Rebuilding America's Defenses' and the Project for the New American Century
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Rebuilding America's Defenses' and the Project for the New American Century



"Rebuilding America's Defenses...

"Rebuilding America's Defenses
(RAD)" is a policy document
published by a neoconservative
Washington think tank called the
Project for the New American
Century (PNAC). Its pages have
been compared to Hitler's Mein
Kampf in that they outline an
aggressive military plan for U.S.
world domination during the
coming century. And just as
Hitler's book was not taken
seriously until after his
catastrophic rise to power, so it
seems that relatively few Americans are expressing alarm at this published document that is a
blueprint for many of the present actions of the Bush administration, actions which have begun
to destabilize the balance of power between the nations of the world.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Rebuilding America's Defenses' and the Project for the New American Century Rebuilding America's Defenses' and the Project for the New American Century Document Transcript

  • Rebuilding Americas Defenses and theProject for the New American Centuryby Bette StockbauerJune 18, 2003"Rebuilding Americas Defenses(RAD)" is a policy documentpublished by a neoconservativeWashington think tank called theProject for the New AmericanCentury (PNAC). Its pages havebeen compared to Hitlers MeinKampf in that they outline anaggressive military plan for domination during thecoming century. And just asHitlers book was not takenseriously until after hiscatastrophic rise to power, so itseems that relatively few Americans are expressing alarm at this published document that is ablueprint for many of the present actions of the Bush administration, actions which have begunto destabilize the balance of power between the nations of the world.There is, indeed, much reason for alarm because PNAC is not an ordinary think tank and "RAD"is not an ordinary policy paper. Many PNAC members now hold key positions in the WhiteHouse, Defense and State Departments, among them Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, PaulWolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Lewis Libby, and John Bolton, along with others inlesser positions. William Kristol, writer for the conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, ischairman of the group. Some of these men have been advocating for a strong military posture since the ending of cold war hostilities with the Soviet Union. Wishing to capitalize on the fact that the US had emerged as the worlds preeminent superpower, they have lobbied for increases in military spending in order to establish what they call a Pax Americana that will reap the rewards of complete military and commercial control of land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. This, they said, would be accomplished by the waging of "multiple simultaneous large-scale wars" and one of their first orders of business was always the removal of Saddam Hussein, thereby giving the US a
  • toehold in the oil-rich Middle East.During the Clinton presidency, when the Republicans were out of power, this militaristic wing inAmerican politics became highly organized and efficient. They formed the PNAC in 1997 Andpublished "RAD" in September 2000. Determined to have their world empire, they offered aneerie prophecy on page 52 of that document about how it might be accomplished, "Further, theprocess 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." Their dream of acatalyzing event could not have been better actualized than in the events of 9/11.Although there could have been many responses to the tragedy of 9/11, the Bush administrationseized upon that event to mold public opinion into accepting many ideas embodied in "RAD".The overthrow of Saddam Hussein, was being proposed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz one dayafter 9/11, even before anyone knew who was responsible for the attacks. As soon as the waragainst Afghanistan was completed, the focus of US policy became regime change in Iraq, withall of the tragic consequences we are now seeing in that country.Policies advocated in "RAD" are being enacted with terrifying speed, such as denigration of theUN, importance of Homeland Security, abrogation of international agreements, revamping of theUS nuclear program and the spread of American military power into all corners of the globe bypreemptive engagement. In Iraq we have seen the embodiment of "RAD" directives that call forthe subjugation of regimes considered hostile to US interests and the prevention of militarybuild-up in countries that may challenge US power. Bushs "Axis of Evil" nations Iraq, Iran andNorth Korea are mentioned numerous times as potential trouble spots and there is repeatedinsistence that the US establish militaryoutposts in the Middle East and East Asia.Most frightening is its complete isolationfrom any ideas of world unity andcooperative action. The authors appear to beintent on waging war as an answer to theproblems of our planet, tragically imaginingthat peace can be won by enforcing
