Misplaced Pages

Project for the New American Century: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:30, 26 February 2015 editFyddlestix (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers10,555 edits US global supremacy: Removing quote again - see my comment on talk page for rationale← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:34, 22 December 2024 edit undoGreenC bot (talk | contribs)Bots2,547,807 edits Reformat 19 archive links. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:USURPURL and JUDI batch #20 
(648 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Former American neoconservative think tank}}
{{infobox Organization
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2024}}
|name = Project for the New American Century
{{infobox organization
|image = PNAC.png|thumb|300px|Logo of the Project for the New American Century
|name = Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
|size =
|image =PNAC logo.png
|size =250px
|abbreviation = |abbreviation =
|motto = |motto =
|formation = 1997 |formation ={{start date and age|1997}}
|extinction = 2006 |dissolved = {{end date and age|2006}}
|type = ] ] |type = ] ]
|headquarters = |headquarters =
|founder = ], ]
|location = ] |location = ]
|leader_title = President |leader_title = Chairman
|leader_name = |leader_name = ]
|leader_title2 = Directors
|leader_name2 = {{unbulleted list|]|Devon Gaffney Cross|]|]}}
|website = |website =
}} }}
{{Conservatism US|think tanks}}
The '''Project for the New American Century''' (PNAC) was a ]<ref>The following refer to or label PNAC as a neoconservative organization:
*{{cite book |last=Albanese |first=Matteo |date=2012|title=The Concept of War in Neoconservative Thinking |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TI0jMjo9R0oC&q=%22Project%20for%20the%20New%20American%20Century%22%20neoconservative&pg=PA72 |page=72 |publisher=Ipoc Press |isbn=9788867720002 |access-date=March 2, 2015 }}
*{{cite book |last=Ryan |first=Maria |title=Neoconservatism and the New American Century |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan}}
*{{cite book |last=Feldman |first=Stephen |title=Neoconservative Politics and the Supreme Court |publisher=NYU Press |page=67}}
*{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-apr-17-na-neocons17-story.html|last=Brownstein |first=Ronald |title=War With Iraq/Political Thought: Those Who Sought War are Now Pushing Peace |work=] |date=April 17, 2003 |access-date=March 3, 2015}}
*{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10481991589095700|last1=Greenberger |last2=Legget |first1=Robert S |first2=Karby |title=Bush Dreams of Changing Not Just Regime but Region |work=] |date=March 21, 2003 |access-date=March 2, 2015 }}
*{{cite news |url=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/article1977262.ece|last=Maddox |first=Bronwen |title=Nation-Builders must not lose their voice |work=] |date=July 14, 2004 |access-date=March 3, 2015}}
*{{cite news|url=http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-08-25/news/0308250073_1_bush-administration-tax-cuts-financial-woes |last=Salvucci |first=Jim |title=Bush Uses Crisis to Push Preset Agenda |work=]|date=August 25, 2003 |access-date=March 3, 2015}}</ref><ref name="cas.uwo.ca"> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121130180152/http://cas.uwo.ca/_files/Critical%20issuesvol81.pdf |date=November 30, 2012 }}, Abelson, ''Critical Issues of Our Time'', v. 8, Center for American Studies, ], 2011</ref><ref>, ], '']'', 2006</ref> ] based in ], that focused on ] ]. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by ] and ].<ref name=PNAC>Home page of the {{usurped|1=}}, accessed March 4, 2015.</ref><ref name="PNACSOP">], et al., {{usurped|1=}}, June 3, 1997, ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed May 28, 2007.</ref> PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership".<ref name=AboutPNAC>{{usurped|1=}}, ''newamericancentury.org'', n.d., accessed May 30, 2007: "Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project was an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is ] and its president is ]."</ref> The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world", and sought to build support for "a ] policy of military strength and ]".<ref>{{usurped|1=}} of the Project for a New American Century: </ref>


Of the twenty-five people who signed PNAC's founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the ], including ], ], and ].<ref> United States Foreign Policy and National Identity in the 21st Century, Kenneth Christie (ed.), Routledge, 2008</ref><ref name="BootFP">], "Neocons", ''Foreign Policy'' No. 140 (January–February 2004), pp. 20–22, 24, 26, 28 </ref><ref name="Parmar 2008 46">{{cite book |last=Parmar |first=Inderjeet |editor-last=Christie |editor-first=Kenneth |title=United States Foreign Policy and National Identity in the 21st Century |publisher=Routledge|chapter=Chapter 3: A Neo-Conservative-Dominated US Foreign Policy Establishment? |date=2008 |page=46 |isbn=978-0-415-57357-3|ref=Parmar}}
The '''Project for the New American Century''' ('''PNAC''') was an ] ] based in ] established in 1997 as a non-profit educational organization founded by ] and ]. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."<ref name=AboutPNAC>, ''newamericancentury.org'', n.d., accessed May 30, 2007: "Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the ] (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is ] and its president is ]."</ref> Fundamental to the PNAC was the view that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world" and support for "]."<ref name=PNAC>Home page of the , accessed May 30, 2007.</ref><ref name=PNACSOP /> With its members in numerous key administrative positions, the PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of ] ] and affected the Bush Administration's development of ] and ] policies, especially involving ] and the ].<ref>, '']'' (2004), accessed May 22, 2007.</ref><ref name=RWP>The PNAC was often identified as a "]" or "] ]" in profiles featured on the websites of "]" and "]" "policy institute" and "media watchdog" organizations, which were critical of it; see, e.g., , ''Right Web'' (]), November 22, 2003, accessed June 1, 2007.</ref>
*"The PNAC's 33 leaders were highly connected with the American state – displaying 115 such connections: 27 with the Department of Defense, 13 with State, 12 with the White House, 10 with the ], and 23 with Congress."
*"The PNAC may be considered strongly integrated into the political and administrative machinery of US power; certainly, it is not an outsider institution in this regard."</ref><ref name="Funabashi 2007">{{cite book |last=Funabashi |first=Yichi |title=The Peninsula Question: A Chronicle of the Second Korean Nuclear Crisis |publisher=] |date=2007|isbn=978-0-8157-3010-1|location=Washington, D.C.}}
*"Of the twenty-five signatories of the PNAC's Statement of Principles ... ten went on to serve in the George W. Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others."</ref> Observers such as ] and Dave Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the ] of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the ].<ref>{{cite book |last=Stelzer |first=Irwin |date=2004 |title=Neoconservatism |location=London |publisher=Atlantic Books |page=5 }}
*(on PNAC, founded by Kristol): "Its other founders included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Elliot Abrams, all of whom were destined for key positions in the Bush administration – with the exception of Kristol."
*"No one can doubt that PNAC was an important contributor to the ]. To suggest, however, that it is a part of some secret effort to overthrow traditional American foreign policy is not true."</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Hammond |first=Phillip |title=Media, War and Postmodernity |year=2007 |publisher=Routledge |url=https://archive.org/details/mediawarpostmode0000hamm |url-access=registration |quote=Rebuilding America's Defences, September 2000. |page=}}
*"Critics have made much of the fact that US actions after 9/11 seemed to follow neoconservative thinking on foreign and security policy formulated before Bush took office", p. 72.
*"In particular, ''Rebuilding American Defenses'' ... is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under of cover of the War on Terrorism", p. 72.</ref><ref name="Parmar 2008 49">{{cite book |last=Parmar |first=Inderjeet |editor-last=Christie |editor-first=Kenneth |author-link=Inderjeet Parmar |title=United States Foreign Policy and National Identity in the 21st Century |url=http://library.aceondo.net/ebooks/HISTORY/United_States_Foreign_Policy__amp__National_Identity_in_the_21st_Century__Routled_20121130215630540.pdf |publisher=Routledge |chapter=Chapter 3: A Neo-Conservative-Dominated US Foreign Policy Establishment? |date=2008 |pages=49 |location=New York and London |access-date=April 25, 2019 |archive-date=April 25, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190425014205/http://library.aceondo.net/ebooks/HISTORY/United_States_Foreign_Policy__amp__National_Identity_in_the_21st_Century__Routled_20121130215630540.pdf |url-status=dead }}
*"It is often argued that the neo-cons hijacked the Bush administration – particularly through the influence of PNAC."</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Grondin |first=David |date=2005 |title=Mistaking Hegemony for Empire: Neoconservatives, the Bush Doctrine, and the Democratic Empire |journal=International Journal |volume=61 |issue=1 |pages=227–241 |doi= 10.2307/40204140|jstor=40204140 }}
*"There can be no question that the September 2002 'National security strategy of the United States of America,' announcing a Bush doctrine predicated upon military prevention, regime change, and enhanced defence spending, has been heavily influenced by neoconservative writings. Among these have been works published under the aegis of the 'Project for a new American century,' including ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' (by Donald Kagan, Gary Schmitt, and Thomas Donnelly), and ''Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy'' (by William Kristol and Robert Kagan)." pp. 231–232.</ref> Academics such as ], Phillip Hammond, and ] have said PNAC's influence on the George W. Bush administration has been exaggerated.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite book |last=Parmar |first=Inderjeet |editor-last=Christie |editor-first=Kenneth |title=United States Foreign Policy and National Identity in the 21st Century |publisher=Routledge |series=Routledge Studies in US Foreign Policy |chapter=Chapter 3: A Neo-Conservative-Dominated US Foreign Policy Establishment? |date=2008 |page=49}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Hammond |first=Phillip |title=Media, War and Postmodernity |year=2007 |publisher=Routledge |url=https://archive.org/details/mediawarpostmode0000hamm |url-access=registration |quote=Rebuilding America's Defences, September 2000. |page=}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Abelson |first=Donald E |date=2006 |title=Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and US Foreign Policy |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UavEJnhgdaEC&q=%22Rebuilding%20America's%20Defences%2C%22%20September%202000&pg=PA219|publisher=McGill-Queen's University Press |pages=218–219 |isbn=978-0773531154 |access-date=April 25, 2019 }}</ref>


