Επειδή ενδεχομένως διερωτηθείτε περί της σημασίας της επιμάχου ηλεκτρονικής διευθύνσεως, ενημερώνω σχετικώς, ότι το ίδρυμα με την ονομασίαν "Σχέδιο για τη Νέα Αμερικανική Εκατονταετία", ιδρυθέν το 1.997μ.α.χ.χ., επιδιώκει την εξαπόλυσιν πολέμων με τελικό αποτέλεσμα την έναρξιν του Τρίτου Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου. Εξ αυτού ακριβώς του ιδρύματος, μέλη του οποίου είναι ο τέως αντιπρόεδρος Τσένεϋ, ο Λυκίδης (Γούλφοβιτς) καί άλλοι προβεβλημένοι καί ισχυροί στρατιωτικοί, οικονομικοί καί πολιτικοί ηγήτορες των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών Αμερικής. Οι πόλεμοι του Ιράκ, της Λιβύης, ο διεξαγόμενος της Συρίας καί ο επικείμενος του Ιράν, είναι τμήμα του επιμάχου σχεδίου. Επομένως, οφείλουμε να το διαδώσουμε παντού.!!!!
Ευχαριστούμε τον φίλο και Αναγνώστη συν Έλληνα για την ενημέρωση!!...
Blueprint of the PNAC Plan for U.S. Global Hegemony
Some people have compared it to
Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf, which was ignored
until after the war was over.
Full text of Rebuilding America's
Defenses
here
05/06/03: When the Bush administration started lobbying
for war with Iraq, they used as rationale a definition of preemption
(generally meaning anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent
attack) that was broadened to allow for the waging of a preventive war
in which force may be used even without evidence of an imminent attack.
They also were able to convince much of the
American public that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks
of 9/11, despite the fact that no evidence of a link has been uncovered.
Consequently, many people supported the war on the basis of 1) a policy
that has no legal basis in international law and 2) a totally unfounded
claim of Iraqi guilt.
What most people do not know, however, is that certain
high ranking officials in the Bush administration have been working for
regime change in Iraq for the past decade, long before terrorism became
an important issue for our country. In 1997 they formed an organization
called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). They have sought
the establishment of a much stronger U.S. presence throughout the
Mideast and Iraq's Saddam Hussein has been their number one target for
regime change. Members of this group drafted and successfully passed
through Congress the Iraqi Liberation Act, giving legal sanctions for an
invasion of the country, and funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to
Hussein opposition groups called the Iraqi National Congress and The
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
The PNAC philosophy was formed in response to the ending
of Cold War hostilities with Russia and the emergence of America as the
world's only preeminent superpower. Claiming that this is a
"strategic moment" that should not be squandered, members of
PNAC say that America should use its position to advance its power and
interests into all areas of the globe. They believe the time is ripe for
establishing democracies in regimes considered hostile to U.S. interests
and are not hesitant to advise the use of military means to achieve
those ends.
PNAC members on the Bush team include Vice-President
Dick Cheney and his top national security assistant, I. Lewis Libby;
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; Undersecretary
for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton; and former
Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Other PNAC members
exerting influence on U.S. policy are the President of the Committee for
the Liberation of Iraq Randy Scheunemann, Republican Party leader Bruce
Jackson and current PNAC chairman William Kristol, conservative writer
for the Weekly Standard. Jeb Bush, the president's brother and
governor of Florida, is also a member.
Their campaign to overthrow Hussein was unsuccessful
during the Clinton presidency and early days of Bush's term, but on 9/11
they found the event they needed to push for the overthrow of Hussein.
Within 24 hours both Wolfowitz and Cheney were calling for an invasion
of Iraq, even before anyone knew who had been responsible for the
attacks.
Individuals who now belong to PNAC have been influencing
White House policy since the Reagan era, calling for coups in Central
America and claiming that a nuclear war with Russia could be
"winnable." Richard Perle is one of their most prominent
spokesmen. He and Michael Ledeen (of the American Enterprise Institute),
who is currently lobbying for war with Syria and Iran, have adopted a
stance that they call "total war" — the ability to wage
multiple simultaneous wars around the globe to achieve American ends.
Recently Perle commented on America's war on terrorism: "No
stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a
variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk
about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . .
this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision
of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to
piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our
children will sing great songs about us years from now."
Members of PNAC are so self-assured they are advancing
America's best interests that they publish policy papers specifically
outlining their plans, plans that many fear may be laying the groundwork
for a third world war. Their ideas are peculiarly atavistic, considering
the friendly ties that have been forged between most of the major
nations during the past ten years.
Their central policy document is entitled
"Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)," published on their
website at http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.
It outlines a plan for American hegemony in the coming years,
pinpointing "problem areas" of the world and suggesting regime
change of unfavorable governments so that eventually the whole world
will be unified under the banner of American democracy.