  • American values on every other nation. A more chilling statement of the PNAC devotion tomilitaristic domination cannot be found than in Richard Perles concept of "total war". "Nostages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of themout there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this isentirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and weembrace it entirely and we dont try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a totalwar... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."This article is a summarization of "RAD." Ibelieve it is of importance to becomefamiliar with this document because it isdetermining US policy decisions whichwill have far reaching repercussions fordecades to come. Subject areas arearranged under three topics: A. PaxAmericana, outlining the rationale forglobal empire, B. Securing GlobalHegemony, pinpointing regions that areconsidered trouble spots for US policy, C.Using the Military to Gain Empire,outlining military plans for complete worlddomination. My personal comments are initalics; page numbers are from the originaldocument. See URLs at the end for furtherreading.A. Pax AmericanaThe building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD," because the fall of theSoviet Union gave the United States status as the worlds preeminent superpower. Consequentlythe US must now work hard, not only to maintain that position, but to spread its military mightinto geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to its influence, waging "multiplesimultaneous large-scale wars" to subdue countries that may stand in the way of US globalpreeminence. Rationales offered for going to war with other nations are the preservation of the"American peace" and the spread of "democracy."On Preserving American Preeminence"It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership isnot something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core nationalsecurity interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whetheror not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership,and to preserve the American peace" (p. 76).
  • "The Cold War world was a bipolar world; the 21st century world is – for the moment, at least – decidedly unipolar, with America as the worlds sole superpower. Americas strategic goal used to be containment of the Soviet Union; today the task is to preserve an international security environment conducive to American interests and ideals. The militarys job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the zones of democratic peace; to deter the rise of a new great-power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of war made possible by new technologies" (p. 2). Four Vital Missions "RAD" lists four vital missions "demanded by US global leadership":"Homeland Defense. . . . the United States . . . must counteract the effects of the proliferation ofballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter USmilitary action by threatening US allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new andcurrent missions for US armed forces, this must have priority."Large Wars. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy andwin multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipatedcontingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces."Constabulary Duties. Third, the Pentagon mustretain forces to preserve the current peace inways that fall short of conducting major theatercampaigns. . . . These duties are todays mostfrequent missions, requiring forces configuredfor combat but capable of long-term,independent constabulary operations."Transform US Armed Forces. Finally, thePentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called revolution in military affairs, sparked bythe introduction of advanced technologies intomilitary systems; this must be regarded as aseparate and critical mission worthy of a shareof force structure and defense budgets" (p. 6).
  • ". . . the failure to provide sufficient forces toexecute these four missions must result inproblems for American strategy. And the failure toprepare for tomorrows challenges will ensure thatthe current Pax Americana comes to an early end"(p. 13).On Usurping the Power of the UN"Further, these constabulary missions are far morecomplex and likely to generate violence thantraditional peacekeeping missions. For one, theydemand American political leadership rather thanthat of the United Nations, as the failure of the UN mission in the Balkans and the relativesuccess of NATO operations there attests. Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance ofneutrality. . . . American troops, in particular, must be regarded as part of an overwhelminglypowerful force" (p. 11).B. Securing Global Hegemony"RAD" takes the posture that only the US should manipulate international relations and pointsout "trouble spots" that may cause future problems, like all of East Asia, and Iraq, Iran, andNorth Korea (now labeled by George Bush as the "Axis of Evil"). There is concern that severalnations might come together to challenge US interests. Consequently any nation that producesnuclear weapons or engages in significant arms buildup will be viewed as a potential threat."Americas global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace,relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance ofpower in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy-producing region, and East Asia; andthe general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organizedcrime, and other non-state actors. "A retreat from any one of these requirements would call Americas status as the worlds leading power into question. As we have seen, even a small failure like that in Somalia or a halting and incomplete triumph as in the Balkans can cast doubt on American credibility. The failure to define a coherent global security and military strategy during the post–Cold War period has invited challenges; states seeking to establish regional hegemony continue to probe for the limits of the American security perimeter" (p. 5). Axis of Evil