The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006;<ref name="ryan">{{cite book |last=Ryan |first=Maria |date=2010|title=Neoconservatism and the New American Century |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2Z5fAQAAQBAJ&q=%22Project%20for%20the%20New%20American%20Century%22&pg=PT103 |location=New York|publisher=] |access-date=March 2, 2015|isbn=978-0-230-10467-9 }}</ref> it was replaced by a new think-tank named the ], co-founded by Kristol and Kagan in 2009. The Foreign Policy Initiative was dissolved in 2017.
==History==


==Origins and operation==
===Statement of Principles===
The Project for the New American Century developed from Kristol and Kagan's belief that the ] lacked a "compelling vision for American foreign policy", which would allow Republican leaders to effectively criticize ] foreign policy record.<ref name="ryan"/>
PNAC's first public act was releasing a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997, which was signed by both its members and a variety of other notable conservative politicians and journalists (see ]). The statement began by framing a series of questions, which the rest of the document proposes to answer:
<blockquote>As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent 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?<ref name=PNACSOP>], et al., , June 3, 1997, ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed May 28, 2007.</ref></blockquote>


During mid-1996, Kristol and Kagan co-authored an article in '']'' titled "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy" – referring to the foreign policy of President ]. In the article, they argued that American conservatives were "adrift" in the area of foreign policy, advocated a "more elevated vision of America's international role", and suggested that the United States' should adopt a stance of "benevolent global ]."<ref name="ForeignAff">{{cite journal |last1=Kristol |first1=William |last2=Kagan |first2=Robert |date=July 1, 1996 |title=Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy |journal=Foreign Affairs |volume= 75|issue= 4|page=18 |doi= 10.2307/20047656|jstor=20047656 }}</ref> In June 1997, Kristol and Kagan founded the PNAC in order to advance the goals they had first laid out in ''Foreign Affairs,'' echoing the article's statements and goals in PNAC's founding ''Statement of Principles.''<ref name="ryan"/>
In response to these questions, the PNAC states its aim to "remind America" of "lessons" learned from American history, drawing the following "four consequences" for America in 1997:
<blockquote>
* 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.</blockquote>


According to Maria Ryan, the individuals who signed the PNAC's statements and letters were not employees or members of the group, and "supporters of PNAC's initiatives differed from case to case."<ref name="ryan"/> While its permanent staff was relatively small, the organization was "especially well connected", with some of its statements and letters attracting the support of prominent conservatives and neoconservatives.<ref name="BootFP"/><ref name="ryan"/>
While "Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today," the "Statement of Principles" concludes, "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."<ref name=PNACSOP/>


In this regard, Stuart Elden has stated that "The influence that PNAC had was astonishing", and noted that<blockquote>The number of figures associated with PNAC that had been members of the Reagan or the first Bush administration and the number that would take up office with the administration of the second President Bush demonstrate that it is not merely a question of employees and budgets.<ref> ''Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty'', Stuart Elden, Univ of Minnesota Press, 2009, p. 15</ref></blockquote>
===Calls for regime change in Iraq during Clinton years===
The goal of ] in Iraq remained the consistent position of PNAC throughout the ].<ref>{{cite news|last=Kristol|first=William|last2=Kagan|first2=Robert|title=Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough|newspaper=]|date=January 30, 1998|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/30/opinion/bombing-iraq-isn--ough.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Kristol|first=William|last2=Kagan|first2=Robert|title=A 'Great Victory' for Iraq|newspaper=]|date=February 26, 1998|url=http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-022698.htm}}</ref>


==Statement of Principles==
], who later became a core member of PNAC, was involved in similar activities to those pursued by PNAC after its formal organization. For instance, in 1996 Perle composed a report that proposed regime changes in order to restructure power in the Middle East. The report was titled ''A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm'' and called for removing ] from power, as well as other ideas to bring change to the region. The report was delivered to ]i Prime Minister ].<ref name="Wedel2009">{{cite book|last=Wedel|first=Janine|title=Shadow Elite|year=2009|publisher=Basic Books|location=New York|page=170}}</ref> Two years later, in 1998, Perle and other core members of the PNAC—], ], ], and ]—"were among the signatories of a letter to President Clinton calling for the removal of Hussein."<ref name="Wedel2009"/> Clinton did seek regime change in Iraq, and this position was sanctioned by the United Nations{{citation needed|date=January 2014}}. These UN sanctions were considered ineffective by the neoconservative forces driving the PNAC.<ref>Arin, Kubilay Yado (2013): Think Tanks, the Brain Trusts of US Foreign Policy. (Wiesbaden: VS Springer) .</ref>
PNAC's first public act was to release a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997. The statement had 25 signers, including project members and outside supporters (see ]). It described the United States as the "world's pre-eminent power", and said that the nation faced a challenge to "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests". To this goal, the statement's signers called for significant increases in defense spending, and for the promotion of "political and economic freedom abroad". It said the United States should strengthen ties with its democratic allies, "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values", and preserve and extend "an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles". Calling for a "Reaganite" policy of "military strength and moral clarity", it concluded that PNAC's principles were 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".<ref name="PNACSOP" />


In September 2000 PNAC released "Rebuilding America's Defenses" a report that promotes "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 states, "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cryptome.org/rad.htm|title=Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century|website=cryptome.org|access-date=March 20, 2020}}</ref><ref name="newamericancentury.org">{{Cite web|url=http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf|title=Rebuilding America's Defenses. Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century|last=Donnelly|first=Kagan|date=September 2000|website=New American Century|url-status=usurped|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021112224032/http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf|archive-date=November 12, 2002|access-date=March 20, 2020}}</ref>
The PNAC core members followed up these early efforts with a letter to ] members of the ] ] and ],<ref name=GingrichLott>], et al.,, May 28, 1998, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 30, 2007.</ref> urging Congress to act. The PNAC also supported the ] of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton had signed into law.<ref> ], January 27, 1998, accessed June 20, 2014.</ref>


==Calls for regime change in Iraq==
On January 16, 1998, following perceived ]i unwillingness to co-operate with ] weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including ], ], and ] drafted an open letter to President ], posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove ] from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its ] allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of ]. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the ] to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the ]." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.<ref name=PNACClinton>, January 16, 1998, accessed May 28, 2007.</ref>
In 1998, Kristol and Kagan advocated ] in ] throughout the ] through articles that were published in the ].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Kristol|first1=William|last2=Kagan|first2=Robert|title=Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough|newspaper=]|date=January 30, 1998|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/30/opinion/bombing-iraq-isn-t-enough.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Kristol|first1=William|last2=Kagan|first2=Robert|title=A 'Great Victory' for Iraq|newspaper=]|date=February 26, 1998|url=http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/1998/02/26/a-great-victory-for-iraq-2/}}</ref> Following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with ] weapons inspections, core members of the PNAC including ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] were among the signatories of an open letter initiated by the PNAC to President ] calling for the removal of ].<ref name="ryan"/><ref name="Wedel2009">{{cite book|last=Wedel|first=Janine|title=Shadow Elite|url=https://archive.org/details/shadowelitehowwo0000wede|url-access=registration|year=2009|publisher=Basic Books|location=New York|page=}}</ref> Portraying Saddam Hussein as a threat to the United States, its ] allies, and oil resources in the region, and emphasizing the potential danger of any ] under Iraq's control, the letter asserted that the United States could "no longer depend on our partners in the ] to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections". Stating that American policy "cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the ]", the letter's signatories asserted that "the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf".<ref name=PNACClinton>{{usurped|1=}}, January 26, 1998, accessed May 28, 2007.</ref> Believing that UN sanctions against Iraq would be an ineffective means of disarming Iraq, PNAC members also wrote a letter to ] members of the ] ] and ],<ref name=GingrichLott>], et al.,{{usurped|1=}}, May 28, 1998, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 30, 2007.</ref> urging Congress to act, and supported the ] of 1998 (H.R. 4655)<ref>Arin, Kubilay Yado (2013): Think Tanks, the Brain Trusts of US Foreign Policy. (Wiesbaden: VS Springer) .</ref><ref> ], January 27, 1998, accessed June 20, 2014.</ref> which President Clinton signed into law in October 1998.


In February 1998, some of the same individuals who had signed the PNAC letter in January also signed a similar letter to Clinton, from the bipartisan ].<ref name="Wedel2009"/><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t9_TPXLXEl8C&q=PNAC+Members%2C+George+W.+Bush&pg=PA139|title=A Faustian Foreign Policy from Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush|isbn=9781139468596|last1=Hoff|first1=Joan|date=2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press }}</ref>
On November 16, 1998, citing Iraq's demand for the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors and the removal of ] as head of the inspections regime, Kristol called again for ] in an editorial in his online magazine, '']'': "... any sustained bombing and missile campaign against Iraq should be part of any overall political-military strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power."<ref>], , '']'', November 16, 1998, editorial, online posting, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed May 30, 2007.</ref> Kristol states that ] and others believed that the goal was to create "a 'liberated zone' in southern Iraq that would provide a safe haven where opponents of Saddam could rally and organize a credible alternative to the present regime ... The liberated zone would have to be protected by U.S. military might, both from the air and, if necessary, on the ground."


In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in ] as ineffective, questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.<ref name=IraqMemoJan1999>, January 7, 1999, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed May 30, 2007.</ref> In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in ] as ineffective. The memo questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition, which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.<ref name=IraqMemoJan1999>{{usurped|1=}}, January 7, 1999, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed May 30, 2007.</ref>


Shortly after the ], the PNAC sent a letter to President ], specifically advocating regime change through "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq". The letter suggested that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq", even if no evidence linked Iraq to the September 11 attacks. The letter warned that allowing Hussein to remain in power would be "an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush">], et al., {{usurped|1=}}, September 20, 2001, ''newamericancentury.org'', n.d., accessed June 20, 2014.</ref> From 2001 through the ], the PNAC and many of its members voiced active support for military action against Iraq, and asserted leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism".<ref>For example, ], {{usurped|1=}}, '']'', May 14, 2001, online posting, ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed May 28, 2007.</ref><ref name=MacKay2>Neil MacKay, , ''The Wisdom Fund'', Scottish '']'' January 11, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007.</ref><ref>Gary Schmitt, {{usurped|1=}}, '']'' November 20, 2000, ''newamericancentury.org'', ''web.archive.org'', accessed June 1, 2007.</ref><ref>Gary Schmitt, {{usurped|1=}}, August 6, 2002, ''newamericancentury.org'', ''web.archive.org'', accessed June 1, 2007.</ref><ref>Gary Schmitt, {{usurped|1=}}, August 21, 2002, ''newamericancentury.org'', ''web.archive.org'', accessed June 1, 2007.</ref>
===''Rebuilding America's Defenses''===
In September 2000, the PNAC published a controversial 90-page report entitled ''Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century''. The report, which lists as project chairmen ] and ] and, as principal author, ], quotes from the PNAC's June 1997 "Statement of Principles" and proceeds "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."<ref name=RAD2000/><ref name=RAD2000list>At the end of the list of "Project Participants", on page 90 of ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'', there appears the following statement: "The above list of individuals participated in at least one project meeting or contributed a paper for discussion. The report is a product solely of the Project for the New American Century and does not necessarily represent the views of the project participants or their affiliated institutions."</ref>


Some have regarded the PNAC's January 16, 1998, letter to President Clinton urging "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power",<ref name=PNACClinton/><ref name=FrontlineIraqWarChron>, ''''. '']'', ] (], Massachusetts), ] (PBS), online posting February 20, 2003, accessed June 1, 2007.( includes menu of links to "Analysis", "Chronology", "Interviews", and "Discussion" as well as link to streaming video of the program.)</ref> and the involvement of multiple PNAC members in the Bush Administration<ref name="Parmar 2008 46"/><ref name="Funabashi 2007"/> as evidence that the PNAC had a significant influence on the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq, or even argued that the invasion was a foregone conclusion.<ref name="Parmar 2008 49"/><ref name=Reynolds1/><ref name=MBurns>Margie Burns, , '']'', May 1, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007, updated November 16, 2013. (1 of 3 pages.)</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B0V_AgAAQBAJ&q=%22Rebuilding%20America's%20Defences%2C%22%20September%202000&pg=PA72|title=Media, War and Postmodernity|work=google.ca|isbn=9781134188345|last1=Hammond|first1=Philip|date= 2007|publisher=Routledge }}
The report argues: <blockquote>The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. It has, over the past decade, provided the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth and the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global ] will not preserve itself.<ref name=RAD2000>{{cite web|title=''Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century''|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130817122719/http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf|date=September 2000|accessdate=May 30, 2007|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5e3est5lT|archivedate=24 January 2009}}</ref></blockquote>
*"Critics have made much of the fact that US actions after 9/11 seemed to follow neoconservative thinking on foreign and security policy formulated before Bush took office." "In particular, ''Rebuilding American Defenses'' is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under of cover of the War on Terrorism."</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UavEJnhgdaEC&q=%22Rebuilding%20America's%20Defences%2C%22%20September%202000&pg=PA213|title=Capitol Idea|work=google.ca|isbn=9780773575974|last1=Abelson|first1=Donald E.|date=2006|publisher=McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP }}
*Abelson quotes British MP Michael Meacher on ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'': "The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in Power.</ref> Writing in ] in 2003, for example, Jochen Bölsche specifically referred to PNAC when he claimed that "ultra-rightwing US think-tanks" had been "drawing up plans for an era of American global domination, for the emasculation of the UN, and an aggressive war against Iraq" in "broad daylight" since 1998.<ref name="Afsah"/> Similarly, ] journalist ] portrayed PNAC's activities and goals as key to understanding the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration after September 11, 2001, suggesting that Bush's "dominant" foreign policy was at least partly inspired by the PNAC's ideas.<ref name=Reynolds1>], The US Appears to Be Heading to War with Iraq Whatever Happens, with Implications for the Future Conduct of American Foreign Policy", ], March 2, 2003, accessed May 29, 2007.</ref>


Some{{who|date=April 2016}} political scientists, historians, and other academics have been critical of many of these claims. Donald E. Abelson has written that scholars studying "PNAC's ascendancy" in the political arena "cannot possibly overlook the fact" that several of the signatories to PNAC's ''Statement of Purposes'' "received high level positions in the Bush administration", but that acknowledging these facts "is a far cry from making the claim that the institute was the architect of Bush's foreign policy".<ref name="ReferenceA"/><ref>{{cite book |last=Abelson |first=Donald E |date= 2006|title=Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and US Foreign Policy |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UavEJnhgdaEC&q=%22Rebuilding%20America's%20Defences%2C%22%20September%202000&pg=PA219|pages=218–219 |publisher=McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP |isbn= 9780773575974}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B0V_AgAAQBAJ&q=%22Rebuilding%20America's%20Defences%2C%22%20September%202000&pg=PA72|title=Media, War and Postmodernity|work=google.ca|isbn=9781134188345|last1=Hammond|first1=Philip|date= 2007|publisher=Routledge }}</ref>
After its title page, the report features a page entitled "About the Project for the New American Century", quoting key passages from its 1997 "Statement of Principles":
{{cquote|<blockquote> 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.


==''Rebuilding America's Defenses''==
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of 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 the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.<ref name=RAD2000/></blockquote>}}
One of the PNAC's most influential publications was a 90-page report titled ''Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.'' Citing the PNAC's 1997 ''Statement of Principles,'' ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' asserted that the United States should "seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership" by "maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."<ref name=RAD2000/> The report's primary author was ], then going by the first name Thomas. ] and ] are credited as project chairmen. It also lists the names of 27 other participants who contributed papers or attended meetings related to the production of the report, six of whom subsequently assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150415174043/http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm|date=April 15, 2015}} "The President's Real Goal in Iraq", Jay Bookman, ''Atlanta Journal-Constitution'', September 29, 2002</ref><ref name=RAD2000list>At the end of the list of "Project Participants", on p. 90 of ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'', there appears the following statement: "The above list of individuals participated in at least one project meeting or contributed a paper for discussion. The report is a product solely of the Project for the New American Century and does not necessarily represent the views of the project participants or their affiliated institutions."</ref> It suggested that the preceding decade had been a time of peace and stability, which had provided "the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth" and "the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy". The report warned that "no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself.


According to the report, current levels of defense spending were insufficient, forcing policymakers "to try ineffectually to 'manage' increasingly large risks". The result, it suggested, was a form "paying for today's needs by shortchanging tomorrow's; withdrawing from constabulary missions to retain strength for large-scale wars; 'choosing' between presence in Europe or presence in ]; and so on". The report asserted that ll of these were "bad choices" and "false economies", which did little to promote long-term American interests. "The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements", the report argued, "will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity".<ref name=RAD2000>{{cite web|title=Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century |url=http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf |date=September 2000 |access-date=May 30, 2007 |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130817122719/http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf |archive-date=August 17, 2013 }}</ref>
In its "Preface", in highlighted boxes, ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' states that it aims to:
<blockquote>ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:
* defend the American homeland;
* fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
* perform the "constabulary" duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
* transform U.S. forces to exploit the "]";</blockquote>
and that
<blockquote>To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary
allocations. In particular, the United States must:<br>
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.<br>
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today's force to roughly the levels anticipated in the "Base Force" outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.<br>
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st-century strategic realities by shifting permanently based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia. (iv)</blockquote>


''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' recommended establishing four core missions for US military forces: the defense of the "American homeland", the fighting and winning of "multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars", the performance of "'constabular' duties associated with shaping the security environment" in key regions, and the transformation of US forces "to exploit the 'revolution in military affairs'". Its specific recommendations included the maintenance of US nuclear superiority, an increase of the active personnel strength of the military from 1.4 to 1.6 million people, the redeployment of US forces to Southeast Europe and Asia, and the "selective" modernization of US forces. The report advocated the cancellation of "roadblock" programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter (which it argued would absorb "exorbitant" amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited gains), but favored the development of "global missile defenses" and the control of "space and cyberspace", including the creation of a new military service with the mission of "space control". To help achieve these aims, ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' advocated a gradual increase in military and 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.<ref name="RAD2000"/> That amount is at least 17% to 19% or $355 billion to $386 billion of the ] with annual increases of 4–6%.
It specifies the following goals:
<blockquote>MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the ] program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing ]s and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the ] "]" aircraft for the ].<br>
CANCEL "ROADBLOCK" PROGRAMS such as the ], ],<ref name=CVX>For additional information and projected building schedule ), see , ], updated October 15, 2000, accessed June 1, 2007.</ref> and ] system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.<br>
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY ] to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.<ref>In its emphasis on developing and deploying "]", the PNAC renews its call for the United States to abandon the ] between the U.S. and the former ], from which the U.S. withdrew in 2002.</ref><br>
CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF ] AND "]", and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.<br>
EXPLOIT THE "]" to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which<br>
* maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,
* produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of ], adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually. (v)</blockquote>


==Critics==
The report emphasizes:
===''Rebuilding America's Defenses''===
<blockquote>Fulfilling these requirements is essential if America is to retain its militarily dominant status for the coming decades. Conversely, the failure to meet any of these needs must result in some form of strategic retreat. At current levels of defense spending, the only option is to try ineffectually to “manage” increasingly large risks: paying for today's needs by shortchanging tomorrow's; withdrawing from constabulary missions to retain strength for large-scale wars; "choosing" between presence in Europe or presence in ]; and so on. These are bad choices. They are also false economies. The "savings" from withdrawing from the ], for example, will not free up anywhere near the magnitude of funds needed for military modernization or transformation. But these are false economies in other, more profound ways as well. The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity. (v-vi)</blockquote>
Written before the ] and during political debates of the ], a section of ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' titled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" became the subject of considerable controversy: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."<ref name=RAD2000/> Journalist ] pointed to this passage when he argued that the Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans.<ref name=Pilger>], , '']'', December 16, 2002, accessed June 20, 2014.</ref>


Some critics went further, asserting that ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' should be viewed as a program for global American ]. Writing in ] in 2003, Jochen Bölsche claimed that ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' "had been developed by PNAC for Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Libby" and was "devoted to matters of 'maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests'".<ref name="Afsah">Ebrahim Afsah, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070210232324/http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=312#fuss5 |date=February 10, 2007 }}, '']'', No. 9 (September 2003), n. 5, citing Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan – Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam", ''Der Spiegel'' March 4, 2003.</ref><ref name=Kingston>Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan – Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam", ''Der Spiegel'' March 4, 2003; English translation, "This War Came from a Think Tank", trans. Alun Breward, published in Margo Kingston,", '']'', March 7, 2003, accessed May 28, 2007.</ref> British MP ] made similar allegations in 2003, stating that the document was "a blueprint for the creation of a global ]", which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration.<ref>Donald E. Abelson, ''Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and U. S. Foreign Policy''; McGill-Queen's University Press, 2006; .</ref> Academic ] subsequently wrote<blockquote>" ideology was summarized in a major position paper, ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'', in 2000. This document advocated a global Pax Americana unrestrained by international law ..."<ref> ''The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America'', Peter Dale Scott, University of California Press, 2008, p. 192</ref></blockquote>
In relation to the ], citing particularly ] and ], ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification , the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of ]" 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."<ref name=RAD2000/>


Other academics, such as Donald E. Abelson and Phillip Hammond, have suggested that many of these criticisms were overblown, while noting that similar statements about PNAC's origins, goals, and influence "continue to make their way into the academic literature on the neo-conservative network in the United States". Hammond, for example, notes that though ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' "is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under cover of the war on terrorism", it was actually "unexceptional". According to Hammond, the report's recommendations were "exactly what one would generally expect neoconservatives to say, and it is no great revelation that they said it in publicly available documents prior to September 2001".<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B0V_AgAAQBAJ&q=%22Rebuilding+America%27s+Defences,%22+September+2000&pg=PA72|title=Media, War and Postmodernity|work=google.ca|isbn=9781134188345|last1=Hammond|first1=Philip|date=2007|publisher=Routledge }}</ref> Similarly, Abelson has written that "evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward" as Meacher and others maintain" as "we know very little about the inner workings of this think tank and whether it has lived up to its billing as the architect of Bush's foreign policy".<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UavEJnhgdaEC&q=%22Rebuilding+America%27s+Defences,%22+September+2000&pg=PA213|title=Capitol Idea|work=google.ca|isbn=9780773575974|last1=Abelson|first1=Donald E.|date=2006|publisher=McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP }}</ref>
One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars."<://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf>


===Focus on military strategies, versus diplomatic strategies===
===Post-9/11 call for regime change in Iraq===
PNAC fellow ] stated: "We have no choice but to re-instill in our foes and friends the fear that attaches to any great power. ... Only a war against Saddam Hussein will decisively restore the awe that protects American interests abroad and citizens at home".<ref name="Gerecht on Iraq">{{cite web|url=https://lobelog.com/why-did-we-invade-iraq/ |title=Why Did We Invade Iraq? |publisher=LobeLog Foreign Policy |date=April 28, 2015 |access-date=February 17, 2016}}</ref>
On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the ]), the PNAC sent a letter to President ], advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in ]", or ]:
<blockquote>...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.<ref name=RWP/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush">], et al., , September 20, 2001, ''newamericancentury.org'', n.d., accessed June 20, 2014.</ref></blockquote>


Professor Emeritus Jeffrey Record of the ],<ref>{{cite web |title=Jeffrey Record bio |url=https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/about-us/contributor-biographies/jeffrey-record |website=Australian Army Research Centre |access-date=June 3, 2023 |date=August 1, 2016}}</ref> in his monograph, ''Bounding the Global War on Terrorism'' and ], in '']'' argued that PNAC's goals of military ] were overly ambitious given what the military can accomplish, that they failed to recognize "the limits of US power", and that favoring the ] instead of diplomacy could have "adverse side effects."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Shah |first1=Anup |title=The Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strikes; A Global Pax Americana |url=https://www.globalissues.org/article/450/the-bush-doctrine-of-pre-emptive-strikes-a-global-pax-americana |website=globalissues.org |access-date=June 3, 2023|date=April 24, 2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Pitt |first1=William Rivers |title=Of Gods and Mortals and Empire |url=http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/022203A.htm |website=Truthout |access-date=June 3, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050822072739/http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/022203A.htm |archive-date=August 22, 2005 |date=February 21, 2003 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Record |first1=Jeffrey |title=Bounding the Global War on Terrorism |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/shoulders/report011204.pdf |newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=June 3, 2023 |date=January 12, 2004}}</ref> ] made similar observations.<ref name=Reynolds1 />
From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' ].<ref>For example, ], , '']'', May 14, 2001, online posting, ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed May 28, 2007.</ref> On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving ] in power would be "surrender to terrorism."<ref name=MacKay2>Neil MacKay, , '']'', Scottish '']'' January 11, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007.</ref><ref>Gary Schmitt, , '']'' November 20, 2000, ''newamericancentury.org'', ''web.archive.org'', accessed June 1, 2007.</ref><ref>Gary Schmitt, , August 6, 2002, ''newamericancentury.org'', ''web.archive.org'', accessed June 1, 2007.</ref><ref>Gary Schmitt, , August 21, 2002, ''newamericancentury.org'', ''web.archive.org'', accessed June 1, 2007.</ref>


==End of the organization==
In 2003, during the period leading up to the ], the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.<ref name=AboutPNAC/>
By the end of 2006, PNAC was "reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website single employee ... left to wrap things up", according to a correspondent at the ].<ref name=Reynolds2>], The Neo-conservative Dream Faded in 2006", ], December 21, 2006, accessed May 29, 2007.</ref> In 2006 former executive director of the PNAC ] said PNAC had never been intended to "go on forever", and had "already done its job", suggesting that "our view has been adopted".<ref name=Reynolds2/> In 2009 Robert Kagan and William Kristol created a new think tank, the ], which scholars ] and Don Abelson have characterized as a successor to PNAC.<ref name="cas.uwo.ca"/><ref> "Would You Buy a Used Foreign Policy from these Guys?", Stephen M. Walt, ''Foreign Policy'', March 31, 2009</ref> From September 5, 2018, till January 13, 2019, the PNAC homepage went back online without any further explanation.<ref>{{usurped|1=}} WebArchive Snapshot, January 13, 2019</ref>

===Human Rights and the EU Arms Embargo===
In 2005, the European Union considered lifting the arms embargo placed on Beijing. The embargo was put in place after the events at ] in 1989. The PNAC, along with other concerned countries, composed a letter to ], asking that the EU not lift the embargo until three conditions were met:

# A general amnesty of all prisoners of conscience, including those imprisoned in connection to peaceful protest in 1989, and public trials by independent court for those charged with 'criminal' acts.
# A reversal of the official verdict on the 1989 movement as a 'counter-revolution riot,' allowing an independent 'truth commission' to investigate and provide a comprehensive account of the killings, torture, and arbitrary detention, and bringing to justice those responsible for the violations of human rights involved.
# Adoption and implementation of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights, taking concrete actions to enforce other international human rights conventions and treaties that China has joined.
The justification for these conditions was explained as follows:
:"Doing away with this sanction without corresponding improvements in human rights ... would send the wrong signal to the Chinese people, including especially those of us who lost loved ones, who are persecuted, and for all Chinese who continue to struggle for the ideal that inspired the 1989 movement."<ref>{{cite web|last=Bork|first=Ellen|title=Human Rights and the EU Arms Embargo|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131010231517/http://www.newamericancentury.org/europe-20050322.htm|accessdate=2014-06-20}}</ref>

===End of the organization===
By the end of 2006, PNAC was "reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website a single employee … left to wrap things up", according to the '']''.<ref name=Reynolds2>], The Neo-conservative Dream Faded in 2006", '']'', December 21, 2006, accessed May 29, 2007.</ref> According to ], "The glory days of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) quickly passed."<ref name=Barry>], , '']'', June 28, 2006, accessed June 20, 2014.</ref> In 2006, ], former executive director of the PNAC, a resident scholar at the ] and director of its program in Advanced Strategic Studies, stated that PNAC had come to a natural end:
<blockquote>When the project started, it was not intended to go forever. That is why we are shutting it down. We would have had to spend too much time raising money for it and it has already done its job. We felt at the time that there were flaws in American foreign policy, that it was neo-isolationist. We tried to resurrect a Reaganite policy. Our view has been adopted. Even during the Clinton administration we had an effect, with Madeleine Albright saying that the United States was 'the indispensable nation'. But our ideas have not necessarily dominated. We did not have anyone sitting on Bush's shoulder. So the work now is to see how they are implemented.<ref name=Reynolds2/></blockquote>

Robert Kagan and William Kristol went on to establish a new neoconservative think tank called ], which some commentators consider to be a successor to PNAC, with ] suggesting it was "just a new letterhead".<ref> Would You Buy a Used Foreign Policy from these Guys?, Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy, March 31, 2009</ref><ref> Neocons Launch New Foreign Policy Group, Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe, Anti-War, March 26, 2009</ref><ref> Project For The Rehabilitation Of Neoconservatism, Matt Duss, Think ProgressMarch 26, 2009</ref>

==Controversies==

===US global supremacy===

Multiple journalists, academics, and other critics have asserted that the Project for the New American Century had laid out a blueprint for US Global Supremacy. BBC journalist ], for example, asserted in 2007 that PNAC had sought to promote American ] and ] in its publications.<ref name=Reynolds1>], The US Appears to Be Heading to War with Iraq Whatever Happens, with Implications for the Future Conduct of American Foreign Policy", '']'', March 2, 2003, accessed May 29, 2007.</ref><ref name=Boot>], , '']'', October 14, 2002, online posting, ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed May 31, 2007.</ref><ref>
{{Cite news
|last = Kristol
|first = William
|last2 = Kagan
|first2 = Robert
|title = Reject the Global Buddy System
|newspaper = ]
|date = October 25, 1999
|url = http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/25/opinion/reject-the-global-buddy-system.html
|postscript = <!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->{{inconsistent citations}}
}}
</ref><ref>], , '']'', September 13, 2002, online posting, ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed May 31, 2007.</ref> Writing in ] in 2003, Jurgen Bölsche claimed that ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' "had been developed by PNAC for ], ], ] and ]," and was "devoted to matters of 'maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.'"<ref name=Kingston>Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan - Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam", ''Der Spiegel'' March 4, 2003; English translation, "This War Came from a Think Tank", trans. Alun Breward, published in Margo Kingston,", '']'', March 7, 2003, accessed May 28, 2007.</ref><ref name=Afsah>Ebrahim Afsah, , '']'', No. 9 (September 2003), n. 5, citing Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan - Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam", ''Der Spiegel'' March 4, 2003.</ref> Writing in ], British MP ], made similar allegations in 2003, stating that ''Rebuilding America's Defences'' was "a blueprint for the creation of a global ]," which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration.<ref> This war on terrorism is bogus, Michael Meacher, The Guardian, September 6, 2003</ref><ref>Donald E. Abelson, ''Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and U. S. Foreign Policy''; McGill-Queen's University Press, 2006; .</ref>

Academics such as Donald E. Abelson and Phillip Hammond have suggested that many of these criticisms were overblown. Hammond, for example, notes that while Rebuilding America's Defenses "is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under cover of the war on terrorism," it was actually "unexceptional." According to Hammond, its recommendations were "exactly what one would generally expect neoconservatives to say, and it is no great revelation that they said it in publicly-available documents prior to September 2001."<ref>https://books.google.ca/books?id=B0V_AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=%22Rebuilding+America%27s+Defences,%22+September+2000&source=bl&ots=z0d7zefjHT&sig=Bj1lBvbJJWBAxcmoCvfzCJBXsQA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FkLvVOGkB9a4ogTuioGoCA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref> Similarly, Abelson has written that "evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward as Meacher and others maintain." According to Abelson, "we know very little about the inner workings of this think tank and whether it has lived up to its billing as the architect of Bush's foreign policy."<ref>https://books.google.ca/books?id=UavEJnhgdaEC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=%22Rebuilding+America%27s+Defences,%22+September+2000&source=bl&ots=XmyLEM5tAz&sig=K9867JxcRkLRws3colf_6hipjOM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FkLvVOGkB9a4ogTuioGoCA&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>

===Excessive focus on military strategies, neglect of diplomatic strategies===
], of the ], in his monograph ''Bounding the Global War on Terrorism'', ], research professor emeritus at ] in Toronto, and author of ''Another Century of War?'' (The New Press, 2002), in his article published in '']'', and ], in '']'', respectively, argued that the PNAC's goals of military ] exaggerated what the military can accomplish, that they failed to recognize "the limits of US power", and that favoring ] exercise of military might over diplomatic strategies could have "adverse side effects."<ref name=Pitt>], ("Editorial: Truthout Perspective"), '']'', February 21, 2003, accessed May 31, 2007.{{Dead link|date=June 2009}}</ref><ref>], '''', online posting via ''washingtonpost.com'', January 12, 2004, accessed May 30, 2007.</ref><ref>], , '']'', January 15, 2003, accessed May 30, 2007.</ref> (] and ] have made similar observations.<ref name=Reynolds1/><ref name=Boot/>)

'']'' published an English translation of an article published in German in '']'' summarizing former President ]'s position and stating that President Carter:
<blockquote>judges the PNAC agenda in the same way. At first, argues Carter, Bush responded to the challenge of September 11 in an effective and intelligent way, "but in the meantime a group of conservatives worked to get approval for their long held ambitions under the mantle of 'the war on terror'."

The restrictions on civil rights in the US and at Guantanamo, cancellation of international accords, "contempt for the rest of the world", and finally an attack on Iraq "although there is no threat to the US from Baghdad" - all these things will have devastating consequences, according to Carter.

"This entire unilateralism", warns the ex-President, "will increasingly isolate the US from those nations that we need in order to do battle with terrorism".<ref name=Kingston/></blockquote>

==="New Pearl Harbor"===
<!--moved insufficiently documented paragraph to talk page. It is missing citations to support statement in it.-->
Section V of ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'', entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).<ref name=RAD2000/>

Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as journalist ],<ref name=HijDem>Qtd. in the film '']'', discussed in (Transcript), '']'', September 10, 2004, accessed May 29, 2007.</ref> journalist ], in '']'',<ref name=Pilger>], , '']'', December 16, 2002, accessed June 20, 2014.</ref> and former editor of '']'' ], in '']'',<ref name=Weiner>], , '']'' May 28, 2003, accessed June 1, 2007.</ref> all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.

===Inexperience in realities of war===
Former US Congressman ] and UK ] ] and ], ], criticized PNAC members for promoting policies which support an idealized version of war, even though only a handful of PNAC members have served in the military.<ref>], , ''SignOnSanDiego.com'', September 4, 2002, accessed June 1, 2007.</ref>

As quoted in ]' ] report, ] stated:
<blockquote>Their signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened. The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a region that has been less than susceptible to democracy. Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception and horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own ideas and the incompetence of the Bush administration.<ref name=Reynolds2/></blockquote>

In discussing the ], Neil MacKay, investigations editor for the Scottish ], quoted ]: "'This is garbage from right-wing ]s stuffed with ] -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the ]. These are the thought processes of fanaticist Americans who want to control the world.'"<ref name=MacKay1>Neil MacKay, , Scottish '']'', September 15, 2002, rpt. '']'' (ICH), accessed June 1, 2007.</ref>

], a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in '']'': "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. ], our greatest soldier statesman after ], opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, ], with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"<ref>], , '']'', September 5, 2002: A31, rpt. ''sais.jhu.edu'' (]), accessed June 1, 2007.</ref>

===PNAC role in promoting invasion of Iraq===
Commentators from divergent parts of the political spectrum––such as '']'' and '']'', including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate ] and former Republican Congressmen ] and ]––voiced their concerns about the influence of the PNAC on the decision by President ] to invade Iraq.<ref name=Griffin>], , '']'', May 26, 2004, accessed May 31, 2007. (Interviews with guests ], author of '']'' and professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology at the ], in ]; and ], Senior Analyst at Senior Research Associates, in Summerville, Massachusetts.</ref><ref name=Findleyetal>, inc. "A Republican’s Case Against George W. Bush", by ], and "The Need to Refocus Our Policy Priorities in The War on Terror", by ]", '']'' (WRMEA), April 2004: 20-25, accessed June 1, 2007.</ref> Some have regarded the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton, which urged him to embrace a plan for "the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power,"<ref name=PNACClinton/> and the large number of ] as evidence that the ] was a foregone conclusion.<ref name=MBurns>Margie Burns, , '']'', May 1, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007, updated November 16, 2013. (1 of 3 pages.)</ref>

The television program '']'', broadcast on ], presented the PNAC's letter to President Clinton as a notable event in the leadup to the Iraq war.<ref name=FrontlineIraqWarChron>, ''''. '']'', ] (]), ] (PBS), online posting February 20, 2003, accessed June 1, 2007.( includes menu of links to "Analysis", "Chronology", "Interviews", and "Discussion" as well as link to streaming video of the program.)</ref>

Media commentators have found it significant that signatories to the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton (and some of its other position papers, letters, and reports) included such later Bush administration officials as ], ], ], ], ], and ].<ref name=Reynolds1/><ref name=Pitt/><ref name=HijDem/><ref name=FrontlineIraqWarChron/>

===Future biological weapons that can "target" specific genotypes===
{{main|Ethnic bioweapon}}
Critics of the Project for the New American Century, including ''Austin American-Statesmen'' book reviewer ], highlighted the following quote from PNAC's report "Rebuilding America's Defenses":

<blockquote>And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.</blockquote>

