Posted on 10/30/2022 8:51:19 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[In 1992 at the Direction of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, with the assistance of Scooter Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad, among others, drafted the March 6 1992 version of the Defense Planning Guidance. This guidance became known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine, and was leaked to the NY Times who published March 8, 1992: U.S. STRATEGY PLAN CALLS FOR INSURING NO RIVALS DEVELOP. The outrage caused the resulting 1994 Defense Plan to be significantly rewritten with substantial changes in an , The GWU's National Security Archives have published a history of the redactions and twists and turns in the formulation of this defense strategy] Notable Excerpts from the original Wolfowitz draft include: Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security.
Harpers: DICK CHENEY'S SONG OF AMERICA:Drafting a plan for global dominance By David Armstrong
Interview with Barton Gellman on 1992 Defense Policy Guidance. ""Our number one mission in the world, now that we are the sole superpower, is to make sure we stay that way." They wanted to pocket that gain. What was so politically insensitive in this internal document -- which wasn't meant for distribution -- is it talked about, not only Russia, but Germany, Japan, India, all as potential regional hegemons that could rise up to challenge the United States as at least a regional, and, potentially a global superpower. They said their number one mission is to quash that."
[Neo-Con Authors, Scooter Libbey, Wolfowitz, Don Kagan, Robert Kagan, Kristol, Eliot Cohen, Cambone] Project for a New American Century: REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century "America’s global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energyproducing region, and East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other “non-state actors.” The relative importance of these elements, and the threats to U.S. interests, may rise and fall over time. Europe, for example, is now extraordinarily peaceful and stable, despite the turmoil in the Balkans. Conversely, East Asia appears to be entering a period with increased potential for instability and competition. In the Gulf, American power and presence has achieved relative external security for U.S. allies, but the longer-term prospects are murkier. Generally, American strategy for the coming decades should seek to consolidate the great victories won in the 20th century – which have made Germany and Japan into stable democracies, for example – maintain stability in the Middle East, while setting the conditions for 21st-century successes, especially in East Asia. A retreat from any one of these requirements would call America’s status as the world’s leading power into question. As we have seen, even a small failure like that in Somalia or a halting and incomplete triumph as in the Balkans can cast doubt on American credibility. The failure to define a coherent global security and military strategy during the post-Cold-War period has invited challenges; states seeking to establish regional hegemony continue to probe for the limits of the American security perimeter."
The thing is, if we REALLY wanted to be King of the Hill for the indefinite future, perhaps we could have, but it would have taken:
1. A DOUBLING of our military budget, along with huge increases in armed forces - such as a 1000 ship navy, not the 298 ship one we now have (which is a joke if we want to run the world - China, for example, is building blue water navy ships at 5 times our rate).
2. Keeping China DOWN. Which would have meant things like no WTO, no Most-Favored Nation trading status, etc. It was OBVIOUS, even by 1985, that China meant business as to becoming a major power, if not a Superpower. Why didn’t we try to hold them down?
3. Telling the Environmentalists to F-Off (and for that matter, the trade unions). A country CANNOT be a world power when it has to fight its own people non-stop...and that’s why our days are numbered, while both Russia and China are on the rise (as both countries are far more unified than the US).
4. Having a SECURE BORDER. We’d likely have one, despite the Democrats, if the Republicans would only AGREE to that, rather than attacking Trump on the issue.
5. NOT run around the world having Drag Queen parades and demanding countries, like Uganda, legalize Gay Marriage. The reason why Russia is liked FAR BETTER than us by the 87% of countries that have NOT imposed sanctions on Russia, is very simple - Russia doesn’t tell other countries how to run their internal affairs, it’s none of Russia’s business and it’s none of our damn business.
We did none of the above...and now we want to TAKE OVER THE WORLD???? Oh please. The best option for the US at this point is to PULL BACK and accept that we screwed up, rather than ignite a nuclear war, because there is NO OTHER WAY that China and Russia will let us take over the world, considering how weak and dis-unified we’ve become.
A few people sitting in a conference room in Washington, D.C. making foreign policy for the entire United States is probably not a good idea.
This leads to all decisions concerning The United States being made by a few people in a conference room in Washington, D.C..
This negates democracy and our Republic.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the policy to be the big dog of the world.
There are some requirements that come with that policy.
1. An economy to support this policy.
2. The military muscle to support this policy.
3. The support of the people of The United States for this policy.
4. The raw materials to support this policy.
5. Brilliant people in charge.
These are just a few off the top of my head.
Great ideas without the means to execute them are just pipe dreams.
If Victoria Nuland wants to be an influencer, put her in charge of Indonesia. If Richard Perle wants to be a player, send him to Mozambique. If Paul Wolfowitz has change in mind, put him to work on the Chile-Bolivian situation.
If the Czar was mean to someone's ancestors, this should be an absolute disqualification from ANY involvement in US-Russian affairs.
Such posts will get very little scrutiny on FR, as we like sensationalism here.
But the question of when exactly the US pivoted from Cold-War to NATO-forever, global hegemon (and who was involved in this decision) is extremely important.
I note that the Soviet Hammer and Sickle was lowered for the last time on CHRISTMAS DAY 1991, and this document came out just six weeks later.
I think the point is that we can see this Wolfowitzian/Cheney/NeoCon thread that started then running through our foreign policy now today. Our NATO expansion, and the use of Ukraine as the pointy end of the stick to keep the world’s largest nuclear power down to preserve American dominance of the global economy [and yes all of this was really in the background about the money] was inviting that power to react.
While there is a lot in this policy to make us hated, the fact that we tried to use our hegemony to push Global Green and perversions just shows how utterly unserious we are.
To be the “King of the Hill”, you build bridges not barricades to others. This means a safe and secure border, and the moral courage to allow others to choose without undue pressure. THAT is an example. The difference between encouraging followers, or creating enemies.
Came out on the heels of the USSR crumbling. It shows just how craven people become. How can we continue allowing these fallen souls to be in positions of power and remain a free nation? We cannot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.