and safe, it will need to test."

      Coming soon to a desert near you, or Pacific atoll.

·· Funding for Pax Americana. Increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to 3.5 to 3.8 percent. DONE! The new defense budget of 355 billion is in that range.

      This was proposed to reverse the period of "Defense Neglect" in the ‘90s. (Clinton's greatest sin.) The PNAC report was written during the 2000 campaign, remember, so a big chunk of it is devoted to detailing how all four branches of the military are ill-prepared to effectively carry out their current and future missions. Years of increased funding were anticipated to correct the damage. Candidate Bush made an issue of this in the 2000 debates with Gore to counter the booming (bubbling, actually) economy (pop!). Curiously enough, as soon as Bush became President we suddenly had the best darn military in the world. And now, just eighteen months since his inauguration that same military is ready to move beyond Afghanistan to Iraq and damn well take on the whole world.

·· Cancellation of outmoded military programs, such as the Crusader Howitzer, to free up funds for "transformation . . . to exploit the revolution in military affairs."

      That means an expanded and high-tech reliant military, starting with and relying most heavily on missile defense, but there's more to it than that. Go to the section on "transformation". Defense Secretary Rumsfeld made the cancellation of the Crusader almost a personal mission. And now it is a DONE DEAL. The new defense budget shifts millions from that project to unspecified other purposes.

·· Constabulary Missions. The U.S. can't rely on UN peacekeeping operations, which the report's authors deem a failure, so we will just have to fess up to our global responsibilities and become the policemen of the world.

      The report says, ". . . facing up to the realities of multiple constabulary missions will require a permanent allocation of U.S. armed forces." And: "the preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf or even when it deploys forces in Africa. . . . Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than traditional "peacekeeping" missions."

·· Expansion of military bases into the Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia. (Shifting military resources from East Europe.)

      With a major assist from Al Aqaeda, plans got off the drawing board after 9/11. Permanent new bases are now in Afghanistan and surrounding countries to the north and east and forward bases are radiating out from there.

      According to an October 21, 2002 article in The Nation magazine (http://www.thenation.com/), called "Operation Endless Deployment", by William D. Hartung, Frida Berrigan & Michelle Ciarrocca: "the preparations for "Gulf War II" are also part of a larger plan to promote the most significant expansion of US global military presence since the end of the cold war." The difference, they say, is "the new global buildup [is] an elaboration of a new, more flexible infrastructure for intervening in—or initiating—"hot wars" from the Middle East to the Caucasus to East Asia." They go on to list in detail 19 countries where the US military has in one way or another set up shop. Which brings us to one of the PNAC report's core policy recommendations:

·· "Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars."

      This is similar to a long-standing Pentagon policy goal, but these guys really want to do it, and so, it appears, does our President.

·· Why stop there? The PNAC report advocates the Pentagon take "control of the new "international commons" of space and cyberspace." This falls under the "core mission" of military transformation, the Revolution in Military Affairs mentioned above.

      A work in progress

      No, I'm not forgetting the "Axis of Evil". Here it comes:

      Top of the list are, you guessed it, Iraq, Iran and North Korea—yes, in that order, too, and mentioned here long before they were re-packaged as the "Axis of Evil" by Bush in his January 2002 State of the Union address. (That was the tip off that more than a war against terrorists was on the administration's mind. A bait and switch was pulled on the American public that night by expanding the definition of terrorists to include selected "rogue" states, thereby shifting the focus from Afghanistan, where Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Ladin had eluded our grasp, to countries on an old hit list that did not attack us on 9/11 and did not have significant ties to Al Qaeda either. (Unlike the Saudis.) What they do have in common is all three walked away from past battles with the US still in one piece. What a provocation!

      Also mentioned in the report are Syria, Libya and Pakistan. (There are bigger fish to fry, though. China, for instance. But that is a long-term goal. Still, Bush made sure to chill US/Chinese relations right after taking office by turning a relatively minor flap over a downed US spy plane into a major confrontation, directly challenging the Chinese leadership rather than allowing lower echelon diplomats to resolve the issue quietly.)