In a review of a book on the history of ] in the United States, Keller cited the quote as an example of modern-day thinking that continues the tradition of eugenics, saying that the quote proposed "a sort of 'gene bomb'" and accusing the authors of supporting "the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group -- i.e., genocide, the ultimate eugenic practice".<ref>{{cite news|last=Keller|first=Kip|title=Eugenics didn't start in Nazi Germany 'War Against the Weak' describes U.S. role in killing of the 'unfit.'|accessdate=16 October 2012|newspaper=Austin American-Statesman|date=16 November 2003|page=K5}}</ref> The Project for a New American Century responded with a letter to the editor calling Keller's accusations "disgusting and utterly false" and stating that the quotation was intended to describe "threats the U. S. military may confront in the future" rather than weapons that the organization advocated developing.<ref>{{cite web|title=Letter to the Editor of the Austin-American Statesman|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050104221109/http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20031125.htm|publisher=Project for the New American Century|accessdate=16 October 2012}}</ref>


==People associated with the PNAC== ==People associated with the PNAC==
===Project directors=== ===Project directors===
These are listed on the PNAC website:
{{col-begin}} {{col-begin}}
{{col-2}} {{col-2}}
*], Co-founder and Chairman<ref name=AboutPNAC/> *], co-founder and chairman<ref name=AboutPNAC/>
*], Co-founder<ref name=AboutPNAC/> *], co-founder<ref name=AboutPNAC/>
*]<ref name=AboutPNAC/> *]<ref name=AboutPNAC/>
{{col-2}} {{col-2}}
Line 183: Line 108:


===Project staff=== ===Project staff===
* Other director(s):
{{col-begin}}
** Ellen Bork, Deputy Director<ref name=AboutPNAC/>
{{col-2}}
*], Deputy Director<ref name=AboutPNAC/> ** Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director<ref name=AboutPNAC/>
* Other associates:
*], Senior Fellow<ref name=AboutPNAC/><ref name=Schmitt> is currently Resident Scholar at the ] and Director of its program in Advanced Strategic Studies.</ref>
**Senior fellows:
*], Senior Fellow<ref name=AboutPNAC/>
*], Senior Fellow<ref name=AboutPNAC/> ***], Senior Fellow<ref name=AboutPNAC/>
***], Senior Fellow<ref name=AboutPNAC/>
{{col-2}}
***], Senior Fellow<ref name=AboutPNAC/><ref name=Schmitt> is currently Resident Scholar at the ] and Director of its program in Advanced Strategic Studies.</ref>
*], Senior Fellow
<!-- *** ], Senior Fellow{{cn}} -->
*Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director<ref name=AboutPNAC/>

*], Research Associate<ref name=AboutPNAC/>
*Research associates:
{{col-end}}
**], Research Associate<ref name=AboutPNAC/>
* Comptroller:
** ],<ref name=AboutPNAC/> ] (2001–04)


===Former directors and staff=== ===Former directors and staff===
*], Director, former ] (2001–05) and ] (2005–06), former ] (2018–19), former senior fellow at the ] (AEI)
*], Deputy Director<ref>, ''newamericancentury.org'', ''web.archive.org'', accessed May 30, 2007.</ref>
*Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director<ref>{{usurped|1=}}, ''newamericancentury.org'', ''web.archive.org'', accessed May 30, 2007.</ref>
*Christopher Maletz, former Assistant Director
*], former ] under the ], an AEI associate, and member (and former chairman) of the ]


===Signatories to ''Statement of Principles''=== ===Signatories to ''Statement of Principles''===
{{col-begin}} {{col-begin}}
{{col-2}} {{col-2}}
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *],<ref name=PNACSOP/> ] (2005–09)
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *]<ref name=PNACSOP/>
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *]<ref name=PNACSOP/>
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *],<ref name=PNACSOP/> ] (1999–2007)
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *],<ref name=PNACSOP/> ] (2001–09)
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *],<ref name=PNACSOP/> ] (2007–09)
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *]<ref name=PNACSOP/>
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *],<ref name=PNACSOP/> ] (2001–09)
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *]<ref name=PNACSOP/>
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *]<ref name=PNACSOP/>
Line 216: Line 147:
{{col-2}} {{col-2}}
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *]<ref name=PNACSOP/>
*],<ref name=PNACSOP/> ] (2003–05), ] (2005–07), ] (2007–09)
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/>
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *],<ref name=PNACSOP/> ] (2001–05)
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *]<ref name=PNACSOP/>
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *]<ref name=PNACSOP/>
Line 223: Line 154:
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *]<ref name=PNACSOP/>
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *]<ref name=PNACSOP/>
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *],<ref name=PNACSOP/> ] (2001–06)
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *]<ref name=PNACSOP/>
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *]<ref name=PNACSOP/>
*]<ref name=PNACSOP/> *],<ref name=PNACSOP/> ] (2001–05)
{{col-end}}

===Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports<ref name=RAD2000list/>===
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/>
*]<ref name="4-3-2002-Bush">], et al.,, April 3, 2002, ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed June 20, 2014.</ref>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=PNACClinton/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/>
*]<ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=RAD2000/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/>
*]<ref name=RAD2000/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*],<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/><ref name=Eberstadt> is Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy at the ].</ref>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/><ref name=Fradkin> is Director, Center for Islam, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World, and Senior Fellow at the ].</ref>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=RAD2000/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/><ref name=RAD2000/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/>
{{col-2}}
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/><ref name=RAD2000/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=RAD2000/>
*]<ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/><ref name=Lindberg> is a Fellow at the ] and Editor of its publication '']'', founded by the ].</ref>
*]<ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="PNAC signatory list" ></ref>
*]<ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*] <ref name="1-28-2005-Congress">, January 28, 2005, ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed June 20, 2014.</ref><ref name="SecondStatementPostwarIraq">, March 28, 2003, ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed June 20, 2014.</ref>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=RAD2000/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=RAD2000/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name=Schmitt/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name=Shultz> is Professor of International Politics at ] and Director, ], which includes the Jebsen Center for Counterterrorism Studies at ].</ref>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/><ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/>
*]<ref name="9-20-2001-Bush"/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/><ref name=RAD2000/>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/><ref name="4-3-2002-Bush"/>
*]<ref name=RAD2000/><ref name="Clinton_kosovo">, ''The Project for the New American Century'', September 1998, accessed May 30, 2007.</ref>
*]<ref name=GingrichLott/><ref name=PNACClinton/>
{{col-end}} {{col-end}}


==See also== ==See also==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
*]
* ]
*'']''
* '']''
*]

*]
==References==
*]
{{Reflist}}
*]
*]


==External links==
==Notes and references==
*{{usurped|1=}} – partially archived copy, with some working links
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}
* – critical website
*{{usurped|1=}} by Thomas Donnelly
*{{usurped|1=}} – PNAC September 2000 Report
*{{cite journal |last1=Kristol |first1=William |last2=Kagan |first2=Robert |title=Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy |journal=Foreign Affairs |date=1996 |volume=75 |issue=4 |pages=18–32 |doi=10.2307/20047656 |url=http://online.sfsu.edu/mroozbeh/CLASS/h-607-pdfs/W.Kristol-Neo-Reaganite.pdf |access-date=September 11, 2011 |publisher=Council on Foreign Relations |jstor=20047656 |issn=0015-7120|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160506115502/http://online.sfsu.edu/mroozbeh/CLASS/h-607-pdfs/W.Kristol-Neo-Reaganite.pdf |archive-date=May 6, 2016 }}


{{Neoconservatism}}
== External links ==
*, archived copy from October 22, 2013
*, archived copy from June 9, 2013 (with working links)
* Project For The Old American Century.


{{Authority control}}
]

]
]
]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
]
] ]
] ]
]

Latest revision as of 02:34, 22 December 2024

Former American neoconservative think tank

Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
Formation1997; 27 years ago (1997)
FounderWilliam Kristol, Robert Kagan
Dissolved2006; 18 years ago (2006)
TypePublic policy think tank
Location
ChairmanWilliam Kristol
Directors
This article is part of a series on
Conservatism
in the United States
Schools
Principles
History
Intellectuals
Politicians
Jurists
Commentators
Activists
Literature
Concerns
PartiesActive

Defunct

Think tanks
Media

Newspapers

Journals

TV channels

Websites

Other

Other organizations

Economics

Gun rights

Identity politics

Nativist

Religion

Watchdog groups

Youth/student groups

Miscellaneous

Other

Movements
Related

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership". The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world", and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity".

Of the twenty-five people who signed PNAC's founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War. Academics such as Inderjeet Parmar, Phillip Hammond, and Donald E. Abelson have said PNAC's influence on the George W. Bush administration has been exaggerated.

The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006; it was replaced by a new think-tank named the Foreign Policy Initiative, co-founded by Kristol and Kagan in 2009. The Foreign Policy Initiative was dissolved in 2017.

Origins and operation

The Project for the New American Century developed from Kristol and Kagan's belief that the Republican Party lacked a "compelling vision for American foreign policy", which would allow Republican leaders to effectively criticize President Bill Clinton's foreign policy record.

During mid-1996, Kristol and Kagan co-authored an article in Foreign Affairs titled "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy" – referring to the foreign policy of President Ronald Reagan. In the article, they argued that American conservatives were "adrift" in the area of foreign policy, advocated a "more elevated vision of America's international role", and suggested that the United States' should adopt a stance of "benevolent global hegemony." In June 1997, Kristol and Kagan founded the PNAC in order to advance the goals they had first laid out in Foreign Affairs, echoing the article's statements and goals in PNAC's founding Statement of Principles.

According to Maria Ryan, the individuals who signed the PNAC's statements and letters were not employees or members of the group, and "supporters of PNAC's initiatives differed from case to case." While its permanent staff was relatively small, the organization was "especially well connected", with some of its statements and letters attracting the support of prominent conservatives and neoconservatives.

