[Vision2020] PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses

[Sunil Ramalingam]

Ted,

Is the 'Nation Building' talk from the neocons just window dressing?  I tend 
to think there was a combination of realists (Cheney/Rumsfeld) and the 
dreamers (Kristol/Frum) that pushed the war forward, though I think realists 
were in the driver's seat.  The neocons certainly gave them cover.

Baker is usually described as a realist.  Do he and Cheney really disagree?  
Maybe on tactics?

Sunil


>From: "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com>
>To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses
>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:24:39 +0000
>
>Sunil et. al.
>
>Thank you.
>
>I should add that I read through Juan Cole's"Top Ten Myths About Iraq" and
>found this a well reasoned and factually based piece.
>
>I would love for everyone subscribed to Vision2020 to read "Rebuilding
>America's Defenses" from the PNAC site, a serious work of academic military
>planning, completed before the 9/11 attacks, to understand that dramatic
>increases in US military forces in the Middle East was in the works before
>9/11.
>
>The billions being spent on the Iraq war, and the death and suffering
>inflicted, is worth it, to some of the cynical realists who control foreign
>policy, given this simple equation:
>
>112 billion barrels of oil (Iraq's minimum estimated reserves) X $60 a
>barrel equals 6,720,000,000,000 dollars, enough to pay for at least 13
>Afghanistan/Iraq wars given the costs so far, though of course this 
>estimate
>of revenue generated from this oil is not all profit.
>
>Assuming oil goes over 100 dollars a barrel, which many experts assume is
>only a matter of time, and do the math again.
>
>And of course our military presence in Iraq can help to secure far more 
>than
>just Iraq's oil reserves, but Saudi Arabia's as well.  We can do the math
>again with the figure of Saudi Arabia's estimates of 260 billion barrels of
>oil reserves...enough to pay for at least another 30 Afghanistan/Iraq wars,
>at $60 a barrel
>
>When considering the financial stake in protecting oil resources, the Iraq
>war is a bargain.
>
>Ted Moffett
>
>
>On 12/27/06, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Ted,
>>
>>I certainly think your post spells out the real reason for the Iraq War,
>>and
>>the reason we are building permanent bases.  The ISG did not disagree with
>>this long-term goal in its report.
>>
>>Sunil
>>
>>
>> >From: "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com>
>> >To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>> >CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >Subject: PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses
>> >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:58:17 -0800
>> >
>> >Sunil et. al.
>> >
>> >Consider this escalation of the Iraq war (I'm not going to use the
>> >euphemism
>> >"surge") in the broader context of the Pentagon's goals to increase the
>> >size
>> >of the US military for a variety of global operations, a goal that once
>> >achieved may become the semi-permanent size of US forces, Iraq war or
>>not.
>> >A good justification is to "win" the war in Iraq via committing more
>> >troops.
>> >
>> >But one way or the other, I believe our military bases will remain in
>>Iraq
>> >for decades.  Iraq has the third largest reserves of petroleum, behind
>> >Saudi
>> >Arabia and Canada, and the Middle East overall has the most oil of any
>> >area.  The US cannot take the long term risk of Middle East oil under 
>>the
>> >control of regimes unfriendly to the US, and regime change in Iran, the
>> >dominant threat from a potential anti-US/anti-Israeli Islamic super
>> >power, has been the main goal of US Middle East policy, with Iraq a mere
>> >stepping stone, as the Project For A New American Century spelled out in
>> >the
>> >late 1990s, in the academic study "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
>>presented
>> >on the PNAC web site:
>> >
>> >http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
>> >
>> >-------------
>> >The national security and economy of the US in fifty years, or whenever
>> >petroleum depletion signals the fossil fuel golden age is ending, will
>> >demand that we can guarantee access to those resources.  Whoever has
>>access
>> >to the remaining fossil fuel reserves, by force if necessary, when not
>> >enough remains to distribute these resources as though all nations on
>>Earth
>> >have a right to access, will be in control of the global
>>economy.  Unless,
>> >of course, there are alternative energy sources available to most all
>>major
>> >nations on Earth, that are practical and affordable, that can replace
>> >fossil
>> >fuels on the grand scale of energy consumption we now take for granted
>>from
>> >fossil fuels.
>> >
>> >Ted Moffett
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 12/27/06, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/top-ten-myths-about-iraq-2006-1.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>It appears that the decision for a 'troop surge' has been made, and now
>>a
>> >>rationale has to be created to justify that decision.  To what end?
>> >>
>> >>Sunil
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>=======================================================
>> >>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> >>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> >>               http://www.fsr.net
>> >>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >>=======================================================
>> >>
>>
>>
>>=======================================================
>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>>