Fanatical Warhawks Drafted Blueprint for Bloody U.S. World Domination Years Ago



The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about.



Exclusive to American Free Press

By Christopher Bollyn



The huge increases in U.S. military spending that have occurred since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were planned before President George W. Bush was elected by the same men who are pushing the administration’s “war on terrorism” and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Billions of dollars in additional defense spending are but the first step in the group’s long-term plan to transform the U.S. military into a global army enforcing a terroristic and bloody Pax Americana around the world.

A neo-conservative Washington-based organization known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and weapons and defense industries, drafted the war plan for U.S. global domination through military power.

One of the organization’s documents clearly shows that Bush and his most senior cabinet members had already planned an attack on Iraq before he took power in January 2001.

The PNAC was founded in the spring of 1997 by the well-known Zionist neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

The PNAC is part of the New Citizenship Project, whose chairman is also William Kristol, and is described as “a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.”

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush’s “war cabinet.”

Wolfowitz was one of the directors of PNAC until he joined the Bush administration.

The group’s essential demand was for hefty increases in defense spending. “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,” the statement’s first principle reads.

The increase in defense spending is to bring about two of the other principles: “to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values” and “to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.”

A subsequent PNAC plan entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” reveals that the current members of Bush’s cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.

The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

“Even should Saddam pass from the scene,” the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, “may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.”

A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC.

The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in 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,” the PNAC plan said.

“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”

“They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities,” Maletz said. “Without some disaster or catastrophic event” neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.

The “new Pearl Harbor,” in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the “war on terrorism” shortly after 9-11.

A Pentagon spokesman told AFP that $17.5 billion of that initial allocation went to defense.

The U.S. defense budget for 2002, including a $14.5 billion supplement, came to $345.7 billion, a nearly 12 percent increase over the 2001 defense budget.

Similar significant increases in defense spending are planned for 2003 (to $365 billion) and 2004 (to at least $378 billion) in line with the PNAC plan.

Veteran journalist John Pilger recently wrote about one of PNAC’s founding members, Richard Perle: “I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan, and when he spoke about ‘total war,’ I mistakenly dismissed him as mad,” Pilger wrote. “He recently used the term again in describing America’s ‘war on terror.’ ‘No stages,’ he said. ‘This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now.’ ”

“This is a blueprint for U.S. world domination—a new world order of their making,” Tam Dalyell, British parliamentarian and critic of the war policy from the Labor Party said. “These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.

__________________

While I agree that there area a lot of things going on in this shadow government and that there is a New World Order rising around us as we sit here and type these words, I think it's odd that they would make the comparison between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor since there were similar claims after Pearl Harbor. If we're going to discuss long range conspiracies just how far back do you believe this has gone Petey?

Shadow Government or the government inflicted wars?

If you go to PNAC's website you'll see it in their own words. Whomever wrote the PNAC document them self wrote that "it would take a new pearl harbor" to strengthen the military.

__________________

I don't think they're the only ones who have made that sort of comment though Petey. A lot of retired military who suffered under the ridiculous cuts in military and intelligence spending during the decade leading up to 9/11 said much the same thing.

I'm going to respond to this one first, then I'll go back and address your previous post as it will require more time to research the answer to your question...

This has more to do with a basic human truism that no one likes to see their part of the "company", their department downsized with a slashed budget. Same sentiment, but wholly different reasons.

Say you see two bricks balanced on the edge of a tall building and a gust of wind blows the first one off and it falls onto a car below,... then you push the other brick off and it falls and hits the same car... same effect and result, but completely different and unassociated initiating points.

As a side note, The Founders new of the dangers of a large army to it's citizens during peace time and so made provisions that during times of peace the roll of military was to be lowered only what was needed for the defense of the states. Clinton was right to cut the military at this time in our history according to the guidelines set forth by the founders.

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

I agree, Okham. However, as I have admitted to Kix before, the cuts may have been a bit too large for some of our "police force" commitments during the 90s. But, even with the cuts and the downsizing, the US military became far more capable and efficient in the late 90s and early 2000s than it had been in the 1980s. For example, when you can put a weapon consistently within 10 to 20 feet of the target, you don't need to drop nearly as many bombs; consequently, then you don't need to fly as many sorties; and, finally, you don't need as many aircraft.

At the rate we were going, it wouldn't have taken much longer before we wouldn't have had enough of a military left to take on Ghandi's "Smallest Army Imaginable", and I honestly feel that was the plan. That makes for a pretty weak superpower and even if no one here thinks so, those who planned their increased attacks on us obviously believed it.

When someone pulls out and continues shredding our military after having so many killed in one attack, Beirut - 1983, there is something seriously wrong. The same thing goes for the handling of the attacks on our troops in the Battle of Mogadishu – 1993. Sorry, I don’t see this as a partisan issue, because I believe both political parties are involved in it. Neither do I see it as necessary “downsizing” due to a time of peace, because even though there were no declared wars, this was anything but a peaceful time for us. So, I see this as intentionally weakening our military in the face of an enemy whose force has continued to build on a global scale for decades.

"The PNAC was founded in the spring of 1997 by the well-known Zionist neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard."

That's too politically incorrect for me. Instead of saying "Zionist neoconservatives", why not just say Jewish Likudniks?

The PNACers can trace their roots back to Leo Strauss, Leon Trotsky and Irving Kristol, father of William. Irving Kristol had a huge portrait of Leon Trotsky hanging in his office at the University of Chicago and his students and ardent admirers included Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Bush's advisory staff is inundated with Jewish Likudniks including Feith, Libby and Abrams, as is the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon, which routinely sports top-secret US intelligence to the Israelis and improvises intelligence for US consumption.

If you want to know why we are in Iraq today, it's because the US is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Likud Party.

Although i do not agree with you on this George I do believe that anyone whom
thinks that We went to Iraq because of the following are in denial or just well conditioned:

WMD's
Terrorism
Spreading Democracy
Freedom
Remove Saddam, he was an indirect threat to America.

__________________

There aren't too many alternatives left, Petey, other than we went to war for the American Likud Party.