      Iraq pops up so many times in the PNAC report it borders on obsession. Pages 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 51- 52, 54, 73 – 75. As for Iran, on page 17, they state: "Iran may prove as much a threat as Iraq." And the phrase "regime change" appears on page 25. Which indicates that idea has been floating around Washington for quite some time.

      Beyond Iraq and Iran, the goal is an expansion of American influence in the entire region of the Middle East. I quote:

". . . The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

      At some point in your reading, you should GET their underlying worldview and when you do so many things the administration says and does that appear puzzling will suddenly make sense, that is, from their perspective.

      Jay Bookman at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution got it. For instance, it dawned on him why very little was being said by the administration about post-invasion plans for Iraq. In his article he concludes, "Because we won't be leaving." At the time, this was not obvious to the general public. It is now, ever since it was leaked to the NY Times that the Pentagon is planning a military occupation government for Iraq. If you had read your PNAC primer about "constabulary missions" that would not have been a surprise announcement.

      Regarding Iraq, the most compelling reason for going to war goes beyond questions of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, that's the cover story. But it also goes beyond oil. Huh? As mentioned above, it is about:

      For example, even though North Korea represents a different regional conundrum, the policy calls for the assertion of America's preeminence in that region of the world as well. (See above, shifting of bases and other military resources to East Asia and Southeast Asia.) Therefore, the real policy behind the coming war against Iraq is oil AND bases, because in the Middle East the two go hand in hand.

      Not enough is being said about that other hand, though.

      It's the bases, stupid!

      That is the name of the game. No, it does not say that in so many words in the PNAC report with regard to Iraq, or in the White House National Security Strategy report. But that is the logic of the policy for expanding American influence (hegemony by any other name) in the Middle East and beyond.

      Look at the map. With Iraq transformed into the new command and control center for US military operations in the region, Iran is chopped liver, sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan. Ditto for Syria between Israel and a U.S. controlled Iraq. Begin to get the picture?

      Regime change meets the domino theory.

      So, why does the administration say very little about preserving regional stability if the US invades Iraq?

      Because they intend to transform the entire region, turn it into an American Protectorate, so the status quo can take care of itself.

      To get started, though, they have to move fast against Iraq, since the War on Terrorism is the only sales tool they've got to justify the venture to the wary and uncertain American people. That is why they decided to go for broke during Bush's first term. Otherwise, absent another major terrorist attack, which galvanizes public support for another retaliatory strike, the opportunity to launch a war of this magnitude may slip away. And with it an opportunity to establish the precedent for launching preemptive wars, the privilege of empire, not just in the Middle East, but around the globe. So the stakes are HUGE and the time left to head this policy off at the pass RUNNING OUT. The growing peace movement is our best hope at home to stop this thing. Don't underestimate our influence!

      The authors of the report certainly expected it would be. In the introduction it says, "We hope that the Project's report will be useful as a roadmap for the nation's immediate and future defense plans." In that light we may safely assume it was sent to many key planners and decision-makers inside and outside of the government that share the faith. Ah, but now that it is being called a blueprint for Pax Americana in a critical sense by independent journalists and even op-ed writers at mainstream publications and the general public is beginning to catch on, the project co-chairman, Donald Kagan, is distancing himself—and everyone else listed as a contributor—from his own report! In a refutation letter to Jay Bookman's piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he claims the report had no influence whatsoever on the administration before 9/11 and only now are some of its recommendations apparently being implemented. In effect, he is loudly claiming utter failure for his organization. He also disputes that Pax American has anything to do with "empire".

      Well . . . you could almost believe that IF you didn't read the man's own report. Bookman did a follow up article in reply to Kagan. He points out that Kagan himself advocated a Pax Americana style empire in the Roman mode in an interview he did with George Will. Beyond that, read no further into the PNAC report than the introduction and you will see that it is clearly talking about promoting America as the sole superpower by MILITARY means. As for the report having no influence, Bookman found that suspect. I agree. The report has far too many recommendations that are now policy for it to be merely coincidental. And in the final analysis ALL these guys are in the same club anyway. They may disagree over the details, but they ALL share the same basic vision: America's dominance as the sole superpower must be expanded militarily in order to secure and maintain unrivaled global power in defense of our national interests...as defined by them.

