Editor's note: PMK the author of this document is not directly identified but rather is addressed as Paul in one of the short messages that leads into this widely circulated email message.

Without some authentication this is essentially a rumor, gossip if you will, but gossip is always, like reality TV based on some factual evidence. However, the real importance of a document like this is the deep seated and disturbing worries that it poses. Clearly, the writer is trying to convey some genuine troubling thoughts about the situation he perceives that his country is in and in that light, this message is worth looking over
Dear friends,

Even if you have decided your opinion on the present "crisis" in Iraq, it is imperative that you read this email, and forward it on.

For those of you opposed to the U.S. war because you think,"it's just about oil", read on.

No person claiming to be interested in the Iraq debate can pretend to understand it without KNOWING WHO THE PEOPLE ARE who have designed it and plan to carry it out. The motivation behind this war is far broader and deeper than Saddam Hussein, all talk of Sept. 11, weapons of mass destruction, and even oil. The work of Hans Blix, the inspectors, the "diplomatic process"---are all a side-show. The men who pursue their goals by way of this war have a great plan on their minds, they have the will to attain their goals by whatever means is required, and they formulated their ideas long before Sept. 11, 2001 and even before the election of George W. Bush.

The squeaking by of George W. Bush in 2000, followed by the horrendous terrorist event of Sept. 11, have allowed these men to finally implement their vision. These men are presently running the government and shaping American foreign policy.

Sounds like some paranoid fantasy or conspiracy theory? No, it is not. All Americans should understand the PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. Don't take my word for it. Read what these people say themselves; it is all publicly available.

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based foreign policy think tank created in 1997. Their mission statement is to "promote American global leadership." PNAC demands that the U.S. seize the opportunities afforded by the end of the Cold War, a "uni-polar moment" in history, to establish a global American empire. Now is the time, they argue, for the last remaining superpower to use its unrivalled military strength to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic "Pax-Americana". This is to be achieved by exerting massive pre-emptive military force all over the world, and virtually all international, multi-lateral institutions and bodies, such as the United Nations, must follow "American leadership", or be ignored.

The signatories to the Project for the New American Century include, among others, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Sect. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, National Security Council director Elliot Abrams, Dan Quayle, and Jeb Bush. The Chairman of the group is William Kristol, a conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, owned by Robert Murdoch, who also owns FOX News.

I repeat again that this organization was formed in 1997, and all of the following citings are taken from before the year 2001. They are not "responses" to Sept. 11.

Perhaps the most revealing example of PNAC's ideology, largely penned by Dick Cheney, can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century."

According to the Report, two central requirements for American forces are to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." In addition the article says the following:


One example of PNAC's open contempt for the UN and any international institution perceived to be a check on American global hegemony can be found in William Kristol's suggestively titled " Reject the Global Buddy System" ( NYT, Oct 25, 1999)
Writing in 1999, Kristol decries Clinton's brand of "utopian internationalism", which " espouses such things as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Climate Change Treaty, providing enough money for global poverty programs, and supporting the UN." Like President Carter, Clinton is accused of being "squeamish and guilty about American power and content to base America's security, and the world's security, on arms control agreements, rather than American arms." The article goes on to predict that the Republicans will argue that "American dominance can be sustained for many decades, not by arms control agreements, but by augmenting America's power."

PNAC was outraged by Clinton's defense budget cuts in the 90's. It was a terrible mistake, PNAC argued, to enjoy a "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War and not keep military spending at Reagan-era levels to obtain global domination.
One PNAC contributor, Gary Schmitt wrote in "American Primacy and the Defense Spending Crisis" (Joint Forces Quarterly, SP 1998):

"The e merging danger we face is an erosion of our ability to capitalize on the unprecedented strategic opportunities afforded by the current global pre-eminence of the U.S. Hence fixing the defense budget crisis requires not only additional resources but a strategy that both focuses on current threats and seeks to maintain American primacy and use it to shape the international security environment to the long-term benefit of the U.S. "

We all remember the chilling banner headlines on CNN saying "America at War" in the days and weeks following Sept. 11, 2001. But PNAC thought America should have been at war a long time ago, and that leaders just didn't have "the will to do what is necessary." (William Kristol) Tom Donnelly responded to the USS Cole bombing with an article entitled "America at War" by writing, in October of 2000::

