A paper, written for a number of high-ranking Bush administration officials, outlining a global and far-reaching plan to secure US pre-eminence in global affairs for the next century or more. This is not interpretive anti-war rhetoric, this goal is stated explicitly in the body of the paper many times. The paper was conceived and published by an ultra-conservative 'think tank', known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The primary author of the document is cited as Thomas Donnelly, Deputy Executive Director of PNAC. The specific intended readers of this paper are:

It should be noted that this paper was written in September 2000, long before the tragic events of 9/11 and marginally preceding Bush's victory in the January 2001 election. Until the Bush administration came to power, the recipients of the paper were generally regarded as neo-conservatives in the political wilderness, Wolfowitz in particular. The events of 9/11 lent a dramatic boost to the ideals of this group, all of whom now hold powerful positions in the new administration with the exception of Jeb Bush, regarded by elements of the Republican Party as a future presidential candidate. Contained within the paper are a series of goals, which compose a roadmap to a world militarily and economically subservient to US interests. This situation is to be maintained by aggressive pre-emptive military subjugation, backed up by an expanded and modernised military, and economic pressure/sanctions. The paper describes itself as a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests"" . It is also directly stated that this "American grand strategy" must be advanced "as far into the future as possible"" .

One of the key aspects of the paper is the requirement for a war in Iraq, and subsequent imposition of a US-sympathetic government upon the Iraqi people. Crucially, it is explicitly stated that a war should be waged regardless of Saddam Hussein being in power. Bearing in mind recent accusations of nuclear/biological weapons programs and a demand for 'regime change' in Iraq, these statements are chillingly close to current reality. The Gulf region is stated to be of great strategic and financial importance, and must therefore be intimidated by military presence or directly controlled by the use of 'sympathetic' regimes. The paper directly states that US military presence must be greatly increased in the Gulf region despite domestic opposition to US bases. As the paper itself states, "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."

One of the constant themes of the paper is the need to 'transform warfare', and to extend the battlefields upon which the US is willing and able to wage war. The paper describes the need for the creation of a 'US Space Force', an orbital combat force with the mandate to completely control near-Earth orbital space for US interests alone. This is spurred by statements suggesting that smaller rogue states will likely gain the ability to orbitally track the positions and strengths of American forces involved in "constabulary actions". The militarisation of space has long been resisted by all nations, as it would dramatically escalate potential warfare by adding yet another dimension. Also stated is the goal to completely control 'cyberspace' globally, to prevent enemies from using the internet against American interests, although no specific plans for this are outlined. Most worryingly is the promoting of further research into weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear and biological weapons currently banned by international accords, and most recently used as a primary justification for the 2003 attacks upon Iraq. The military itself is to be multilaterally altered to support a fast, flexible deployment model partially independent of the vast and expensive surface Navy the US currently maintains. Suggested methods include greatly increased procurement of the F-22 'Raptor' and J-22 'Osprey' aerial delivery platforms, cancellation of '"roadblock projects" such as the JSF, CVX Carrier and Crusader howitzer systems, and the development of a global anti-ballistic missile system. Note the word 'global', suggesting the deployment of such systems around the world rather than simple homeland defense. The target is set for the US to again possess a military capable of fighting and winning two major international wars simultaneously, a capability the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently admitted the US no longer has.

The paper is very clear upon the role the US must play with respect to other nations. A stated objective is the creation and military preservation of a "Pax Americana", a state of global military decline and deterioration of the ability for another nation to defend itself against the US. A number of nations are explicitly named as causes for concern and targets for future intervention by the US. The familiar names of North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran are designated "dangerous regimes", and whilst this in itself is nothing new, the paper deems the existence of such states to justify the creation of a "world-wide command-and-control system". To support this, the paper suggests an increase in defense spending unprecedented since the cold war. In addition, the effective usage of key US allies such as the UK is stated as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". The paper is frought with anxiety that a large developed nation will develop strength equivalent to that of the US. The two major competitors to the US are stated as Europe and China, and plans for domination over these two powers are outlined. China is targetted for an Iraq-like 'regime change', to be 'democratised' through the use of increased US military presence in South-East Asia. Europe is to be dealt with more directly, by fatally undermining the authority and effectiveness of the United Nations. This is to be accomplished by American peace-keeping missions "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations", forcing a shift in the international focus. Traditional military alliances are to be replaced by ad-hoc coalitions, a trend demonstrated by the US-UK Coalition in Iraq. This is consistent with an earlier paper written by Libby and Wolfowitz, which stated that the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role".

The paper itself can be found in its original form at http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.