The Bush Doctrine: Blueprint for Empire?
5/14/2003

    As you know, I have flip-flopped twice before regarding my evaluations of U. S. foreign policy. I've wanted very much to understand why some of us support and applaud U. S. foreign policy, and others of us are vehemently opposed to it. I've wanted to be objective, and to arrive at a true understanding of what is really taking place behind the curtain. I've also wanted to feel good about what the Bush Administration is doing, if that's tenable.
    I've now found some original (and mind-boggling) "declarations of intent" regarding U. S. plans for foreign relations, as endorsed by the highest (presidential) levels of the U. S. government. 
    To cut to the bottom line, what the Bush Administration has publicly stated is that, as the world's only superpower, we're going to dominate the world, upgrading our already-formidable military power to the point where no other nation will even think about challenging our overwhelming military superiority.
    We all want to arrive at unbiased and valid truths are based upon authentic facts. For that reason, the first section of this article consists only of key points in the most relevant U. S. policy documents, together with links to the documents themselves. I'm going to present these without my opinions, so that you can read them for yourself and arrive at your own conclusions. 

    Over the last few weeks, I've been encountering, here and there, claims that our plans for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein date back to 1992, nine years before 9/11. Furthermore, these plans are alleged to include domination of the world by the U. S., including knocking down any potential rivals by, if necessary, military force. As a corollary, it calls for maintaining overwhelming military power. 
    I decided to see if the claims about the existence of such official documents were true. So I ran an Internet search on "Defense Policy Guidance"   (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Defense+Policy+Guidance%22&btnG=Google+Search), the document that, Paul Wolfowitz (the man who was then our Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, and  is now our Deputy Secretary of Defense), and  I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby,  Vice President Cheney's current Chief of Staff), are credited with having written in 1992. Here are a few highlights of what I found: 

• "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
• "There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
• "According to the draft document, the U.S. should aim 'to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems.'"
• "The draft outlines several scenarios in which U.S. interests could be threatened by regional conflict: 'access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking.'"

    I checked several of these references to try to be sure that they contained the same quotations. (They did.). They also explain that these quotations are taken from a draft copy of "Defense Policy Guidance" that was leaked to the New York Times. The report itself was classified. 
    Senator Joseph Biden (D., Maryland) was said to be horrified and to have said that it sounded like a recipe for a "Pax Americana" (referring to the Roman "Pax Romana" that kept Rome constantly at war.)  After excerpts from this draft report were leaked to the public, our then-Secretary of State, James Baker, and our then-National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcraft, allegedly approached Dick Cheney, who was our Secretary of Defense in 1992, and asked him to remove some of the more inflammatory passages from the plan... which he did.
    To recap the objectives of the draft version of Defense Policy Guidance,:

    "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival."
     There are three additional aspects to this objective:

• "First the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. 
• "Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.
• "Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

    Bottom line: The way I read this, it says that the U. S. must dominate the world, and, using whatever means are necessary, must push down other countries before they can think of challenging our dominance.

    During the years that followed, Dr. Wolfowitz and his fellow graduate student at Princeton in the 1960's, Richard Perle, kept pushing their plan for "benign hegemony". 

Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
    "In 1997, the two authors of this military doctrine of military preeminence and preemptive strikes--Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby--were among the 25 signatories of the Statement of Principles of the neoconservative front group called the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC). Other signatories who are now also prominent figures in the current administration included their boss, former DOD Secretary Cheney, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, Donald Rumsfeld, Paula Dobriansky, and Peter Rodman."
    (Wolfowitz and Libby were the two dozen consultants involved in the report.

Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century
    In September 2000, just before the presidential election, another task force, including Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield and President Bush' brother, Jeb Bush collaborated on an updated report entitled,
    Rebuilding America's Defenses- Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, sponsored by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
    It credits the draft of the Defense Policy Guidance with providing “a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”
    In its Foreword,, PNAC's plan sets forth the following objectives:

• “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.”
• “Increase defense spending, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.”
• “Exploit the ‘revolution in military affairs’ [transformation to high-tech, unmanned weaponry] to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces.”
• “Need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements” complaining that the U.S. has “virtually ceased development of safer and more effective nuclear weapons.”
• “Facing up to the realities of multiple constabulary missions that will require a permanent allocation of U.S. forces.”
• “America must defend its homeland” by “reconfiguring its nuclear force” and by missile defense systems that “counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.”
• “Need for a larger U.S. security perimeter” and the U.S. “should seek to establish a network of ‘deployment bases’ or ‘forward operating bases’ to increase the reach of current and future forces,” citing the need to move beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia to increased permanent military presence in Southeast Asia and “other regions of East Asia.” Necessary “to cope with the rise of China to great-power status.”
• Redirecting the U.S. Air Force to move “toward a global first-strike force.”
• End the Clinton administration’s “devotion” to the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
• “North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or similar states [should not be allowed] to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies, or threaten the American homeland itself.”
• “Main military missions” necessary to “preserve Pax Americana” and a “unipolar 21st century” are the following: “secure and expand zones of democratic peace, deter rise of new great-power competitor, defend key regions (Europe, East Asia, Middle East), and exploit transformation of war.”

    Bottom line: Again, as I interpret this, it's saying that the U. S. must control the world. including not only third-world nations but also, our traditional allies. To enforce this global domination, the U. S. needs to expand its already overpowering military machinery.

    The last statement, calling for a "Pax Americana", a "unipolar 21st century", and "deter the rise of new great-power competitor" might be said to delineate the co-signers' goals. 
    This pre-election (September, 2000) document was followed by the White House’s National Security Strategy document, issued in March, 2002, which reflects the “peace through strength” credo that shapes PNAC strategic thinking. 
   "Echoing the conclusions of the PNAC’s document calling for increased U.S. military projection, the White House’s own strategy document focuses not only on rogues but also on great powers, particularly China, that are regarded as peer competitors."
    "This type of security strategy is described in the following ways in the National Security Strategy:

• “The U.S. can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past.”
• “We cannot let our enemies strike first.”
• “We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries.”
• “To forestall or prevent hostile acts by our adversaries, the U.S. will, if necessary, act preemptively.”
• “We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge” and “dissuade future military competition.”
• “To contend with uncertainty and to meet the many security challenges we face, the U.S. will require bases ands stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. forces.”

    "The new security strategy did not emerge full-blown in reaction to the terrorism of September 11, 2001. That catastrophe did, however, open the door to this radical strategy of anticipatory self-defense and the global projection of U.S. military power. It also served as the catalyst for a major infusion of tax dollars into the Pentagon—with the DoD budget projected to increase from $310 billion at the end of the Clinton administration to $469 billion in 2007.
    "This new strategy of rapid militarization at home, a permanent and expanding U.S. military presence abroad, and a policy of first strike defense against perceived enemies is one that was foretold. The military strategists, neoconservative analysts, and military-industrial lobbyists spent the 1990s preparing the strategy of U.S. military preeminence that the Bush administration is now implementing under their direction."

    To sum it up, I've concluded that the claims that the U. S. is following a plan of overseas expansion that was planned years before 9/11 or the current invasion of Iraq are correct.
    This is a publicly stated set of intentions available to everyone with access to the Internet.
    It's surprising to me that our government would formally announce such an agenda. As the British see it,

"Panic in Britain
"The doctrine was hard to accept for Bush's new friends overseas. Lord Powell, Margaret Thatcher's former foreign policy advisor, found it provocative.

'There’s nothing new about preemption, it’s been practiced by many governments over many centuries, even by the United States in really quite recent cases. Was it wise to publish a doctrine of preemption as a strategic document issued by the President or the Government of the United States? Personally, I think it was a mistake.'"