      Of course we can, if our elected (and appointed) representatives cared to listen to us. The American people are ambivalent, at best, about this war. They need to know the larger story. They need to know that it even goes beyond oil. With reference to the people behind the PNAC report and in key positions of power in the government, Jay Bookman has this to say in his article:

      "They envision the creation 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."

      The White House, Pentagon, and media have kept it out of the national conversation, cloaked under the War on Terrorism. It needs to be moved front and center.

      Inform people that the War on Terrorism is being used as a cover for a naked power grab in the Middle East. It is a war of acquisition to secure and expand US influence in the region by military means and, from there, launch operations into other regions.

      How's that for a conversation opener?

      You don't even have to mention the PNAC report. Just say, "It's the bases, stupid!" and the conversation should flow from there.

      I'm partial to the report, though, because it captures the mindset and policy goals of the people in power so perfectly.

1)       Demand money and resources be shifted from the Pentagon's wars to an expanded global criminal investigation, using special forces where needed, but the emphasis must be on a coordinated international effort among US and foreign intelligence agencies and local police to hunt down the real terrorists.

      Where is the emphasis from the Bush administration? On a military sledgehammer approach. Invasions to crush stationary sovereign objects in revenge for unrelated terrorist attacks. Going after regimes "that hate us". Emotionally appealing stuff maybe to a certain segment of the American public. But not a real smart way to root out and bring to justice individual members of shadowy, de-centralized, transnational organizations composed of criminal religious fanatics that are, according to George Tenet, the head of the CIA, re-organized and ready to strike anew and at their pleasure.

2)       Try LISTENING for a change. To other peoples, governments, friends and foes alike. Turn off the bellicose rhetoric; it is counterproductive. That alone will go a long way toward defusing tensions and might even open the door to more cooperation and assistance from around the world in the war on terrorism.

      Let's spread the word and try to stop it NOW.

      For the PNAC web site, go to http://www.newamericancentury.org/.

      I recommend you first click on the PNAC's "Statement of Principles" link found at the very top of the home page. Written in '97, this is interesting for three reasons:

      First, look at the list of supporters . Some of the names are the same as those listed as contributors to the 2000 PNAC report, such as Wolfowitz and Libby, but there are others listed who are just as prominent. A sampling: Elliott Abrams, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Fred C. Ikle, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle and Donald Rumsfeld.

      Second, this statement appears almost benevolent. But the seeds are there for what blossomed in all its malignant glory into the September 2000 report. (Not to complicate matters, but those seeds actually come from the earlier defense-planning document prepared by Wolfowitz and Libby for Cheney back in ‘92. To learn all about that, including Powell's involvement, pick up the October 2002 issue of Harpers Magazine, or go to the Harpers web site, http://www.harpers.org/. Read "Dick Cheney's Song of America" by David Armstrong.

      Third, like the PNAC report, the style and ideas expressed in the principles statement is very similar to the White House National Security Strategy, released September 2002. The NSS can be found at (www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html)

      Back on the PNAC web site's home page, CLICK on the link for "Defense and National Security". There it is, the 800 pound gorilla, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century". (Actually, it's only 90 pages, 75 or so of text.) Download and read at your pleasure. (But not as bedtime reading--I fear for your dreams.)

      If you first open a letter by Donald Kagan, the PNAC project's co-chairman, which refutes the article by Bookman, then you should read the entirety of Bookman's article and also the follow up he did in reply to Kagan. For the sake of prematurely ending the discussion, Kagan omitted that from the PNAC site. Or you can discover how dissembling Kagan is by reading the introduction to his own report, which contradicts him. I saved the Bookman articles, but see if you can find them with a search on his name at http://www.www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution web site.

      Sound familiar? It should. All of that, and more, are in the PNAC report. (See the above listing.) This is more evidence that the PNAC report is the missing link between Cheney's Plan and the 2002 White House National Security Strategy report. The PNAC report is nothing less than the updated Plan re-christened Pax Americana. No surprise, then, that it includes "long-standing conservative causes" long standing conservatives wrote it. It even comes with built-in deniability, because it was produced outside the government by a think tank for candidates Cheney and Bush in 2000. Er. . . Bush and Cheney.

      Thanks for taking the time to read this. Please forward to as many people as you can.