Tuesday, December 07, 2004

“Like a New Pearl Harbor”

“The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor.” That’s the most widely quoted sentence in the PNAC’s (Project for a New American Century) 2000 report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. The report has been called a “blueprint for US world domination” and the “Mein Kampf” of the first Bush Administration. The Pearl Harbor reference has been defended by those who act as apologists for the White House fascists. They point to the sentence that precedes it, saying it proves the writers had no evil intent in mind. “A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.” If “forward basing” and “presence” means keeping American forces in our occupied countries forever, I don’t see any conflict with the assumption that the PNAC 2000 report is a blueprint for global supremacy. And God knows, our American allies have been troubled by our warmongering, so much so that we are reviled around the world. But the “larger American policy goals” is even more troubling. After reading that 80 page report (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) it’s clear that the PNAC advises that our goals should be to rule the world, and to rule the world by force. But back to the Pearl Harbor reference. Could the PNAC be so obsessed with global supremacy that in 2000 it sneakily suggested that the final goal could come about much sooner if the USA allowed another Pearl Harbor? The report is out there. Read it. And don’t skip the final page with the list of people who signed off on it, which includes Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, Super Chickenhawk William Kristol and Neocon Eliot A. Cohen who teaches war strategies, has worked with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and may or may not be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

No comments: