1 Core views and beliefs

The PNAC website [2] states the group's "fundamental propositions", which are

• "American leadership is good both for America and for the world"
• "such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle"
• "too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

The PNAC also made a statement of principles at their 1997 inception.

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?

The PNAC advocates "a policy of military strength and moral clarity" which includes:

• A significant increase of U.S. defense spending.
• Strengthening ties with the U.S.'s allies and to challenge regimes hostile to U.S. interests and values.
• Promoting the cause of political and economic freedom outside the U.S.
• Preserving and extending an international order friendly to U.S. security, prosperity, and principles.

The PNAC and its members have long called for the United States to abandon the ABM Treaty. The PNAC also proposes to 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. In 1998, Donald Rumsfeld chaired a bipartisan commission on the US Ballistic Missile Threat towards advancement of these goals.

1.1 Rebuilding America's Defenses

In September 2000, the PNAC issued an 80-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, And Resources For A New Century, and proceeding "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." The report has been the subject of much analysis and criticism.

The group states that when diplomacy or sanctions have failed, the United States must be prepared to take military action. PNAC argues that the current Cold War deployment of forces is obsolete and that force deployment must reflect the post-Cold War duties that the US forces have been called upon to perform. Constabulary duties such as peace keeping in the Balkans and the enforcement of the No Fly Zones in Iraq have put a strain upon and reduced the readiness of US forces. The PNAC recommends the forward redeployment of US forces at new strategically placed permanent military bases. Permanent bases ease the strain on US forces, allowing readiness to be maintained and the carrier fleet to be reduced. Furthermore the military should be enlarged, equipped and trained for the peacekeeping role it is increasingly called upon to fulfill. This global police force would have the power to keep law and order around the world in accordance with United States interests. The PNAC also advocates that the United States government should capitalize on its military and economic superiority to gain unchallengeable superiority through all means necessary, including military force.

1.2 Position on Iraq

In 1998, following marked Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz wrote to the president, Bill Clinton, urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter cited the threat Saddam would pose to the US, its Middle-East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in obtaining Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Saddam Hussein's defiance of UN and US "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests, after all US diplomatic and political channels were exhausted.

The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning and deployment in order to reduce the strain caused by enforcing the No Fly Zones and to free up an aircraft carrier. It uses the U.S.'s Gulf War success as an example of why the world requires American military might. The report makes no assertions about preemptively attacking Iraq or enacting regime change. Instead, it states "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".

2 Controversy

The PNAC has been the subject of considerable criticism and controversy. Many critics of the PNAC dispute the premise that American world leadership is desirable for the world or even for America. The PNAC's harshest critics argue that it represents a broad, borderline imperial agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance. Supporters reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different to other conservative foreign policy analysts. Critics of the U.S.'s poor international relations take umbrage at the PNAC's unashamed position of maintaining the U.S.'s privileged position as sole world superpower.

Many critics of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq make the claim that the U.S.'s "bullying" of the international community into supporting the 2003 Iraq war, and that the war went ahead despite reservations from some in the international community, stems from the positions of prominent neo-conservatives in the Bush administration. Many critics of the Bush administration see the 1998 letter to President Clinton as a "smoking gun" [3], showing that a second Gulf War was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle's opinions, five years prior to the Iraq invasion. Rory Bremner, citing the letter, said "that's what they want—regime change—and nothing, not Blair, not the UN, not Hans Blix, not France, Germany, Russia, China, not the threat of terrorism, or Arab reservations, or lack of evidence or the Peace March, not even our own brave Jack Straw is going to stand in their way." [4] George Monbiot, citing the letter, said "to pretend that this battle begins and ends in Iraq requires a wilful denial of the context in which it occurs. That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to suit itself." [5]

Pat Rabbitte, citing the letter, said "These men are intent on world domination or, as they put it themselves, "American global leadership". They have an imperial agenda, which they have been pursuing for more than five years." [6]

Supporters of the war claim it was not a foregone conclusion unless one assumes that Saddam will continue to be intransigent and that France, Russia, Germany and China will continue to block unanimity on the UN security council. Supporters argue that opposition on the UN security council encouraged Saddam in his belief that his delaying tactics would work and the sanctions would eventually be lifted. In 2003, the US led an invasion of Iraq, despite failing to obtain a new UN Security Council resolution that specifically authorized the invasion.