Already we are seeing evidence of PNAC influence on U.S.
policy. For instance, the concept of "Homeland Defense" comes
straight from "RAD." Iran, Iraq and North Korea, nations that
George Bush calls the "Axis of Evil", are listed together in
"RAD" several times as possible military threats to the U.S.
There is a suggestion that military spending be increased to 3.8 percent
of the GDP, exactly the amount (over and above present expenses for the
Iraqi campaign) Bush has proposed for next year's budget. Its basic
statement of policy bespeaks and advocates the very essence of the idea
of preemptive engagement.
Bush's National Security Strategy of September
20, 2002, adopted PNAC ideas and emphasized a broadened definition of
preemption. Since we are already hearing accusations against regimes in
Iran and Syria, will they be slated next for invasion?
The document is written with all of the
single-mindedness, unilateralism and inattention to international
ramifications (with either friend or foe) that the Bush administration
displayed in its current build-up for war with Iraq. There is even
assertion of the necessity of American political leadership overriding
that of the U.N. (p. 11), a policy that was sadly played out when the
U.S. invaded Iraq without the approval of either the U.N. or the
international community.
Rebuilding America's Defenses
I believe that "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
is a must-read for anyone concerned about the future of our planet.
Since the document is over 80 pages long I have created a summary of its
major ideas in order to make it more accessible.
Subject areas are arranged under 4 categories: A. Pax
Americana — outlining the rationale for global empire, B. Securing
Global Hegemony — pinpointing regions that are considered trouble
spots for U.S. policy, C. Rebuilding the Military — plans for
expansion of U.S. military might, and D. Future Wars of Pax Americana
— the "RAD" vision of complete control of land, sea, air,
space and cyberspace.
As much as possible I have used direct quotations
followed by page numbers so that the reader can consult the original. My
personal comments are in italics.
For further reading about the PNAC, see the following
articles:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
(Information Clearing House has many excellent articles about the PNAC.)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2326.htm (this article is followed by a long list of links to published articles about the plans of the Bush Administration influenced by the PNAC.)
http://www.mail-archive.com/brin-l@mccmedia.com/msg12730.html
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2326.htm (this article is followed by a long list of links to published articles about the plans of the Bush Administration influenced by the PNAC.)
http://www.mail-archive.com/brin-l@mccmedia.com/msg12730.html
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759
A. Pax Americana
"It is not a choice between preeminence today and
preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at
our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security
interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather,
it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence,
to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American
peace" (p. 76).
The building of Pax Americana has become possible,
claims "RAD," because the fall of the Soviet Union has given
the U.S. status as the world's singular superpower. It must now work
hard not only to maintain that position, but to spread its influence
into geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to our influence.
Decrying reductions in defense spending during the Clinton years "RAD"
propounds the theory that the only way to preserve peace in the coming
era will be to increase military forces for the purpose of waging
multiple wars to subdue countries which may stand in the way of U.S.
global preeminence.
Their flaws in logic are obvious to people of
conscience, namely, 1) a combative posture on our part will not secure
peace, but will rather engender fear throughout the world and begin anew
the arms race, only this time with far more contenders, and 2)
democracy, by its very definition, cannot be imposed by force.
Following is the preamble to the document:
"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United
States stands as the world’s most preeminent power. Having led the
West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a
challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the
achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to
shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
"[What we require is] a military that is strong and
ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that
boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and
national leadership that accepts the United States’ global
responsibilities.
"Of course, the United States must be prudent in
how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the
responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated
with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and
security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our
responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The
history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important
to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before
they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us
to embrace the cause of American leadership" (from the Project’s
Statement of Principles).
Four Vital Missions
PNAC members believe that there are four vital missions
"demanded by U. S. global leadership," but claim that
"current American armed forces are ill-prepared to execute"
these missions.
"Homeland Defense. America must defend its
homeland. During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was the key element in
homeland defense; it remains essential. But the new century has brought
with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the
United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of
ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow
lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies
and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions
for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.
"Large Wars. Second, the United States must
retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple
simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to
unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain
forward-based forces. This resembles the 'two-war' standard that has
been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this
standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential
new conflicts.
"Constabulary Duties. Third, the Pentagon
must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short
of conduction major theater campaigns. A decade’s experience and the
policies of two administrations have shown that such forces must be
expanded to meet the needs of the new, long-term NATO mission in the
Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest
Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These
duties are today’s most frequent missions, requiring forces configured
for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary
operations.
"Transform U.S. Armed Forces. Finally, the
Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called 'revolution in military
affairs,' sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into
military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical
mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets"
(p. 6).
"In conclusion, it should be clear that these four
essential missions for maintaining American military preeminence are
quite separate and distinct from one another – none should be
considered a 'lesser included case' of another, even though they are
closely related and may, in some cases, require similar sorts of forces.
