Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htmJune 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 promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• 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
Apparently he disagrees with the statements that he made bold above. If the US remains the preeminent world power in the 21st Century, it will be despite people like finebead. I was an American student studying abroad in China and later in Germany during the period 2002 through 2004. And I traveled extensively in Asia and Europe. Let me tell you that people from other countries do look to America for leadership, even the far Left students and professors that I encountered. Finebead has no clue if he thinks otherwise. People abroad may disagree with us. But the geopolitical conversation is all about America and what we'll do next. I heard no talk about EU or Chinese world leadership even from members of those countries.And with which part of this excellent statement do you disagree?
Roger that.The neo-cons (the real ones) had very little to do with the detailed implementation of the invasion of Iraq. But they did have terrible illusions about how easy it would be to encourage democracy there, and can be faulted for this.
Disagree. How do you deploy armored divisions against 4 terrorists in a kitchen somewhere in the world? Answer: You can't. The nature of the threat is such that the biggest challenge is not killing them, its FINDING THEM. All the armor in the world WILL NOT ACHIEVE THIS GOAL. If the CIA is broken, of just atrophied, then fund it and/or fix it. The nature of its intended operation IS what is called for to deal with a terrorist threat. Same with Delta Force and the rest of the special forces. I will guarantee you that conquering large land masses populated with 99.9% of people that are not and never wanted to be a threat to you is a terribly inefficient model, and a fools errand. Fools errand, see neocon. I am not a military man, I'm a business man and successful private investor who has proved adept at strategic planning, and this administration is plumb stupid, numbingly incompetent, or sinister. Although I think Bush is plumb stupid, many of his support team I have concluded is sinister as they are neither stupid nor numbingly incompetent. They appear to be incompetent at the task we think they are executing because they never intended to perform the task they said they were attempting; they are trying to perform a task that they never mention because it is so selfish as to be blatantly immoral.The idea that Delta Force and the CIA will allow us to be safe is taken straight from the Rambo mind-set. The CIA is incompetent, and most "Delta Force" type operations have been, and will be, failures. It's Hollywood dreamstuff. Nothing can replace armored divisions.
I agree the US did a great thing is WWII. My father served in the Pacific for 3 years in the Army infantry, 37th division. He was in front line combat for two years at New Georgia, Bouganville, and the Phillipines. I have his discharge papers and he exited as a "Scout". My father said it was the most important thing he did in his life, and I believed him. He also taught me the difference between wars that were just and HAD to be fought, and what he called "BS political wars", started by pip squeak politicians who had never been under fire. It was his opinion that only a politician who had never been under fire would start a BS political war, and subject good american service men to war for an inadequate reason. He hated Johnson, and he despised Nixon. Stupidity seems not to be the exclusive realm of either party.Without American military and economic power, either Hitler, or Stalin, would have overrun Europe, and the world would have been a very different place. The growth of prosperity and well-being that the human race is now experiencing is a direct result of our decision to wage war on Hitler and the Japanese, and then to wage the Cold War against the Soviets.
Don't kid yourself about this.
For my general disgust with our current leadership, you are more optimistic than I am. I don't think human nature will change. I agree we need to stay strong enough to deter any threat, and to participate in international efforts to police the world. To the extent we exceed that objective, we siphon too much of our resources into the military and will leave ourselves less able to compete economically. If that trend continues, we won't be able to fund the military due to our economic weakness. When we offshore our manufacturing and some high tech such as engineering expertise and information technology, we weaken our nation in favor of short term profits for corporate CEO's who can get mega rich in 12 quarters or less of market out performance, while running their company in the ground. See Chuck Prince at Citigroup, and the CEO Merrill Lynch just fired for costing the company BILLIONS in write downs on subprime mortgages. That problem was knowable, see Goldman Sachs is NOT taking any write downs, nor PIMCO bonds.If we are lucky, someday the world will be one big peaceful Europe-like set of nations, slowly merging their institutions as their cultures and values converge on the civilized model. Capitalism is leading the world out of poverty and backwardness, but this will not happen soon -- not even within our lifetimes. But it will happen. Then we can stand down our military and all sit around the campfire and sing folk songs.
Until then, there are some bad actors out there, and we had better be stronger than they are. They include the Russians and the Chinese, both freed from the economic shackles of socialism but retaining the mind-set and much of the political structures of communism.
This is NOT fundamentally about Islamic fundamentalism. That's the cover story Bin Laden uses to motivate stupid young people to die for his hidden cause. His real objective is to overthrow the Saudi royal family like the Iranians ousted the Shah. He wants power. For that he needs money, the kind of money that comes from controlling Saudi crude. See the Al Qeada terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. He needs money and he needs people who are motivated and willing to perform the actions necessary to seize power. He motivates them with the fairy tales of Islamic fundamentalism. There is a similar analogy for the neocons. Their objective is not to destroy Al Qaeda (see Bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora, where we had him but sent in the second string locals who lost him, why?), who is actually useful in demonstrating the needed bogey man necessary to motivate poor americans to perform the actions necessary to keep them in power and achieve their economic aims, maximizing big oil and big defense contractors CEO's bonuses and stock option packages.We don't know what will result from the stirring into consciousness of Islam. Al Queda is just the first experiment history is making with this growing force, and will probably be forgotten in ten years as more successful models of Islamic resurgence emerge. We must hope that modernizing versions of Islamic consciousness take hold of the Muslim masses, and act on our hopes to help it come true.
