THE PROJECT, THE PROGRAM, THE PROTOCOLS OF THE NEOCON CABAL
- Elliott Abrams (PNAC), Ken Adelman, Richard Armitage (PNAC), John David Ashcroft, William J. Bennett (PNAC), Jeffrey Bergner (PNAC), John Bolton (PNAC)
- Paul Bremer Lewis Paul "Jerry" Bremer III, Shoshana Bryen, Stephen D. Bryen,
- Zbigniew Brzezinski, Stephen A. Cambone, Eliot A. Cohen, Paula J. Dobriansky (PNAC), John Doolittle, Douglas Jay Feith, David Frum, Francis Fukuyama (PNAC)
- Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. (PNAC), Reuel Marc Gerecht (PNAC), Newt Gingrich, Bruce P. Jackson, Michael Johns, Robert Kagan (PNAC), Zalmay Khalilzad (PNAC), Jeane Kirkpatrick, Henry Kissinger, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, William Kristol (PNAC), Michael Arthur Ledeen, Jay Lefkowitz, I. Lewis Scooter Libby, Michael H. Mobbs, Richard N. Perle (PNAC), Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, Howard Raines
- Peter W. Rodman (PNAC), Karl Rove, Donald H. Rumsfeld (PNAC), Gary J. Schmitt
- William Schneider, Jr. (PNAC), Abram N. Shulsky, Harlan Ullman, Vin Weber (PNAC)
- Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (PNAC), R. James Woolsey, Jr. (PNAC), David Wurmser
- Meyrav Wurmser, Karl Zinsmeister, Robert B. Zoellick
For a New Century
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. None of the defense reviews of the past decade has weighed fully the range of missions demanded by U.S. global leadership: defending the homeland, fighting and winning multiple large-scale wars, conducting constabulary missions which preserve the current peace, and transforming the U.S. armed forces to exploit the "revolution in military affairs." Nor have they adequately quantified the forces and resources necessary to execute these missions separately and successfully. While much further detailed analysis would be required, it is the purpose of this study to outline the large, "fullspectrum" forces that are necessary to conduct the varied tasks demanded by a strategy of American preeminence for today and tomorrow...
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 socalled "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....
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
- Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.
- Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.
- Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.
- This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.
- TEXT:
- We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace"will not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is notwithin our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.