Conversely, the failure to provide sufficient forces to execute these
four missions must result in problems for American strategy. The failure
to build missile defenses will put America and her allies at grave risk
and compromise the exercise of American power abroad. Conventional
forces that are insufficient to fight multiple theater wars
simultaneously cannot protect American global interests and allies.
Neglect or withdrawal from constabulary missions will increase the
likelihood of larger wars breaking out and encourage petty tyrants to
defy American interests and ideals. And the failure to prepare for
tomorrow’s challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes
to an early end" (p. 13).
On Usurping the Power of the UN
"Further, these constabulary missions are far more
complex and likely to generate violence than traditional 'peacekeeping'
missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than
that of the United Nations, as the failure of the UN mission in the
Balkans and the relative success of NATO operations there attests.
"Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance
of neutrality; 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. Finally, these missions demand forces
basically configured for combat. While they also demand personnel with
special language, logistics and other support skills, the first order of
business in missions such as in the Balkans is to establish security,
stability and order. American troops, in particular, must be regarded as
part of an overwhelmingly powerful force" (p. 11).
On Preserving American Preeminence
"Since today’s peace is the unique product of
American preeminence, a failure to preserve that preeminence allows
others an opportunity to shape the world in ways antithetical to
American interests and principles. The price of American preeminence is
that, just as it was actively obtained, it must be actively
maintained" (p. 73).
"The fourth element in American force posture –
and certainly the one which holds the key to any longer-term hopes to
extend the current Pax Americana – is the mission to transform
U.S. military forces to meet new geopolitical and technological
challenges" (p. 11).
"America’s armed forces, it seemed, could either
prepare for the future by retreating from its role as the essential
defender of today’s global security order, or it could take care of
current business but be unprepared for tomorrow’s threats and
tomorrow’s battlefields" (p. i).
"Moreover, America stands at the head of a system
of alliances which includes the world’s other leading democratic
powers. At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s
grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous
position as far into the future as possible. There are, however,
potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and
eager to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the
relatively peaceful, prosperous and free condition the world enjoys
today. Up to now, they have been deterred from doing so by the
capability and global presence of American military power. But, as that
power declines, relatively and absolutely, the happy conditions that
follow from it will be inevitably undermined" (p. i).
B. Securing Global Hegemony
"In a larger sense, the new president will choose
whether today’s 'unipolar moment,' to use columnist Charles
Krauthammer’s phrase for America’s current geopolitical preeminence,
will be extended along with the peace and prosperity that it
provides" (p. 4).
"RAD" takes the posture that only the U.S.
should manipulate international relations and points out "trouble
spots" that may cause future problems, like Iraq, Iran, Korea and
all of East Asia. There is concern that several nations might come
together to challenge U.S. interests. Consequently any nation that
produces nuclear weapons or engages in significant arms build-up will be
viewed as a potential threat.
"America’s 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 of power
in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy-producing region, and
East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of
nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other
'non-state actors.' The relative importance of these elements, and the
threats to U.S. interests, may rise and fall over time. Europe, for
example, is now extraordinarily peaceful and stable, despite the turmoil
in the Balkans. Conversely, East Asia appears to be entering a period
with increased potential for instability and competition. In the Gulf,
American power and presence has achieved relative external security for
U.S. allies, but the longer-term prospects are murkier. Generally,
American strategy for the coming decades should seek to consolidate the
great victories won in the 20th century – which have made Germany and
Japan into stable democracies, for example – maintain stability in the
Middle East, while setting the conditions for 21st century successes,
especially in East Asia.
"A retreat from any one of these requirements would
call America’s status as the world’s 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).
Iraq and the Persian Gulf
"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there
is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region
should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in
power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces
based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become
apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American
perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam
pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a
threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should
U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the
region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy
given the longstanding American interests in the region" (p. 17).
"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of
American forces, along with British and French units, has become a
semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those
forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq,
they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its
major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, 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" (p. 14).
"Although the no-fly-zone air operations over
northern and southern Iraq have continued without pause for almost a
decade, they remain an essential element in U.S. strategy and force
posture in the Persian Gulf region. Ending these operations would hand
Saddam Hussein an important victory, something any American leader would
be loath to do. Likewise, withdrawing from the Balkans would place
American leadership in Europe – indeed, the viability of NATO – in
question. While none of these operations involves a mortal threat, they
do engage U.S. national security interests directly, as well as engaging
American moral interests" (p. 11).
"In Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia,
enduring U.S. security interests argue forcefully for an enduring
American military presence" (p. 74).
"The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a
vital one for U.S. military strategy, and the United States should
consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways
to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and regional concerns about U.S. presence"
(p. 35).
Axis of Evil
"It is now commonly understood that information and
other new technologies – as well as widespread technological and
weapons proliferation – are creating a dynamic that may threaten
America’s ability to exercise its dominant military power. Potential
rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational
technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea
are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a
deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to
dominate" (p. 4).
