The Real Reason America Went To War With Iraq.-Commentary

In a report just before the 2000 election The PNAC spells out their plan. The process of transformation, the plan said, is likely to be a long one, ab

In a report just before the 2000 election The PNAC spells out their plan. The process of transformation, the plan said, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.

President Bush, responding Thursday in Columbus, Ohio, to questions Kerry has raised about his motivation in going to war against Iraq. Bush said his decision to strike there was a profoundly difficult and personal one. "Committing troops into harm's way is the most difficult decision a president can make," Bush told an audience of nearly 1,000. "That decision must always be last resort. That decision must be done when our vital interests are at stake, but after we've tried everything else. There must be a compelling national need to put our troops into harm's way. I felt that."
Well Mr. President this is what I feel.
That "compelling national need" to go to war is a neoconservative view on foreign policy. A Washington-based organization known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and weapons and defense industries, drafted the war plan for U.S. global domination through military power. The PNAC is part of the New Citizenship Project, whose chairman is also William Kristol, and is described as a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush's war cabinet. Wolfowitz was one of the directors of PNAC until he joined the Bush administration. The group’s essential demand was for hefty increases in defense spending. The increase in defense spending is to bring about two of the other principles: to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values and to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. A subsequent PNAC plan entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century, reveals that the current members of Bush's cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not. Even should Saddam pass from the scene, the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf States to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has. A core mission for the transformed U.S. military is to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars, according to the PNAC. The strategic transformation of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending 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, the PNAC plan said.
Doesn't President Bush's recent response to Senator Kerry explain it all? Didn't al Qaeda pose a more imminent threat to our country than Iraq since it was al Qaeda who actually attacked us and not Iraq! Well you and your friends at the PNAC got their "compelling national need" when two airliners struck the World Trade Center on September 11th. I only wish your administration had the moral fortitude to be honest about it.

About John Amato

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.