  • "The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomesvulnerable to rogue powers with small,inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missilesand nuclear warheads or other weapons ofmass destruction. We cannot allow NorthKorea, Iran, Iraq or similar states toundermine American leadership, intimidateAmerican allies or threaten the Americanhomeland itself. The blessings of theAmerican peace, purchased at fearful costand a century of effort, should not be sotrivially squandered" (p. 75).Iraq and the Persian Gulf"Although the no-fly-zone air operationsover northern and southern Iraq have continued without pause for almost a decade, they remainan essential element in US strategy and force posture in the Persian Gulf region. Ending theseoperations would hand Saddam Hussein an important victory, something any American leaderwould be loath to do" (p. 11)."The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for US military strategy, and the UnitedStates should consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi,Kuwaiti and regional concerns about US presence" (p. 35).East Asia"Raising US military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great power status. "The prospect is that East Asia will become an increasingly important region, marked by the rise of Chinese power….A similar rationale argues in favor of retaining substantial forces in Japan. In recent years, the stationing of large forces in Okinawa has become increasingly controversial in Japanese domestic politics, and while efforts to accommodate local sensibilities are warranted, it is essential to retain the capabilities US forces in Okinawa represent. If the United States is to remain the guarantor of security in Northeast Asia,
  • and to hold together a de facto alliance whose other main pillars are Korea and Japanmaintaining forward-based US forces is essential" (p. 18)."Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, amajority of the US fleet, including two thirds ofall carrier battle groups, should be concentratedin the Pacific. A new, permanent forward baseshould be established in Southeast Asia" (p. 39).Europe"Despite the shifting focus of conflict in Europe,a requirement to station US forces in northernand central Europe remains. The region is stable,but a continued American presence helps toassure the major European powers, especiallyGermany, that the United States retains itslongstanding security interest in the continent.This is especially important in light of thenascent European moves toward an independentdefense identity and policy; it is important thatNATO not be replaced by the European Union,leaving the United States without a voice inEuropean security affairs" (p. 16).Regime Change"American military preeminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintainsufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and hostile regimewhen necessary" (p. 61)."Americas adversaries will continue to resist the building of the American peace; when they seean opportunity as Saddam Hussein did in 1990, they will employ their most powerful armedforces to win on the battlefield what they could not win in peaceful competition; and Americanarmed forces will remain the core of efforts to deter, defeat, or remove from power regionalaggressors" (p. 10).C. Using the Military to Gain EmpireOne stated objective of "RAD" is "to outline the large, full-spectrum forces that are necessary toconduct the varied tasks demanded by a strategy of American preeminence for today andtomorrow" (p. 5). Much of the document is an elucidation of those missions and includes specificrecommendations about weaponry, deployment patterns, increased personnel and defensespending. It envisions a future in which the United States is in complete control of land, sea, air,space and cyberspace of planet Earth and urges a new rendition of Reagans "Star Wars" defenseshield program.
  • "Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of a constant allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn" (p. 60). "If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned US military preeminence" (p. 4). "In sum, the 1990s have been a decade of defense neglect. This leaves the next president of the United States with an enormous challenge: he must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership, or hemust pull back from the security commitments that are the measure of Americas position as theworlds sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic freedoms and individualpolitical rights" (p. 4). Army "American landpower remains the essential link in the chain thattranslates US military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence. . . . Regimes aredifficult to change based upon punishment alone. If land forces are to survive and retain theirunique strategic purpose in a world where it is increasingly easy to deliver firepower precisely atlong ranges, they must change as well, becoming more stealthy, mobile, deployable and able tooperate in a dispersed fashion. The US Army, and American land forces more generally, mustincreasingly complement the strike capabilities of the other services. Conversely, an Americanmilitary force that lacks the ability to employ ground forces that can survive and maneuverrapidly on future battlefields will deprive US political leaders of a decisive tool of diplomacy"(p. 30).