"The current American peace will be short-lived if
the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small,
inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other
weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or
similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American
allies or threaten the American homeland itself. The blessings of the
American peace, purchased at fearful cost and a century of effort,
should not be so trivially squandered" (p. 75).
East Asia
"Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of
American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the U.S.
fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be
concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be
established in Southeast Asia (p. 39).
"As stressed several times above, the United States
should seek to establish – or reestablish – a more robust naval
presence in Southeast Asia, marked by a long-term, semi-permanent home
port in the region, perhaps in the Philippines, Australia, or both"
(p. 44).
"In Southeast Asia, American forces are too sparse
to adequately address rising security requirements….Except for routine
patrols by naval and Marine forces, the security of this strategically
significant and increasingly tumultuous region has suffered from
American neglect…..Southeast Asia region has long been an area of
great interest to China, which clearly seeks to regain influence in the
region. In recent years, China has gradually increased its presence and
operations in the region.
"Raising U.S. military strength in East Asia is the
key to coping with the rise of China to great-power status. For this to
proceed peacefully, U.S. armed forces must retain their military
preeminence and thereby reassure our regional allies. In Northeast Asia,
the United States must maintain and tighten its ties with the Republic
of Korea and Japan. In Southeast Asia, only the United States can reach
out to regional powers like Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia and
others. This will be a difficult task requiring sensitivity to diverse
national sentiments, but it is made all the more compelling by the
emergence of new democratic governments in the region. By guaranteeing
the security of our current allies and newly democratic nations in East
Asia, the United States can help ensure that the rise of China is a
peaceful one. Indeed, in time, American and allied power in the region
may provide a spur to the process of democratization inside China
itself….A heightened U.S. military presence in Southeast Asia would be
a strong spur to regional security cooperation, providing the core
around which a de facto coalition could jell" (pp. 18-19).
"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 U.S. 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 Japan maintaining forward-based U.S. forces is
essential" (p. 18).
Europe
"As discussed above, the focus of American security
strategy for the coming century is likely to shift to East Asia. This
reflects the success of American strategy in the 20th century, and
particularly the success of the NATO alliance through the Cold War,
which has created what appears to be a generally stable and enduring
peace in Europe. The pressing new problem of European security –
instability in Southeastern Europe – will be best addressed by the
continued stability operations in the Balkans by U.S. and NATO ground
forces supported by land-based air forces. Likewise, the new opportunity
for greater European stability offered by further NATO expansion will
make demands first of all on ground and land-based air forces. As the
American security perimeter in Europe is removed eastward, this pattern
will endure, although naval forces will play an important role in the
Baltic Sea, eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea, and will continue to
support U.S. and NATO operations ashore" (pp. 43-44).
"The Balkans, and southeastern Europe more
generally, present the major hurdle toward the creation of a Europe
'whole and free' from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The delay in bringing
security and stability to southeastern Europe has not only prevented the
consolidation of the victory in the Cold War, it has created a zone of
violence and conflict and introduced uncertainty about America’s role
in Europe" (pp. 15-16).
"Despite the shifting focus of conflict in Europe,
a requirement to station U.S. forces in northern and central Europe
remains. The region is stable, but a continued American presence helps
to assure the major European powers, especially Germany, that the United
States retains its longstanding security interest in the continent. This
is especially important in light of the nascent European moves toward an
independent defense 'identity' and policy; it is important that NATO not
be replaced by the European Union, leaving the United States without a
voice in European security affairs" (p. 16).
"Although U.S. Navy and Marine forces generally
operate on a regular cycle of deployments to European waters, they rely
on a network of permanent bases in the region, especially in the
Mediterranean. These should be retained, and consideration given to
establishing a more robust presence in the Black Sea" (p. 17).
Regime Change
Several statements advocating the possible necessity of
removing hostile regimes can be found in the document.
"American military preeminence will continue to
rest in significant part on the ability to maintain sufficient land
forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and
hostile regime when necessary" (p. 61).
"The need to respond with decisive force in the
event of a major theater war in Europe, the Persian Gulf or East Asia
will remain the principal factor in determining Army force structure for
U.S.-based units. However one judges the likelihood of such wars
occurring, it is essential to retain sufficient capabilities to bring
them to a satisfactory conclusion, including the possibility of a
decisive victory that results in long-term political or regime
change" (p. 25).
"America’s adversaries will continue to resist
the building of the American peace; when they see an opportunity as
Saddam Hussein did in 1990, they will employ their most powerful armed
forces to win on the battle-field what they could not win in peaceful
competition; and American armed forces will remain the core of efforts
to deter, defeat, or remove from power regional aggressors" (p.
10).
C. Rebuilding the Military
"If an American peace is to be maintained, and
expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military
preeminence" (p. 4).