Blatant over simplification. We must remain militarily strong enough to defend the US from attack, and to participate in prudent international actions to protect the strategic interests of the US and our strategic partners. This does not mean we need to stockpile obscene offensive capabilities sufficient to conquer, occupy and control the economic resources anywhere in the world necessary to maximize selected CEO's bonus plans. It does not mean that we need to build armaments to the exclusion of all other strategic needs of the United States, and I believe in the 21st century, our primary threats will be economic in nature. I see us poorly positioning ourselves to deal with those threats.In the meantime, we must remain militarily strong.
Need some contraints. This is not true in the ABSOLUTE sense. Would you bankrupt the nation and just build tanks, planes, ships, and M16's? Bad plan. It is in our interests to advance the cause of democracy where it is cost effective. It has happened peacefully, see Poland after its emergence from Soviet rule. We diplomatically and financially supported Walesa and effectively helped birth a successful democracy in Poland. If the only tool you know about is a hammer, then all problems must be viewed as a nail. It is not always that way.At the same time, the neo-conservatives are right in their general outlook: it is in our interests to advance the cause of democracy and freedom in the world, and this will not happen peacefully (it has never happened peacefully).
Implicit in your statement is that this "Hitler" must be the leader of a nation-state. In an age of jet travel, multi-national corporations, and instant communications, the concept of "national grievance" as it obtained in the 1930s may no longer be pertinent. At some level, Osama Bin Laden qualifies as the contemporary Hitler with a multi-national grievance that is centuries old. And while he currently has no mechanized army; he certainly does have an army of followers and admirers; perhaps millions of them. It is interesting to note that the totalitarianism of OBL seeks to scapecoat the Jews every bit as much as did Hitler's. The Third Reich was the most evil regime in history (although Mao has some claim to that low water mark), but I think that OBL's intended darkness is every bit the equal of Hitler's and more. OBL and his philosopy are here today; feverishly seeking the tools that are useful for a new implementation of the 8th Century.Doug said:True, there is no "Hitler" out there, in the sense of the leader of a powerful modern state, heading a totalitarian political movement, with a deep sense of national grievance and the intention of satisfy it, with interest.
Implicit in your statement is that this "Hitler" must be the leader of a nation-state. In an age of jet travel, multi-national corporations, and instant communications, the concept of "national grievance" as it obtained in the 1930s may no longer be pertinent. At some level, Osama Bin Laden qualifies as the contemporary Hitler with a multi-national grievance that is centuries old. And while he currently has no mechanized army; he certainly does have an army of followers and admirers; perhaps millions of them. It is interesting to note that the totalitarianism of OBL seeks to scapecoat the Jews every bit as much as did Hitler's. The Third Reich was the most evil regime in history (although Mao has some claim to that low water mark), but I think that OBL's intended darkness is every bit the equal of Hitler's and more. OBL and his philosopy are here today; feverishly seeking the tools that are useful for a new implementation of the 8th Century.
This is about the re-militarization of america, without the existence of a threat that warrants it. Al Qaeda is 2000 thugs hiding in caves, and we were attacked by 20 Saudis with box cutters.
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 promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• 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
José: You have an interesting and unusual viewpoint, which is worth discussing.
However, your post is marred by at least one error: you imply, to the extent of supplying spurious quotations, that the neo-cons are in favor of the Chinese people being ruled by an authoritarian government since democracy is not possible for one billion people. This may be the position of some people -- possibly the "realists" -- but it is directly contrary to the neo-conservative position.
The problem is this: the United States is not strong enough, by two orders of magnitude, to simply force "democracy" into exisence all over the world.
For instance, you mention Tibet. (And, interestingly, note that the old regime which the Chinese ousted there was far from being a model government.) But what should we actually do about Tibet? Break off recognition of China? Arm and finance a Tibetan Resistance?
The fact is, that we must maneuvre in a world where we have to have priorities, and allies who are far from being what we would like them to be.
We are forced to compromise, and to be pragmatic. This will naturally sometimes make us look hypocritical. There is no other way to proceed, however.
Let me pose a serious question.
Is Democracy the best form of government for all nations and cultures at this time or any time?
What is the difference between our trying to bring Democracy to all peoples and our earlier efforts to bring Christianity to all people.
I happen be be quite happy living in a Democracy, even with its faults today. But I really ask if this is the only best form of government for all people, or is it a Western thing?
Why have we not suported countries where a Democratic process elected peoples or parties who are not really democratic and support other countries that are run by Kings or Dictators?
Just wondering out loud.