  • Air Force"Because of its inherent mobility and flexibility, the Air Force will be the first US military forceto arrive in a theater during times of crisis; as such, the Air Force must retain its ability to deployand sustain sufficient numbers of aircraftto deter wars and shape any conflict in itsearliest stages. Indeed, it is the Air Force,along with the Army, that remains thecore of Americas ability to applydecisive military power when it pleases.To dissipate this ability to deliver a rapidhammer blow is to lose the keycomponent of American militarypreeminence" (p. 37).Navy/Marine Corps"The end of the Cold War leaves the US Navy in a position of unchallenged supremacy on thehigh seas, a dominance surpassing that even of the British Navy in the 19th and early parts of the20th century. With the remains of the Soviet fleet now largely rusting in port, the open oceansare Americas, and the lines of communication open from the coasts of the United States toEurope, the Persian Gulf and East Asia. Yet this very success calls the need for the current forcestructure into question. Further, the advance of precision-strike technology may mean that navalsurface combatants, and especially the large-deck aircraft carriers that are the Navys capitalships, may not survive in the high-technology wars of the coming decades. Finally, the natureand pattern of Navy presence missions may be out of synch with emerging strategic realities. Insum, though it stands without peer today, the Navy faces major challenges to its traditional and,in the past, highly successful methods of operation" (p. 39).Overseas Bases to Advance American Geopolitical Interests"There should be a strong strategic synergy between US forces overseas and in a reinforcingposture: units operating abroad are an indication of American geopolitical interests and leadership, provide significant military power to shape events and, in wartime, create the conditions for victory when reinforced. Conversely, maintaining the ability to deliver an unquestioned knockout punch through the rapid introduction of stateside units will increase the shaping power of forces operating overseas and the vitality of our alliances. In sum, we see an enduring need for large-scale American forces" (p. 74).
  • "As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-termbasing arrangements, the United States should seek toestablish a network of deployment bases or forwardoperating bases to increase the reach of current and futureforces. Not only will such an approach improve the ability toproject force to outlying regions, it will help circumvent thepolitical, practical and financial constraints on expanding thenetwork of American bases overseas" (p. 19).Nuclear Expansion"…of all the elements of US military force posture, perhapsnone is more in need of reevaluation than Americas nuclearweapons. Nuclear weapons remain a critical component ofAmerican military power but it is unclear whether thecurrent US nuclear arsenal is well-suited to the emerging post–Cold War world. . . . there may bea need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of militaryrequirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardenedbunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries" (p. 8). If the United States is tohave a nuclear deterrent that is both effective and safe, it will need to test." (pp. 7–8)."But what should finally drive the size and character of our nuclear forces is not numerical paritywith Russian capabilities but maintaining American strategic superiority – and, with thatsuperiority, a capability to deter possible hostile coalitions of nuclear powers. US nuclearsuperiority is nothing to be ashamed of; rather, it will be an essential element in preservingAmerican leadership in a more complex and chaotic world" (p. 8).Space Command – Control of the "International Commons"". . . control of space – defined by Space Command as the ability to assure access to space,freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space –must be an essential element of our military strategy" (p. 55). "The ability to have access to, operate in, and dominate the aerospace environment has become the key to military success in modern, high- technology warfare. . . . How well the Air Force rises to the many challenges it faces – even should it receive increased budgets – will go far toward determining whether US military forces retain the combat edge they now enjoy" (pp. 38– 39).
  • "Much as control of the high seas – andthe protection of international commerce– defined global powers in the past, sowill control of the new internationalcommons be a key to world power in thefuture. An America incapable ofprotecting its interests or that of its alliesin space or the infosphere will find itdifficult to exert global politicalleadership" (p. 51)."As Space Command also recognizes, theUnited States must also have thecapability to deny Americas adversariesthe use of commercial space platforms formilitary purposes in times of crises andconflicts. Indeed, space is likely tobecome the new international commons,where commercial and security interestsare intertwined and related. (Pp. 54–55).Star Wars"Building an effective, robust, layered,global system of missile defenses is aprerequisite for maintaining American preeminence" (p. 54).". . . effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of Americanpower and the projection of US military forces abroad. Without it, weak states operating smallarsenals of crude ballistic missiles, armed with basic nuclear warheads or other weapons of massdestruction, will be in a strong position to deter the United States from using conventional force,no matter the technological or other advantages we may enjoy. Even if such enemies are merelyable to threaten American allies rather than the United States homeland itself, Americas abilityto project power will be deeply compromised" (p. 12).Cyberspace or Net War"If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then cyberspace, and in particularthe Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspaceand the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nationwishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new global commons.