One stated objective of "RAD" is "to
outline the large, 'full-spectrum' forces that are necessary to conduct
the varied tasks demanded by a strategy of American preeminence for
today and tomorrow" (p. 5). Much of the document is an elucidation
of those missions and includes specific recommendations about weaponry,
deployment patterns, increased personnel and defense spending.
"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 he must pull back from the security
commitments that are the measure of America’s position as the
world’s sole superpower and the final guarantee of security,
democratic freedoms and individual political rights" (p. 4).
"Preserving the desirable strategic situation in
which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent
military capability both today and in the future. But years of cuts in
defense spending have eroded the American military’s combat readiness,
and put in jeopardy the Pentagon’s plans for maintaining military
superiority in the years ahead. Increasingly, the U.S. military has
found itself undermanned, inadequately equipped and trained, straining
to handle contingency operations, and ill-prepared to adapt itself to
the revolution in military affairs" (p. i).
The four core missions of PNAC referred to below were
outlined in section A. Pax Americana.
"To carry out these core missions, we need to
provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the
United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S.
nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the
full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia
balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to
roughly the levels anticipated in the 'Base Force' outlined by the Bush
Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to
1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century
strategic realities by shifting permanently based forces to Southeast
Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to
reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding
with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic
support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant
fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground
vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey 'tilt-rotor' aircraft for the
Marine Corps.
CANCEL 'ROADBLOCK' PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike
Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would
absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited
improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled
programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the
American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for
U.S. power projection around the world.
CONTROL THE NEW 'INTERNATIONAL COMMONS' OF SPACE AND
'CYBERSPACE,' and pave the way for the creation of a new military
service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.
EXPLOIT THE 'REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS' to ensure
the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a
two-stage transformation process which
• ?maximizes the value of current weapons systems
through the application of advanced technologies, and,
• ?produces more profound improvements in military
capabilities, encourages competition between single services and
joint-service experimentation efforts.
INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level
of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to
$20 billion to total defense spending annually" (p. v).
"In general terms, it seems likely that the process
of transformation will take several decades and that U.S. forces will
continue to operate many, if not most, of today’s weapons systems for
a decade or more. Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of
transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition,
then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The break-point will come
when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service,
perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as
numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very
wary of making large investments in new programs – tanks, planes,
aircraft carriers, for example – that would commit U.S. forces to
current paradigms of warfare for many decades to come" (p. 13).
Army
List of recommendations for modernizing the Army (see p.
23).
"American landpower remains the essential link in
the chain that translates U.S. military supremacy into American
geopolitical preeminence. Even as the means for delivering firepower on
the battlefield shift – strike aircraft have realized all but the
wildest dreams of air power enthusiasts, unmanned aerial vehicles
promise to extend strike power in the near future, and the ability to
conduct strikes from space appears on the not-too-distant horizon –
the need for ground maneuvers to achieve decisive political results
endures. Regimes are difficult to change based upon punishment alone. If
land forces are to survive and retain their unique strategic purpose in
a world where it is increasingly easy to deliver firepower precisely at
long ranges, they must change as well, becoming more stealthy, mobile,
deployable and able to operate in a dispersed fashion. The U.S. Army,
and American land forces more generally, must increasingly complement
the strike capabilities of the other services. Conversely, an American
military force that lacks the ability to employ ground forces that can
survive and maneuver rapidly on future battlefields will deprive U.S.
political leaders of a decisive tool of diplomacy" (p. 30).
Air Force — Toward a Global First-Strike Force
List of recommendations for modernizing the Air Force
(See p. 31).
"Although air power remains the most flexible and
responsive element of U.S. military power, the Air Force needs to be
restructured, repositioned, revitalized and enlarged to assure continued
'global reach, global power'" (p. 31).
"Because of its inherent mobility and flexibility,
the Air Force will be the first U.S. military force to arrive in a
theater during times of crisis; as such, the Air Force must retain its
ability to deploy and sustain sufficient numbers of aircraft to deter
wars and shape any conflict in its earliest stages. Indeed, it is the
Air Force, along with the Army, that remains the core of America’s
ability to apply decisive military power when its pleases. To dissipate
this ability to deliver a rapid hammer blow is to lose the key component
of American military preeminence" (p. 37).
"A gradual increase in Air Force spending back to a
$110 billion to $115 billion level is required to increase service
personnel strength; build new units, especially the composite wings
required to perform the 'air constabulary missions' such as no-fly
zones; add the support capabilities necessary to complement the fleet of
tactical aircraft; reinvest in space capabilities and begin the process
of transformation" (p. 37).
"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. Indeed, as will be discussed
below, space dominance may become so essential to the preservation of
American military preeminence that it may require a separate service.
How well the Air Force rises to the many challenges it faces – even
should it receive increased budgets – will go far toward determining
whether U.S. military forces retain the combat edge they now enjoy"
(pp. 38-39).
