Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

The Right Flexes Muscle with New U.S. Agenda

We meet here during a crucial period in the history of [the United States], and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by...

"We meet here during a crucial period in the history of [the United States], and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us." This rather remarkable statement, made on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, was not from some hawkish policy wonk or an overzealous administration appointee. It was from President George W. Bush, who was addressing a crowd of neoconservative thinkers and ideologues at the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute, arguably the most influential think tank in the country right now.

(Earlier in the speech, the president commended the institute for having "some of the finest minds in our nation." "You do such good work," he added, "that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds.")

That the president would choose to make such a bold–some might say overweening–contention in front of that particular audience is not surprising. It was, after all, a very receptive group.

For years, neoconservatives have been arguing that the U.S. should abandon the balance-of-power realism of the first President Bush and the liberal globalism of the Clinton administration and use its might to unilaterally overthrow anti-American regimes anywhere in the globe.

In a much-quoted 1997 article in Foreign Affairs, William Kristol and Robert Kagan, two key neocon writers, summarized the thinking when they argued that the country should establish a "benevolent hegemony."

For these foreign-policy elites, Iraq is only step one in a much larger effort to restructure the Middle East and radically alter the U.S. agenda.

As Kristol and co-author Lawrence Kaplan wrote in "The War Over Iraq," which was published this year: "The wisdom of regime change, the merits of promoting democracy, the desirability of American power and influence–these issues extend well beyond Iraq. So we dare to hope that this work will prove useful even after Baghdad is finally free."

An early example of this thinking came in 1992, when two neoconservative officials working under then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney drafted a far-reaching policy paper known as the "Defense Planning Guidance."

Upset by the first President Bush’s decision to leave Saddam Hussein’s regime in place after the 1991 Gulf War, the authors–Paul Wolfowitz, now the deputy secretary of defense, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff–argued that the U.S. should actively deter nations from "aspiring to a larger regional or global role," use pre-emptive force to prevent countries from developing weapons of mass destruction and act alone if necessary.

Although the Wolfowitz-Libby guidance was quashed soon after it was leaked to The New York Times, many of its ideas–in particular, the doctrine of pre-emption–later found their way into President George W. Bush’s national security strategy.

The document also served as a sort of template for the founding statement of principles of the Project for a New American Century, an organization formed in 1997 by Kristol and several other bright lights of the neocon movement with the aim of promoting American global leadership.

The list of statement signers includes a number of foreign policy hawks and neocons who are in the current administration: Cheney, Libby, Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Council member Elliott Abrams, Assistant Defense Secretary Peter Rodman and Zalmay Khalilzad, the president’s liaison to the Iraqi opposition.

At the same time that the project was formulating its principles, other soon-to-be-Bush administration officials were advising Israel to work with the U.S. and a select group of countries in an effort to reshape the Middle East.

In 1996 David Wurmser and Douglas Feith, both Bush administration officials, and Richard Perle, former chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, contributed to a working paper for an Israeli think tank that urged Israel to scrap the peace process.

The paper, titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," advised then–Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "to work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll back" regional threats, help overthrow Hussein, and strike "Syrian military targets in Lebanon" and possibly in Syria proper.

Although the neocons and their ideas were largely ignored by the administration of President Clinton, they found new life after the election of Bush and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Just four days after the attacks, Wolfowitz urged the president to expand the targets of the war on terrorism to include Iraq.

Nine days after the attacks, the Project for a New American Century released a statement arguing that "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."

That Iraq is only stage one in a much larger global strategy has repeatedly been made clear by neocons and foreign policy hawks inside and outside the administration. In February, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that the administration would "deal with" Iran, Syria, and North Korea just as soon as Iraq was defeated.

Richard Perle, who recently stepped down from the chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board after questions were raised about a potential conflict of interest regarding his private business dealings, told journalist Richard Dreyfuss in an interview: "We could deliver a short message, a two-worded message [to other hostile regimes in the Middle East]: ‘You’re next’."

Despite these and other statements to the contrary, the U.S. public remains largely convinced that the overthrow of Hussein is a clear and carefully circumscribed goal. As Joshua Marshall recently wrote in the Washington Monthly, "Today … the great majority of the American people have no concept of what kind of conflict the president is leading them into. The White House has presented this as a war to depose Saddam Hussein in order to keep him from acquiring weapons of mass destruction–a goal that the majority of Americans support."

Would the American public have supported the Iraq war if it had been sold as just one in a series of regional–and perhaps global–confrontations?

Michael Flynn is a writer in Washington and former associate editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

 

Citations

Michael Flynn, "The Right Flexes Muscle with New U.S. Agenda," IRC Right Web (Somerville, MA: Interhemispheric Resource Center, November 2003).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share