"The American response to these acts of war should be to use the instruments of war--not only to avenge them and deter similar attacks, but also to frustrate the political aims of our enemies. We are more likely to succeed if we see that there are lessons to be learned from the unconventional wars fought by great powers in the past. The lessons may not be pleasant, from the vantage point of our politically correct time." (Weekly Standard, Oct. 30, 2000)

PNAC's ideology is clearly summarized in Robert Kagan's and William Kristol's "The Present Danger" (National Interest, Sp. 2000). The following quotes are from that article:

"The overarching goal of American foreign policy--to preserve and extend an international order that is in accord with both our material interests and our principles-- endures. Today's international system is built not around a balance of power but around American hegemony. The international financial institutions were fashioned by Americans and serve American interests. . . Any lessening of that influence will allow others to play a larger part in shaping the world to shape THEIR needs."

"A strategy aimed at preserving American hegemony should embrace a forward-leaning stance, being more rather than less inclined to weigh in when crises erupt, and preferably before they erupt. This is the standard of a global superpower that intends to shape the international environment to its own advantage."

"A strong America capable of projecting force quickly and with devastating effect to important regions of the world would make it less likely that challengers to regional stability will attempt to alter the status quo in their favor. It might even deter them from undertaking expensive efforts to arm themselves for such a challenge. An America whose willingness to project force is in doubt, on the other hand, can only encourage such challenges. In Europe, in Southeast Asia, and in the Middle East, the message we should be sending is--' don't even think about it'. "

"Only a U.S. reasonably well shielded from the blackmail of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons will be able to shape the international environment to suit its interests and principles. With the necessary military strength...the US can set about making trouble for hostile nations, rather than waiting for them to make trouble for us."

Of course, "hostile nations" is to be defined by the United States exclusively. There are to be no internationally imposed standards of what amounts to "hostility". Only American standards are acceptable. The new world order is to be the rule of American force, not the rule of international law. It is also clear that PNAC believes that America needs to send a "message" to the world.

The article goes on to call for regime change in South Korea, Iraq and China. The article, with amazing prescience, also predicts "UN objections" to " American hegemony". It concludes by saying that the traditional definition of the "national interest" as being "material prosperity and security" is too narrow and that the "national interest" should include "honor and greatness."

Incidentally, included with this article is a cartoon drawing of an uplifted arm sleeved in stars and stripes, holding aloft a globe in its hand. Such an image coming out of China, Russia, or any other country would strike horror and disgust in the heart of any American; PNAC doesn't appear to think, or care, that other people might feel the same way about American plans.

I will close with just one editorial comment. It is clear, since Sept.11, that PNAC has an "I told you so" attitude; Sept. 11, they argue, was what they were "warning us about". But is this really accurate? Did Sept. 11 happen because of Clinton's defense budget cuts, or because America's military was too weak? I remember vividly in the days after that horrible event, the discussions about the amazing fact that they had done it "armed only with box-cutters" and the "willingness to die." They flew ordinary civilian jet planes into buildings. Wasn't Sept. 11 a " security and intelligence" failure? Yet PNAC, which is largely the architect of today's U.S. foreign policy, wants you to believe that massive military spending and technology is a solution to the extremely complex problem of terrorism. It is the logic of fighting cancer with a bazooka.

I ask all Americans to ponder these questions and discuss with friends:


Have high school students read this email and write an essay on one of the above.

Now Bush and co. will push the Sept. 11 "button" as long as it is needed to enact the agenda of the PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. Though the views of its founders and contributors go back decades, their aggressive foreign policy decisions will be re-baptized as responding to the "post-Sept. 11 world". Meanwhile, the US treasury will be plundered of funds to support our "constabulary" duties around the world, leaving scant funding for social programs, education, the environment, and, as William Kristol sneered, "utopian" efforts like "world poverty programs."

Finally, I leave you with a quiz question. Who said the following?

"We have internal enemies. We have external enemies. This must not be forgotten for a single moment."

George W. Bush? John Ashcroft?


No, Josef Stalin, in 1927.

PMK