"A recent study done for the Air Force indicates
that a worldwide network of forward operating bases….might cost $5
billion to $10 billion through 2010. The study speculates that some of
the cost might be paid for by host nations anxious to cement ties with
the United States, or, in Europe, be considered as common NATO assets
and charged to the NATO common fund" (p. 20).
Navy/Marine Corps
List of recommendations for modernizing the Navy (See
pp. 39-40).
List of recommendations for modernizing the Marines (See
pp. 47-48).
"The end of the Cold War leaves the U.S. Navy in a
position of unchallenged supremacy on the high seas, a dominance
surpassing that even of the British Navy in the 19th and early parts of
the 20th century. With the remains of the Soviet fleet now largely
rusting in port, the open oceans are America’s, and the lines of
communication open from the coasts of the United States to Europe, the
Persian Gulf and East Asia. Yet this very success calls the need for the
current force structure into question. Further, the advance of
precision-strike technology may mean that naval surface combatants, and
especially the large-deck aircraft carriers that are the Navy’s
capital ships, may not survive in the high-technology wars of the coming
decades. Finally, the nature and pattern of Navy presence missions may
be out of synch with emerging strategic realities. In sum, 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).
"Thus, while naval presence, including carrier
presence, in the western Pacific should be increased, the Navy should
begin to conduct many of its presence missions with other kinds of
battle groups based around cruisers, destroyers and other surface
combatants as well as submarines. Indeed, the Navy needs to better
understand the requirement to have substantial numbers of cruise-missile
platforms at sea and in close proximity to regional hot spots, using
carriers and naval aviation as reinforcing elements" (p. 46).
"The Navy’s force of attack submarines also
should be expanded. It is unclear that the current and planned
generations of attack submarines (to say nothing of new ballistic
missile submarines) will be flexible enough to meet future demands. The
Navy should reassess its submarine requirements not merely in light of
current missions but with an expansive view of possible future missions
as well" (p. 46).
"The Navy must begin to transition away from its
heavy dependence on carrier operations….. Design and research on a
future CVX carrier should continue, but should aim at a radical design
change to accommodate an air wing based primarily on unmanned aerial
vehicles" (p. 40).
"To offset the reduced role of carriers, the Navy
should slightly increase its fleets of current-generation surface
combatants and submarines for improved strike capabilities in littoral
waters and to conduct an increasing proportion of naval presence
missions with surface action groups. Additional investments in
counter-mine warfare are needed, as well" (p. 40).
"In particular, the Marine Corps, like the Navy,
must turn its focus on the requirements for operations in East Asia,
including Southeast Asia. In many ways, this will be a 'back to the
future' mission for the Corps, recalling the innovative thinking done
during the period between the two world wars and which established the
Marines’ expertise in amphibious landings and operations" (p.
47).
Overseas Bases
"As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under
long-term basing arrangements, the United States should seek to
establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases'
to increase the reach of current and future forces. Not only will such
an approach improve the ability to project force to outlying regions, it
will help circumvent the political, practical and financial constraints
on expanding the network of American bases overseas" (p. 19).
"There should be a strong strategic synergy between
U.S. forces overseas and in a reinforcing posture: 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).
"Further, improvements should be made to existing
air bases in new and potential NATO countries to allow for rapid
deployments, contingency exercises, and extended initial operations in
times of crisis. These preparations should include modernized air
traffic control, fuel, and weapons storage facilities, and perhaps small
stocks of prepositioned munitions, as well as sufficient ramp space to
accommodate surges in operations. Improvements also should be made to
existing facilities in England to allow forward operation of B-2 bombers
in times of crisis, to increase sortie rates if needed" (p. 34).
"The Air Force should be redeployed to reflect the
shifts in international politics. Independent, expeditionary air wings
containing a broad mix of aircraft, including electronic warfare,
airborne command and control, and other support aircraft, should be
based in Italy, Southeastern Europe, central and perhaps eastern Turkey,
the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia"
(p. 31).
Nuclear Expansion
"…significant reductions in U.S. nuclear forces
might well have unforeseen consequences that lessen rather than enhance
the security of the United States and its allies" (p. 8).
"Over the past decade, efforts to design and build
effective missile defenses have been ill-conceived and underfunded, and
the Clinton Administration has proposed deep reductions in U.S. nuclear
forces without sufficient analysis of the changing global nuclear
balance of forces" (p. 6).
"Rather than maintain and improve America’s
nuclear deterrent, the Clinton Administration has put its faith in new
arms control measures, most notably by signing the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT). The treaty proposed a new multilateral regime,
consisting of some 150 states, whose principal effect would be to
constrain America's unique role in providing the global nuclear umbrella
that helps to keep states like Japan and South Korea from developing the
weapons that are well within their scientific capability, while doing
little to stem nuclear weapons proliferation. Although the Senate
refused to ratify the treaty, the administration continues to abide by
its basic strictures. And while it may make sense to continue the
current moratorium on nuclear testing for the moment – since it would
take a number of years to refurbish the neglected testing infrastructure
in any case – ultimately this is an untenable situation. If the United
States is to have a nuclear deterrent that is both effective and safe,
it will need to test." (pp. 7-8).