  • "Although many concepts of cyber-war haveelements of science fiction about them, and therole of the Defense Department in establishingcontrol, or even what security on the Internetmeans, requires a consideration of a host oflegal, moral and political issues, therenonetheless will remain an imperative to be ableto deny America and its allies enemies theability to disrupt or paralyze either the militarysor the commercial sectors computer networks.Conversely, an offensive capability could offerAmericas military and political leaders aninvaluable tool in disabling an adversary in adecisive manner."Taken together, the prospects for space war orcyberspace war represent the trulyrevolutionary potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These future forms ofwarfare are technologically immature, to be sure. But, it is also clear that for the US armed forcesto remain preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power they must be surethat these potential future forms of warfare favor America just as todays air, land and seawarfare reflect United States military dominance" (p. 57).Future Forms of Warfare, Including Biological"Future soldiers may operate in encapsulated, climate-controlled, powered fighting suits, lacedwith sensors, and boasting chameleon-like active camouflage. Skin-patch pharmaceuticals helpregulate fears, focus concentration and enhance endurance and strength. A display mounted on asoldiers helmet permits a comprehensive view of the battlefield – in effect to look around corners and over hills – and allows the soldier to access the entire combat information and intelligence system while filtering incoming data to prevent overload. Individual weapons are more lethal, and a soldiers ability to call for highly precise and reliable indirect fires – not only from Army systems but those of other services – allows each individual to have great influence over huge spaces. Under the Land Warrior program, some Army experts envision a squad of seven soldiers able to dominate an area the size of the Gettysburg battlefield – where, in 1863, some 165,000 men fought" (p. 62).
  • "Although it may take several decades for theprocess of transformation to unfold, in time,the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will bevastly different than it is today, and combatlikely will take place in new dimensions: inspace, cyber-space, and perhaps the world ofmicrobes. Air warfare may no longer befought by pilots manning tactical fighteraircraft sweeping the skies of opposingfighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, theclash of massive, combined-arms armoredforces may be replaced by the dashes of muchlighter, stealthier and information-intensiveforces, augmented by fleets of robots, somesmall enough to fit in soldiers pockets.Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraftcarriers, but from land and space based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fightunderwater. Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilitiesand come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial spacesystems – combatants and noncombatants – will become blurred. Information systems willbecome an important focus of attack, particularly for US enemies seeking to short-circuitsophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specificgenotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool"(p. 60).For further reading, see "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" on the PNAC website at: is a website devoted exclusively to articles and information about PNAC at: and Information Clearing House have many enlightening articles about thePNAC. See especially "Blood Money" by William Rivers Pitt at:
  • ALL VIDEOS ARE A MUST WATCH FOR THR TRUTH AND FREE ON YOUTUBESee "Global Eye-Dark Passage" by Chris Floyd at: article is followed by a long list of links to published articles about the PNAC.Also see article by John Pilger at: longer summary of "RAD" (including more extensive quotes than here) can be found at Stockbauer is a writer, activist and conservationist who lives in central Texas. Shehas been working for issues related to peace and justice since the Vietnam era.Loose Change 9/11 1ST Edition VIDEO BELOW Change 9/112ND Edtion VIDEO BELOW For The New American Century-PNAC exposed VIDEO BELOW Storm a Histroy of False Flag Terror VIDEO BELOW and Engineers 9/11: Blueprint for Truth VIDEO BELOW and Engineers 911Truth Experts Speak Out VIDEO BELOW 9/11 Chronicles: Part One, Truth Rising VIDEO BELOW Law 911-Rise of the Police State VIDEO BELOW