UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> Project for new American Century


8/8/06 3:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Aug-06
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 845
 
For anyone who has not seen the site or the Statement of priciples. http://www.newamericancentury.org/ June 3, 1997 American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead. We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
8/8/06 3:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Aug-06
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 846
Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces January 28, 2005 Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi: The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges. So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years. There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership. The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military. In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world. The men and women of our military have performed magnificently over the last few years. We are more proud of them than we can say. But many of them would be the first to say that the armed forces are too small. And we would say that surely we should be doing more to honor the contract between America and those who serve her in war. Reserves were meant to be reserves, not regulars. Our regulars and reserves are not only proving themselves as warriors, but as humanitarians and builders of emerging democracies. Our armed forces, active and reserve, are once again proving their value to the nation. We can honor their sacrifices by giving them the manpower and the materiel they need. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world. Respectfully, Peter Beinart Jeffrey Bergner Daniel Blumenthal Max Boot Eliot Cohen Ivo H. Daalder Thomas Donnelly Michele Flournoy Frank F. Gaffney, Jr.
8/8/06 3:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Aug-06
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 847
So who wants to argue left and right bullshit? as stated by many on here, there is no difference between the left or right. Its just promoting the special interests that makes the 2 sides different.
8/8/06 3:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tomato Can
146 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Aug-06 03:46 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 10078
PNAC is some scary shit. What's scarier is that they have the ear of a lot of politicians.
8/8/06 3:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
flowerfeeder
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Aug-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 20933
Tomato Can, they ARE politicians. Many of them are/were in the Bush administration. They anxiously anticipated a "new Pearl harbor" that would help rally American sentiment into war.
8/8/06 3:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
flowerfeeder
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Aug-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 20934
http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html
8/8/06 4:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
flowerfeeder
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Aug-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 20935
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." American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for "a new Pearl Harbor." "They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities," Maletz said. "Without some disaster or catastrophic event" neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said. The "new Pearl Harbor," in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the "war on terrorism" shortly after 9-11. A Pentagon spokesman told AFP that $17.5 billion of that initial allocation went to defense. The U.S. defense budget for 2002, including a $14.5 billion supplement, came to $345.7 billion, a nearly 12 percent increase over the 2001 defense budget.
8/8/06 4:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MR BIG1
80 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Aug-06
Member Since: 07/28/2002
Posts: 12368
that is obviously from some conspiracy website and is not considered a credible source according to the OG
8/8/06 4:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Aug-06
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 853
you mean that 3000 to this point is worth it???
8/8/06 5:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Aug-06
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 861
Then go and give your life for it dogface. Not a chance What the hell are you talking about? I personally will not give my life to a fight for oil and global positioning.
8/9/06 7:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Aug-06 07:48 AM
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 877
beer too? WTF. In all seriousness, you are correct
8/9/06 8:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BaldTony
269 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Aug-06 08:47 AM
Member Since: 12/12/2002
Posts: 8996
I love threads that are all leftists talking to each other. It's like an interweb version of inbreeding, with the same result
3/18/08 11:41 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
flowerfeeder
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 18-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 25634

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.