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 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

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Erik Prince, former CEO of the mercenary group Blackwater, continues to sell security services around the world as controversies over his work—including in China and the Middle East, and his alleged involvement in collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia—grow.


Gina Haspel is the first woman to hold the position of director of the CIA, winning her confirmation despite her history of involvement in torture during the Iraq War.


Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) is a pressure group founded in early 2019 that serves as a watchdog and enforcer of Israel’s reputation in the Democratic Party.


Richard Grenell is the U.S. ambassador to Germany for the Donald Trump administration, known for his brusque and confrontational style.


Zalmay Khalilzad is Donald Trump’s special representative to the Afghan peace process, having previously served as ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq under George W. Bush.


Robert Joseph played a key role in manipulating U.S. intelligence to support the invasion of Iraq and today is a lobbyist for the MEK.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Senate on Wednesday passed a measure mandating the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Saudi/UAE-led war against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The vote marks the first time since the War Powers Act of 1973 became law that both chambers of Congress have directed the president to withdraw American forces from a conflict.


The Trump administration’s failed “maximum pressure” approach to Iran and North Korea begs the question what the US president’s true objectives are and what options he is left with should the policy ultimately fail.


In the United States, it’s possible to debate any and every policy, domestic and foreign, except for unquestioning support for Israel. That, apparently, is Ilhan Omar’s chief sin.


While Michael Cohen mesmerized the House of Representatives and President Trump resumed his love affair with North Korea’s Kim Jong, one of the most dangerous state-to-state confrontations, centering in Kashmir, began to spiral out of control.


The Trump administration’s irresponsible withdrawal from the landmark Iran nuclear agreement undermined Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and emboldened hardliners who accused him of having been deceived by Washington while negotiating the agreement. However, the Iranian government could use the shock of Zarif’s resignation to push back against hardliners and take charge of both the domestic and foreign affairs of the country while Iran’s foreign opponents should consider the risks of destabilizing the government under the current critical situation.


Europe can play an important role in rebuilding confidence in the non-proliferation regime in the wake of the demise of the INF treaty, including by making it clear to the Trump administration that it wants the United States to refrain from deploying INF-banned missiles in Europe and to consider a NATO-Russian joint declaration on non-first deployment.


The decline in Israel’s appeal to Democrats is directly related to the wider awareness of the country’s increasingly authoritarian nature, its treatment of Palestinians, and its reluctance to take substantive steps toward peace. Pro-Israel liberals face a fundamental paradox trying to reconcile Israel’s illiberalism with their political values.


RightWeb
share