Jay writes:

Anybody that has followed the PNAC side of the story knows the US was going to invade no matter what Saddam did.

I've given my view on the Saddam side of things [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/board/search/?field_searchUser=49&field_searchSubject=&field_searchContent=Saddam+UN&field_searchSignature=&field_searchForum=-1&field_boardid=1&submit_ok%3Amethod=Search|here]. I'd like to turn to the PNAC. The Project for the New American Century has a really bad reputatation around here. Fancy that. ;-)

[link|http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm|Here] is their Statement of Principles from 1997. While recognizing that any such statement aims to be as appealing as possible to the greatest number of nearly like-minded people as possible, what do you find objectionable about these items?

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

\ufffd 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;

\ufffd we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge egimes hostile to our interests and values;

\ufffd we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

\ufffd 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.

Those statements are sufficiently nebulous that one can interpret them to mean that the US should support Contra-like forces, or that the US should support Solidarity-like groups, or both, depending on one's opinions about the Reagan administration. But as a general thesis, it seems to me that they're merely arguing that US foreign policy was better under Reagan than under Clinton and the US should return to those policies.

Taking this document, and only this document (not external commentary on it, please), what, if anything, do you find objectionable about it?

Personally, I see good and bad in it. Every country should have a foreign policy that seeks to maximize long-term benefits to its people. That means, IMHO, expanding trade and increasing peaceful contacts between peoples. I think the US does have greater responsibilities in the world than other countries due to our economic, political, and military power but I don't accept that we necessarily need to be prepared remake hostile governments by force or impose our views on others. It's easy to make the argument that the US military has suffered a deciline in war-fighting and peace-keeping capabilities, but it's also easy to argue that too much has been spent on missile defense and other arguably unneded systems.

On the whole, I don't think the PNAC principles are terribly bad, though I may have differences with the PNAC members in emphasis and on their implications.

Your thoughts?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.