A line frequently quoted out of context from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote is part of a discussion about military use of information technologies, where the report asserts that full transformation to new technologies is likely to be a slow process unless some "catalyzing" event causes the military to upgrade more quickly. Some opponents of the Bush administration use this quote as evidence for their belief in the conspiracy theory that the US Government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. See the article 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory for further information on this topic. Many critics also claim that the PNAC believed this "new Pearl Harbor" would justify war on Iraq, but there is no evidence in the report to back up this assertion.

3 Bush administration

After the election of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC's members were appointed to key positions within the new President's administration:

Name	Department	Title	Other remarks
Elliott Abrams	National Security Council	Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs	President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
Richard Armitage	Department of State	Deputy Secretary of State
John R. Bolton	Department of State	Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs
Dick Cheney	Bush Administration	Vice President	PNAC founder
Seth Cropsey	Voice of America	Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau
Paula Dobriansky	Department of State	Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
Francis Fukuyama	President's Council on Bioethics	Council Member	Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University
Bruce Jackson	U.S. Committee on NATO	President
Zalmay Khalilzad	U.S.-Afganistan Embassy in Kabul	Ambassador
Lewis Libby	Bush Administration	Chief of Staff for the Vice President
Peter W. Rodman	Department of Defense	Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Donald Rumsfeld	Department of Defense	Secretary of Defense	PNAC founder
Randy Scheunemann	U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute	Member	Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz	Department of Defense	Deputy Secretary of Defense
Dov S. Zakheim	Department of Defense	Comptroller
Robert B. Zoellick	Office of the United States Trade Representative	U.S. Trade Representative

4 Other members

• Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate, president of American Values
• William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education and Drug Czar, co-founder of Empower America , author of the Book of Virtues
• Ellen Bork , deputy director of PNAC
• Rudy Boschwitz
• Jeb Bush, governor of Florida
• Eliot A. Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University
• Thomas Donnelly, director of communications, Lockheed Martin
• Steve Forbes, multi-billionaire publisher of Forbes Magazine, former presidential candidate
• Aaron Friedberg, director of the Center of International Studies
• Frank Gaffney, columnist, founder of Center for Security Policy
• Reuel Marc Gerecht , director of the Middle East Initiative
• Fred Ikle, Center for Strategic and International Studies
• Donald Kagan, Yale University professor, conservative columnist with various State Department ties
• Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador
• Charles Krauthammer
• William Kristol, a PNAC founder and chairman, editor of the Weekly Standard
• Christopher Maletz
• Daniel McKivergan
• Richard Perle, a PNAC founder, formerly of the Defense Policy Board
• Norman Podhoretz, Hudson Institute
• Dan Quayle, former vice-president
• Stephen Rosen , Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs, Harvard University
• Henry Rowen , former president of Rand Corporation
• Gary Schmitt
• Vin Weber, former congressman, lobbyist, vice-chairman of Empower America
• George Weigel , political commentator
• R. James Woolsey, vice-president at Booz Allen & Hamilton

5 See also

• Committee for the Liberation of Iraq

6 External links

• PNAC Website
• Sep 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses plan (Adobe .pdf file format)
• 1998 PNAC open letter to Bill Clinton

7 Analysis of PNAC

• PNAC.info. An anti-PNAC website claiming to "investigate, analyze, and expose" the PNAC.
• Paul Reynolds, BBC
• PNAC members and their letters
• Terry Jones: "Could Tony Blair look at the internet now, please?" and "Why look in the crystal ball?"
• Interpretation of Michael Meacher, former cabinet minister for Tony Blair
• "New York, you've been used" by William Rivers Pitt, attacking the PNAC
• Rory Bremner alleges that the decision to invade Iraq was made in 1998 by PNAC members
• Frontline: the war behind closed doors: analyses | PBS

Political and economic thinktanks

<Hide>