In this regard, Stuart Elden has stated that "The influence that PNAC had was astonishing", and noted that

The number of figures associated with PNAC that had been members of the Reagan or the first Bush administration and the number that would take up office with the administration of the second President Bush demonstrate that it is not merely a question of employees and budgets.

Statement of Principles

PNAC's first public act was to release a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997. The statement had 25 signers, including project members and outside supporters (see Signatories to Statement of Principles). It described the United States as the "world's pre-eminent power", and said that the nation faced a challenge to "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests". To this goal, the statement's signers called for significant increases in defense spending, and for the promotion of "political and economic freedom abroad". It said the United States should strengthen ties with its democratic allies, "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values", and preserve and extend "an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles". Calling for a "Reaganite" policy of "military strength and moral clarity", it concluded that PNAC's principles were 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".

In September 2000 PNAC released "Rebuilding America's Defenses" a report that promotes "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 states, "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".

Calls for regime change in Iraq

In 1998, Kristol and Kagan advocated regime change in Iraq throughout the Iraq disarmament process through articles that were published in the New York Times. Following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, core members of the PNAC including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliott Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick, and John Bolton were among the signatories of an open letter initiated by the PNAC to President Bill Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Portraying Saddam Hussein as a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, and emphasizing the potential danger of any weapons of mass destruction under Iraq's control, the letter asserted that the United States could "no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections". Stating that American policy "cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council", the letter's signatories asserted that "the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf". Believing that UN sanctions against Iraq would be an ineffective means of disarming Iraq, PNAC members also wrote a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, urging Congress to act, and supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R. 4655) which President Clinton signed into law in October 1998.

In February 1998, some of the same individuals who had signed the PNAC letter in January also signed a similar letter to Clinton, from the bipartisan Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf.

In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective. The memo questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition, which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.

Shortly after the September 11 attacks, the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, specifically advocating regime change through "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq". The letter suggested that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq", even if no evidence linked Iraq to the September 11 attacks. The letter warned that allowing Hussein to remain in power would be "an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism." From 2001 through the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC and many of its members voiced active support for military action against Iraq, and asserted leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism".

Some have regarded the PNAC's January 16, 1998, letter to President Clinton urging "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power", and the involvement of multiple PNAC members in the Bush Administration as evidence that the PNAC had a significant influence on the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq, or even argued that the invasion was a foregone conclusion. Writing in Der Spiegel in 2003, for example, Jochen Bölsche specifically referred to PNAC when he claimed that "ultra-rightwing US think-tanks" had been "drawing up plans for an era of American global domination, for the emasculation of the UN, and an aggressive war against Iraq" in "broad daylight" since 1998. Similarly, BBC journalist Paul Reynolds portrayed PNAC's activities and goals as key to understanding the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration after September 11, 2001, suggesting that Bush's "dominant" foreign policy was at least partly inspired by the PNAC's ideas.

Some political scientists, historians, and other academics have been critical of many of these claims. Donald E. Abelson has written that scholars studying "PNAC's ascendancy" in the political arena "cannot possibly overlook the fact" that several of the signatories to PNAC's Statement of Purposes "received high level positions in the Bush administration", but that acknowledging these facts "is a far cry from making the claim that the institute was the architect of Bush's foreign policy".

Rebuilding America's Defenses

One of the PNAC's most influential publications was a 90-page report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century. Citing the PNAC's 1997 Statement of Principles, Rebuilding America's Defenses asserted that the United States should "seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership" by "maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." The report's primary author was Giselle Donnelly, then going by the first name Thomas. Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt are credited as project chairmen. It also lists the names of 27 other participants who contributed papers or attended meetings related to the production of the report, six of whom subsequently assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. It suggested that the preceding decade had been a time of peace and stability, which had provided "the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth" and "the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy". The report warned that "no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself.

According to the report, current levels of defense spending were insufficient, forcing policymakers "to try ineffectually to 'manage' increasingly large risks". The result, it suggested, was a form "paying for today's needs by shortchanging tomorrow's; withdrawing from constabulary missions to retain strength for large-scale wars; 'choosing' between presence in Europe or presence in Asia; and so on". The report asserted that ll of these were "bad choices" and "false economies", which did little to promote long-term American interests. "The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements", the report argued, "will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity".

Rebuilding America's Defenses recommended establishing four core missions for US military forces: the defense of the "American homeland", the fighting and winning of "multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars", the performance of "'constabular' duties associated with shaping the security environment" in key regions, and the transformation of US forces "to exploit the 'revolution in military affairs'". Its specific recommendations included the maintenance of US nuclear superiority, an increase of the active personnel strength of the military from 1.4 to 1.6 million people, the redeployment of US forces to Southeast Europe and Asia, and the "selective" modernization of US forces. The report advocated the cancellation of "roadblock" programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter (which it argued would absorb "exorbitant" amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited gains), but favored the development of "global missile defenses" and the control of "space and cyberspace", including the creation of a new military service with the mission of "space control". To help achieve these aims, Rebuilding America's Defenses advocated a gradual increase in military and 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. That amount is at least 17% to 19% or $355 billion to $386 billion of the US federal tax revenue in 2000 with annual increases of 4–6%.

Critics

Rebuilding America's Defenses

Written before the September 11 attacks and during political debates of the Iraq War, a section of Rebuilding America's Defenses titled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" became the subject of considerable controversy: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that the Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans.

Some critics went further, asserting that Rebuilding America's Defenses should be viewed as a program for global American hegemony. Writing in Der Spiegel in 2003, Jochen Bölsche claimed that Rebuilding America's Defenses "had been developed by PNAC for Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Libby" and was "devoted to matters of 'maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests'". British MP Michael Meacher made similar allegations in 2003, stating that the document was "a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana", which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration. Academic Peter Dale Scott subsequently wrote

" ideology was summarized in a major position paper, Rebuilding America's Defenses, in 2000. This document advocated a global Pax Americana unrestrained by international law ..."

Other academics, such as Donald E. Abelson and Phillip Hammond, have suggested that many of these criticisms were overblown, while noting that similar statements about PNAC's origins, goals, and influence "continue to make their way into the academic literature on the neo-conservative network in the United States". Hammond, for example, notes that though Rebuilding America's Defenses "is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under cover of the war on terrorism", it was actually "unexceptional". According to Hammond, the report's recommendations were "exactly what one would generally expect neoconservatives to say, and it is no great revelation that they said it in publicly available documents prior to September 2001". Similarly, Abelson has written that "evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward" as Meacher and others maintain" as "we know very little about the inner workings of this think tank and whether it has lived up to its billing as the architect of Bush's foreign policy".

Focus on military strategies, versus diplomatic strategies

PNAC fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht stated: "We have no choice but to re-instill in our foes and friends the fear that attaches to any great power. ... Only a war against Saddam Hussein will decisively restore the awe that protects American interests abroad and citizens at home".

Professor Emeritus Jeffrey Record of the Strategic Studies Institute, in his monograph, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism and William Rivers Pitt, in Truthout argued that PNAC's goals of military hegemony were overly ambitious given what the military can accomplish, that they failed to recognize "the limits of US power", and that favoring the pre-emptive exercise of military force instead of diplomacy could have "adverse side effects." Paul Reynolds made similar observations.

End of the organization

By the end of 2006, PNAC was "reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website single employee ... left to wrap things up", according to a correspondent at the BBC News. In 2006 former executive director of the PNAC Gary Schmitt said PNAC had never been intended to "go on forever", and had "already done its job", suggesting that "our view has been adopted". In 2009 Robert Kagan and William Kristol created a new think tank, the Foreign Policy Initiative, which scholars Stephen M. Walt and Don Abelson have characterized as a successor to PNAC. From September 5, 2018, till January 13, 2019, the PNAC homepage went back online without any further explanation.

People associated with the PNAC

Project directors

These are listed on the PNAC website:

Project staff

Former directors and staff

Signatories to Statement of Principles

See also

References

  1. The following refer to or label PNAC as a neoconservative organization:
  2. ^ First Impressions, Second Thoughts: Reflections on the Changing Role of Think Tanks in U.S. Foreign Policy Archived November 30, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Abelson, Critical Issues of Our Time, v. 8, Center for American Studies, University of Western Ontario, 2011
  3. Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power, David Rothkopf, PublicAffairs, 2006
  4. Home page of the Project for the New American Century, accessed March 4, 2015.
  5. ^ Elliott Abrams, et al., "Statement of Principles", June 3, 1997, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 28, 2007.
  6. ^ "About PNAC", newamericancentury.org, n.d., accessed May 30, 2007: "Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project was an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt."
  7. Statement of Principles of the Project for a New American Century:
  8. United States Foreign Policy and National Identity in the 21st Century, Kenneth Christie (ed.), Routledge, 2008
  9. ^ Max Boot, "Neocons", Foreign Policy No. 140 (January–February 2004), pp. 20–22, 24, 26, 28 JSTOR
  10. ^ Parmar, Inderjeet (2008). "Chapter 3: A Neo-Conservative-Dominated US Foreign Policy Establishment?". In Christie, Kenneth (ed.). United States Foreign Policy and National Identity in the 21st Century. Routledge. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-415-57357-3.
    • "The PNAC's 33 leaders were highly connected with the American state – displaying 115 such connections: 27 with the Department of Defense, 13 with State, 12 with the White House, 10 with the National Security Council, and 23 with Congress."
    • "The PNAC may be considered strongly integrated into the political and administrative machinery of US power; certainly, it is not an outsider institution in this regard."
  11. ^ Funabashi, Yichi (2007). The Peninsula Question: A Chronicle of the Second Korean Nuclear Crisis. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. ISBN 978-0-8157-3010-1.
    • "Of the twenty-five signatories of the PNAC's Statement of Principles ... ten went on to serve in the George W. Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others."
  12. Stelzer, Irwin (2004). Neoconservatism. London: Atlantic Books. p. 5.
    • (on PNAC, founded by Kristol): "Its other founders included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Elliot Abrams, all of whom were destined for key positions in the Bush administration – with the exception of Kristol."
    • "No one can doubt that PNAC was an important contributor to the Bush administration's foreign policy. To suggest, however, that it is a part of some secret effort to overthrow traditional American foreign policy is not true."
  13. Hammond, Phillip (2007). Media, War and Postmodernity. Routledge. p. 72. Rebuilding America's Defences, September 2000.
    • "Critics have made much of the fact that US actions after 9/11 seemed to follow neoconservative thinking on foreign and security policy formulated before Bush took office", p. 72.
    • "In particular, Rebuilding American Defenses ... is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under of cover of the War on Terrorism", p. 72.
  14. ^ Parmar, Inderjeet (2008). "Chapter 3: A Neo-Conservative-Dominated US Foreign Policy Establishment?". In Christie, Kenneth (ed.). United States Foreign Policy and National Identity in the 21st Century (PDF). New York and London: Routledge. p. 49. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 25, 2019. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
    • "It is often argued that the neo-cons hijacked the Bush administration – particularly through the influence of PNAC."
  15. Grondin, David (2005). "Mistaking Hegemony for Empire: Neoconservatives, the Bush Doctrine, and the Democratic Empire". International Journal. 61 (1): 227–241. doi:10.2307/40204140. JSTOR 40204140.
    • "There can be no question that the September 2002 'National security strategy of the United States of America,' announcing a Bush doctrine predicated upon military prevention, regime change, and enhanced defence spending, has been heavily influenced by neoconservative writings. Among these have been works published under the aegis of the 'Project for a new American century,' including Rebuilding America's Defenses (by Donald Kagan, Gary Schmitt, and Thomas Donnelly), and Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy (by William Kristol and Robert Kagan)." pp. 231–232.
  16. ^ Parmar, Inderjeet (2008). "Chapter 3: A Neo-Conservative-Dominated US Foreign Policy Establishment?". In Christie, Kenneth (ed.). United States Foreign Policy and National Identity in the 21st Century. Routledge Studies in US Foreign Policy. Routledge. p. 49.
  17. Hammond, Phillip (2007). Media, War and Postmodernity. Routledge. p. 72. Rebuilding America's Defences, September 2000.
  18. Abelson, Donald E (2006). Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and US Foreign Policy. McGill-Queen's University Press. pp. 218–219. ISBN 978-0773531154. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
  19. ^ Ryan, Maria (2010). Neoconservatism and the New American Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-10467-9. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
  20. Kristol, William; Kagan, Robert (July 1, 1996). "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy". Foreign Affairs. 75 (4): 18. doi:10.2307/20047656. JSTOR 20047656.
  21. Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty, Stuart Elden, Univ of Minnesota Press, 2009, p. 15
  22. "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century". cryptome.org. Retrieved March 20, 2020.
  23. Donnelly, Kagan (September 2000). "Rebuilding America's Defenses. Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" (PDF). New American Century. Archived from the original on November 12, 2002. Retrieved March 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  24. Kristol, William; Kagan, Robert (January 30, 1998). "Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough". The New York Times.
  25. Kristol, William; Kagan, Robert (February 26, 1998). "A 'Great Victory' for Iraq". The Washington Post.
  26. ^ Wedel, Janine (2009). Shadow Elite. New York: Basic Books. p. 170.
  27. ^ "Open Letter to President Bill Clinton", January 26, 1998, accessed May 28, 2007.
  28. Elliott Abrams, et al.,Letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, May 28, 1998, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 30, 2007.
  29. Arin, Kubilay Yado (2013): Think Tanks, the Brain Trusts of US Foreign Policy. (Wiesbaden: VS Springer) .
  30. "Public Law 105–338—Oct. 31, 1998. Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, January 27, 1998, accessed June 20, 2014.
  31. Hoff, Joan (2007). A Faustian Foreign Policy from Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139468596.
  32. " Memorandum to Opinion Leaders, From: Mark Lagon, Subject: Iraq", January 7, 1999, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed May 30, 2007.
  33. William Kristol, et al., Letter to George W. Bush, September 20, 2001, newamericancentury.org, n.d., accessed June 20, 2014.
  34. For example, William Kristol, "Liberate Iraq", The Weekly Standard, May 14, 2001, online posting, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 28, 2007.
  35. Neil MacKay, "Former Bush Aide: US Plotted Iraq Invasion Long Before 9/11", The Wisdom Fund, Scottish Sunday Herald January 11, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007.
  36. Gary Schmitt, "State of Terror: War by any other name ...", The Weekly Standard November 20, 2000, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed June 1, 2007.
  37. Gary Schmitt, "Memorandum: To: Opinion Leaders, From Gary Schmitt, Subject : Iraq–al Qaeda Connection", August 6, 2002, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed June 1, 2007.
  38. Gary Schmitt, "Memorandum: To: Opinion Leaders, From William Kristol, Subject: Iraq and the War on Terror", August 21, 2002, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed June 1, 2007.
  39. "Chronology: The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine", The War Behind Closed Doors. Frontline, WGBH-TV (Boston, Massachusetts), Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), online posting February 20, 2003, accessed June 1, 2007.("Home page" includes menu of links to "Analysis", "Chronology", "Interviews", and "Discussion" as well as link to streaming video of the program.)
  40. ^ Paul Reynolds, "Analysis: Power Americana: The US Appears to Be Heading to War with Iraq Whatever Happens, with Implications for the Future Conduct of American Foreign Policy", BBC News, March 2, 2003, accessed May 29, 2007.
  41. Margie Burns, "Warriors Behind the Scenes Coached the Stars On Stage", The Washington Spectator, May 1, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007, updated November 16, 2013. (1 of 3 pages.)
  42. Hammond, Philip (2007). Media, War and Postmodernity. Routledge. ISBN 9781134188345. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
    • "Critics have made much of the fact that US actions after 9/11 seemed to follow neoconservative thinking on foreign and security policy formulated before Bush took office." "In particular, Rebuilding American Defenses is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under of cover of the War on Terrorism."
  43. Abelson, Donald E. (2006). Capitol Idea. McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP. ISBN 9780773575974. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
    • Abelson quotes British MP Michael Meacher on Rebuilding America's Defenses: "The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in Power.
  44. ^ Ebrahim Afsah, "Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy – The Origins of the Current Neo-Conservative Revolution in US Strategic Thinking" Archived February 10, 2007, at the Wayback Machine, The German Law Journal, No. 9 (September 2003), n. 5, citing Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan – Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam", Der Spiegel March 4, 2003.
  45. Abelson, Donald E (2006). Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and US Foreign Policy. McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP. pp. 218–219. ISBN 9780773575974.
  46. Hammond, Philip (2007). Media, War and Postmodernity. Routledge. ISBN 9781134188345. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  47. ^ "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century" (PDF). September 2000. Archived from the original on August 17, 2013. Retrieved May 30, 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  48. Archived April 15, 2015, at the Wayback Machine "The President's Real Goal in Iraq", Jay Bookman, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 29, 2002
  49. At the end of the list of "Project Participants", on p. 90 of Rebuilding America's Defenses, there appears the following statement: "The above list of individuals participated in at least one project meeting or contributed a paper for discussion. The report is a product solely of the Project for the New American Century and does not necessarily represent the views of the project participants or their affiliated institutions."
  50. John Pilger, "John Pilger Reveals the American Plan", New Statesman, December 16, 2002, accessed June 20, 2014.
  51. Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan – Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam", Der Spiegel March 4, 2003; English translation, "This War Came from a Think Tank", trans. Alun Breward, published in Margo Kingston,"A Think Tank War: Why Old Europe Says No", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 7, 2003, accessed May 28, 2007.
  52. Donald E. Abelson, Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and U. S. Foreign Policy; McGill-Queen's University Press, 2006; p. 213.
  53. The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, Peter Dale Scott, University of California Press, 2008, p. 192
  54. Hammond, Philip (2007). Media, War and Postmodernity. Routledge. ISBN 9781134188345. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  55. Abelson, Donald E. (2006). Capitol Idea. McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP. ISBN 9780773575974. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  56. "Why Did We Invade Iraq?". LobeLog Foreign Policy. April 28, 2015. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
  57. "Jeffrey Record bio". Australian Army Research Centre. August 1, 2016. Retrieved June 3, 2023.
  58. Shah, Anup (April 24, 2004). "The Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strikes; A Global Pax Americana". globalissues.org. Retrieved June 3, 2023.
  59. Pitt, William Rivers (February 21, 2003). "Of Gods and Mortals and Empire". Truthout. Archived from the original on August 22, 2005. Retrieved June 3, 2023.
  60. Record, Jeffrey (January 12, 2004). "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism" (PDF). The Washington Post. Retrieved June 3, 2023.
  61. ^ Paul Reynolds, "End of the Neo-con Dream: The Neo-conservative Dream Faded in 2006", BBC News, December 21, 2006, accessed May 29, 2007.
  62. "Would You Buy a Used Foreign Policy from these Guys?", Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy, March 31, 2009
  63. WebArchive Snapshot, January 13, 2019
  64. Gary J. Schmitt is currently Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and Director of its program in Advanced Strategic Studies.
  65. "Daniel McKivergan", newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed May 30, 2007.

External links

Neoconservatism
General
Figures
Major influences
Organisations
Publications
Related articles
Categories: