[Vision2020] PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Thu Dec 28 11:39:38 PST 2006
Sunil et. al.
As to Baker and Cheney and their agreements or not on tactics, etc. I'm not
able to comment...However...
The nation building/democratization of the Middle East talk was/is not just
"window dressing," for many who supported the Iraq invasion. Nor for many
was the support to topple Saddam to eliminate a cruel dictator just a
cynical pose to establish military bases in the Middle East. Nor was/is the
desire to further Christianity in the Middle East insincere on the part of
many passionate Christians. Nor the belief of many that if we introduced
more western styled free market business and technology we would be doing
the Middle East a favor. Many also wished to protect Israel from hostile
regimes in the region. And of course many sincerely believed that Saddam
had ties to Al Quada and the 9/11 attacks, though it was rather well known
that Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies, that Bin Laden thought Saddam was an
Islamic heretic, of sorts. So the main issue that was utilized to motivate
the public to accept the invasion, Iraq sponsored terrorism and WMD, was
sincerely believed to be a significant threat to the US by many. Even Colin
Powell, I think, sincerely believed the evidence he presented, as US
Secretary of State, to the UN in February 2003, regarding Iraq's WMDs,
though later when Powell discovered the manufactured nature of this
"evidence" he felt his UN presentation to be one of the lowest points of his
political career.
Regardless of how sincere and noble were many of the reasons believed for
the Iraq war, the very questionable nature of the Iraq WMD
evidence presented as the primary threat that demanded a pre-emptive war
(or we may face a "mushroom cloud over America," as both President Bush and
Condi Rice warned apocalyptically in the months before the invasion) is hard
to explain except by deliberate cynical manipulation and deception of the
public and the US Congress; a form of deception that, given it's goal of
motivating the nation to accept war, is unconscionable. Till this deception
is fully investigated, and those responsible held accountable, our
democracy remains undermined, given that this sort of deception can happen
again under the assumption it can be gotten away with.
Though I think protecting US access to the Middle East's huge fossil fuel
reserves, in the context of the inevitable depletion of this non-renewable
and absolutely critical resource during the next century, was the raison
d'etre for the Iraq invasion, for the small group of the most powerful,
savvy, and realistic military and business/corporate strategists doing long
term planning, I think most people who supported the war had noble goals of
other sorts.
As the truism goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Ted Moffett
On 12/27/06, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> >>=======================================================
> >>
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061228/49600ca1/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list