June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized
the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted
isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not
confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They
have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have
allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic
objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain
American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American
global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's
preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces
an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build
upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve
to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We
are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign
policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign
affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and
inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American
influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits
threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are
jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with
potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's
success: 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.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But
we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or 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 this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of
American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences
for today. Here are four consequences:

• 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 strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge
regimes hostile to our interests and values;

[[(oops).accidentally cut the part about promoting econonic and politcal
freedom in other countries]]

• 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.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be
fashionable today. But 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.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve
Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz


************************************************

OK, John. Here we go.

"We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American
global leadership."

As you would discover elsewhere on the site, "American Global Leadership" even
includes extending American religious and moral values to other countries. It
is a process of economic and moral colonization. How do I disagree? I believe
that until we solve our own problems we have no business assuming the role of
the world's military or moral police power. I believe that an Asian, European,
African, or South American individual is as entitled to self determination as
any US citizen of North America. Aussies too. Who the hell are we to presume
that the rest of the world is even interested in having us "lead" them
anywhere? Has to be one of the most arrogant public positions ever taken. Who
are these couple of dozen people to presume to speak for the entire country?

"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?"

IOW, "having eliminated a rival philosophy that sought to shape the world in
its shadow, does the US have the resolve to do shape the world in its own."?

"And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override
strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's
ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges
that lie ahead."

I actually agree with that statement.


"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power.
But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or 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 this century should have taught us to embrace the
cause of American leadership."

We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most
favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or
mandate, to do so. How arrogant.

"Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their
consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• 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're already the sole, remaining, superpower.......but we're going to need a
much larger and better equipped military to carry out what the PNAC sees as our
"responsibilities."

"• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge
regimes hostile to our interests and values;"

As this is the second of four items listed, it's safe to assume that we will
use our expanded military to "challenge regimes that are hostile to our
interests and values." NOTE: The site does not say that
these regimes have to be a military threat to the United States, merely
nonaligned with our (commercial?) interests and (moral?) values.

The accidentally cut statement about promoting political and economic freedom
in foreign countries is hypocritical in this context. The NAC crowd are only
interested in promoting the freedom of other countries to agree with and
support American "interests and values"

"• 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. "

We need to structure the rest of the world to create an international order
friendly to
US security, US prosperity, and US principles. Colonialism.

So there you go John. I don't expect you to agree with my perspective. But
stow the crap that I haven't ever specified the nature of my concerns. This is
probably the third or fourth time I have repeated this in this NG, and only did
so because you asked in a reasonably civil manner.