"…of all the elements of U.S. military force
posture, perhaps none is more in need of reevaluation than America’s
nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons remain a critical component of American
military power but it is unclear whether the current U.S. nuclear
arsenal is well-suited to the emerging post-Cold War world. Today’s
strategic calculus encompasses more factors than just the balance of
terror between the United States and Russia. U.S. nuclear force planning
and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of
variables than in the past, including the growing number of small
nuclear arsenals – from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran
and Iraq – and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force.
Moreover, there is a question about the role nuclear weapons should play
in deterring the use of other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, such
as chemical and biological, with the U.S. having foresworn those
weapons’ development and use. It addition, there may be a need to
develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of
military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very
deep under-ground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our
potential adversaries" (p. 8).
"But what should finally drive the size and
character of our nuclear forces is not numerical parity with Russian
capabilities but maintaining American strategic superiority – and,
with that superiority, a capability to deter possible hostile coalitions
of nuclear powers. U.S. nuclear superiority is nothing to be ashamed of;
rather, it will be an essential element in preserving American
leadership in a more complex and chaotic world" (p. 8).
D. Future Wars of Pax Americana
"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).
"RAD" envisions a future in which the United
States is in complete control of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace of
planet Earth. It finds objectionable the limitations imposed by the ABM
treaty and urges a newer rendition of Reagan's 'Star Wars' defense
shield program. Three missions are seen as crucial.
1. Global Missile Defenses — "A network
against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its
allies and forward-deployed forces, must be constructed. This must be a
layered system of land, sea, air and space-based components" (p.
51).
"The first element in any missile defense network
should be a galaxy of surveillance satellites with sensors capable of
acquiring enemy ballistic missiles immediately upon launch" (p.
52).
"At the same time, the administration’s devotion
to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with the Soviet Union
has frustrated development of useful ballistic missile defenses. This is
reflected in deep budget cuts – planned spending on missile defenses
for the late 1990s has been more than halved, halting work on
space-based interceptors, cutting funds for a national missile defense
system by 80 percent and theater defenses by 30 percent. Further, the
administration has cut funding just at the crucial moments when
individual programs begin to show promise. Only upgrades of currently
existing systems like the Patriot missile – originally designed
primarily for air defense against jet fighters, not missile defense –
have proceeded generally on course.
"Most damaging of all was the decision in 1993 to
terminate the 'Brilliant Pebbles' project. This legacy of the original
Reagan-era 'Star Wars' effort had matured to the point where it was
becoming feasible to develop a space-based interceptor capable of
destroying ballistic missiles in the early or middle portion of their
flight – far preferable than attempting to hit individual warheads
surrounded by clusters of decoys on their final course toward their
targets. But since a space-based system would violate the ABM Treaty,
the administration killed the 'Brilliant Pebbles' program, choosing
instead to proceed with a ground-based interceptor and radar system –
one that will be costly without being especially effective" (p.
52).
2. Control of Space — "RAD"
advises instituting a new "Space Service" thereby escalating
U.S. military preparedness "from the theatre level to the global
level" in order to achieve worldwide dominance, both militarily and
commercially.
"Yet to truly transform itself for the coming
century, the Air Force must accelerate its efforts to create the
new systems – and, to repeat, the space-based systems – that are
necessary to shift the scope of air operations from the theater
level to the global level" (p. 64).
"…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).
"Much as control of the high seas – and the
protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the
past, so will control of the new 'international commons' be a key to
world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its
interests or that of its allies in space or the 'infosphere' will find
it difficult to exert global political leadership" (p. 51).
"The proliferation of technologies for delivering
highly accurate fires over increasingly great distances poses a great
challenge for both the Army and the Marine Corps, but rather than
attempting to compete in the game of applying long-range fires, both
services would be better off attempting to complement the vastly
improved strike capabilities of the Navy and Air Force, and indeed in
linking decisive maneuvers to future space capabilities as well"
(p. 68).
"Target significant new investments toward
creating capabilities for operating in space, including inexpensive
launch vehicles, new satellites and transatmospheric vehicles,
in preparation for a decision as to whether space warfare is sufficiently
different from combat within earth’s atmosphere so as to require
a separate 'space service'. Such a transformation would in fact better
realize the Air Force’s stated goal of becoming a service with
true global reach and global strike capabilities" (p. 64).
"Given the advantages U.S. armed forces enjoy as a
result of this unrestricted use of space, it is shortsighted to expect
potential adversaries to refrain from attempting to disable or offset
U.S. space capabilities. And with the proliferation of space know-how
and related technology around the world, our adversaries will inevitably
seek to enjoy many of the same space advantages in the future. Moreover,
'space commerce' is a growing part of the global economy. In 1996,
commercial United States, and commercial revenues exceeded government
expenditures on space. Today, more than 1,100 commercial companies
across more than 50 countries are developing, building, and operating
space systems.
"The complexity of space control will only
grow as commercial activity increases. American and other allied
investments in space systems will create a requirement to secure and
protect these space assets; they are already an important measure of
American power. Yet it will not merely be enough to protect friendly
commercial uses of space.
"As Space Command also recognizes, the United
States must also have the capability to deny America's adversaries the
use of commercial space platforms for military purposes in times of
crises and conflicts. Indeed, space is likely to become the new
'international commons', where commercial and security interests are
intertwined and related. Just as Alfred Thayer Mahan wrote about
'sea-power' at the beginning of the 20th century in this sense, American
strategists will be forced to regard 'space-power' in the 21st"
(pp. 54-55).
"In short, the unequivocal supremacy in space
enjoyed by the United States today will be increasingly at risk"
(p. 55).
"As Colin Gray and John Sheldon have written,
'Space control is not an avoidable issue. It is not an optional
extra.' For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military
preeminence, 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. If America cannot
maintain that control, its ability to conduct global military operations
will be severely complicated, far more costly, and potentially fatally
compromised" (p. 55).
"But, over the longer term, maintaining control of
space will inevitably require the application of force both in space and
from space, including but not limited to anti-missile defenses and
defensive systems capable of protecting U.S. and allied satellites;
space control cannot be sustained in any other fashion, with
conventional land, sea, or airforce, or by electronic warfare. This
eventuality is already recognized by official U.S. national space
policy, which states that the 'Department of Defense shall maintain a
capability to execute the mission areas of space support, force
enhancement, space control and force application.' (Emphasis
added.)" (p. 56).
3. Control of Cyberspace — "Although many
concepts of 'cyber-war' have elements of science fiction about them, and
the role of the Defense Department in establishing 'control,' or even
what 'security' on the Internet means, requires a consideration of a
host of legal, moral and political issues, there nonetheless will remain
an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies the
ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial
sector's computer networks.
"Conversely, an offensive capability could offer
America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling
an adversary in a decisive manner. Taken together, the prospects for
space war or 'cyberspace war' represent the truly revolutionary
potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These
future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure. But,
it is also clear that for the U.S. armed forces to remain preeminent and
avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power they must be sure
that these potential future forms of warfare favor America just as
today’s air, land and sea warfare reflect United States military
dominance" (p. 57).
Strategy for Transforming Conventional Forces
Read below notions of how conventional warfare will be
conducted in the future, including the use of microbes and
"advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific
genotypes."
"In exploiting the 'revolution in military
affairs,' the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S.
forces. This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix
of current and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new
systems, organizations and operational concepts. This process must take
a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations
competing for new roles and missions. Any successful process of
transformation must be linked to the services, which are the
institutions within the Defense Department with the ability and the
responsibility for linking budgets and resources to specific
missions" (p. 51).
"Although it may take several decades for the
process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air,
land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and 'combat'
likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, 'cyber-space,' and
perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare may no longer be fought by
pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing
fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft.
On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be
replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and
information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small
enough to fit in soldiers’ pockets. Control of the sea could be
largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft
carriers, but from land- and space-based systems, forcing navies to
maneuver and fight underwater. Space itself will become a theater of
war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on
them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space
systems – combatants and noncombatants – will become blurred.
Information systems will become an important focus of attack,
particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated
American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can
target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the
realm of terror to a politically useful tool" (p. 60).
Changes in Naval Warfare: "Beyond immediate
opportunities such as conversion of Trident submarines, consideration
should be given to employing a deactivated carrier to better understand
the possibilities of operating large fleets of UAVs at sea. Likewise,
submerged 'missile pods,' either permanently deployed or laid covertly
by submarines in times of crisis, could increase strike capabilities
without risking surface vessels in littoral waters. In general, if the
Navy is moving toward 'network-centric' warfare, it should explore ways
of increasing the number of 'nodes on the net'" (p. 67).
Army of the Future: "Consider just the
potential changes that might effect the infantryman. Future soldiers may
operate in encapsulated, climate-controlled, powered fighting suits,
laced with sensors, and boasting chameleon-like 'active' camouflage.
'Skin-patch' pharmaceuticals help regulate fears, focus concentration
and enhance endurance and strength. A display mounted on a soldier’s
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 soldier’s 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).
Comment section added to this article on October 30, 2011
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου
Παρακαλώ να γράφετε με Ελληνικούς χαρακτήρες και να είστε κόσμιοι στις εκφράσεις σας. Οποιοδήποτε άλλο σχόλιο με γκρικλις και ξένη γλώσσα θα διαγράφετε. Ευχαριστώ!