In September 2000, the PNAC drafted a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century."
The conservative foundation- funded report was authored by Bill Kristol, Bruce Jackson, Gary Schmitt, John Bolton and others. Bolton, now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was Senior Vice President of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
The report called for: ". . . significant, separate allocation of forces and budgetary resources over the next two decades for missile defense," and claimed that despite the "residue of investments first made in the mid- and late 1980s, over the past decade, the pace of innovation within the Pentagon had slowed measurably." Also that, "without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation had lacked urgency."
The PNAC report asserted that "while long-range precision strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations, American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers for decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a decade or more."
The PNAC document encouraged the military to "develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."
In reference to the nation's nuclear forces, the PNAC document asserted that, " reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself."
"The (Clinton) administration's stewardship of the nation's deterrent capability has been described by Congress as "erosion by design," the group chided.
The authors further warned that, "U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals –from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq – and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force."
In addition, they counseled, "there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries."
The 2002 PNAC document is a mirrored synopsis of the Bush administration's foreign policy today. President Bush is projecting a domineering image of the United States around the world which has provoked lesser equipped countries to desperate, unconventional defenses; or resigned them to a humiliating surrender to our rape of their lands, their resources and their communities.
The PNAC ‘Rebuilding America' report was used after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks to draft the 2002 document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," which for the first time in the nation's history advocated "preemptive" attacks to prevent the emergence of opponents the administration considered a threat to its political and economic interests.
It states that ". . . we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country." And that, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
This military industry band of executives promoted the view, in and outside of the White House that, " must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. . . We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed."
‘Peace through strength’; big kid on the block,' is a posture which is more appropriately used to counter threats by nations; not to threats by rouge individuals with no known base of operations.
Their strategy asserts that "The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."
So their plan is to attack whomever, whenever they feel our security is threatened, no matter if the nature and prevalence of the attack is uncertain. The U.N. should have studied this document before it wasted its time trying to reign President Bush in.
(mods, the above is from my book,
Power Of Mischief http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0974735205/002-0073119-5222456?v=glance&s=books)
Kerry signed the DLC manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
http://www.issues2002.org/International/John_Kerry_Foreign_Policy.htm Build a Public Consensus Supporting US Global Leadership
The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. As the left has gravitated toward protectionism, many on the right have reverted to “America First” isolationism.
Our leaders should articulate a
progressive internationalismbased on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.
A strong, technologically superior defense is the foundation for US global leadership. Yet the US continues to employ defense strategies, military missions, and force structures left over from the Cold War, creating a defense establishment that is ill-prepared to meet new threats to our security. The US must speed up the “revolution in military affairs” that uses our technological advantage to project force in many different contingencies involving uncertain and rapidly changing security threats -- including terrorism and information warfare.
Goals for 2010
A clear national policy with bipartisan support that continues US global leadership, adjusts our alliances to new regional threats to peace and security, promotes the spread of political and economic freedom, and outlines where and how we are willing to use force.
A modernized military equipped to deal with emerging threats to security, such as terrorism, information warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional conflicts.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC12 on Aug 1, 2000 ___________________________________________________________________
"Progressive Internationalism" proposes a six-step national security agenda for the Democratic Party and for the United States:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252147&kaid=131&subid=207 Advance democracy abroad to make us safer at home: Arguing that America's power should serve our democratic ideals, the authors call for a new push for political and economic reforms in the greater Middle East, which has emerged as the world's most unstable and dangerous region. Their strategy for encouraging forces of reform and modernization in the region includes a new Middle East Trade Initiative to spur growth and development, new aid for governments that embrace openness and accountability, and a crash program to reduce America's dependence on oil.
Prevent terrorists and dangerous regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction: If during the Cold War we faced an arms race to build weapons, we are now in a race to keep them out of the wrong hands. Democrats would pursue a collective approach in dealing with the dangerous situation in North Korea by engaging the United Nations and North Korea's neighbors; and would focus on preventing the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through expansion of the successful Nunn-Lugar program, rather than relying on military preemption of the use of WMD.
Plug gaps in homeland defense: Democrats would bring an overdue sense of urgency to defending our homeland by creating America's first-ever domestic intelligence organization; offering state and local leaders useful guidance based on genuine threat assessment; merging terrorist watch lists and ensuring information sharing among law enforcement agencies; and by investing in resources to equip police, fire fighters and public health officials with the tools needed to protect their communities.
Transform the U.S. military and use it more effectively: Democrats would make room for investments to modernize and sustain America's military superiority into the future by dismantling obsolete Cold War infrastructure, working toward assuring the "information dominance" clearly necessary in dealing with today's threats, and making smarter use of American military power. They would also press for an expanded NATO peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, and maintain a robust military presence in Iraq until security and stability have been achieved.
Reinvigorate America's strategic alliances: Democratic presidents have made America's strategic alliances a cornerstone of their foreign policy. Democrats still believe that our alliances are as important as ever. They intend not to abandon them, but to reorient them to new challenges by strengthening and reforming international institutions such as NATO, the United Nations, the international financial institutions, and the World Trade Organization.
Restore American global economic leadership: Democrats would revive U.S. leadership in the global economy by restoring the dynamism of the American economy through a rejection of the Bush administration's policies of fiscal recklessness; offering a fundamentally new approach to trade and economic relations with the Muslim world; renewing and expanding trade agreements and negotiations; and encouraging reform of multilateral lending institutions to tackle corruption and poverty more vigorously.
_____________________________________________________________________
I don't view the DLC's call for U.S. preeminence as anything akin to Bush's plan for world dominance. The Democratic policy is clearly a rejection of the unilateralism of the Bush regime. I don't think that just because they seek an assertive role in world affairs that they automatically represent the worse aspects of interventionism.
These are the stated goals of the
Democratic policy institute:
"Just over a year from now, the country will face a critical national election. But between now and then, Democrats must cross a threshold of credibility on national security issues before much of the public will listen to the rest of their powerful case for firing the incumbent.
Recent events in Iraq and the Middle East generally, compounded by the Bush administration's chronic failure to obtain international support for U.S. policies, have emboldened some Democrats to believe that the facts on the ground alone can erase the big advantage Republicans hold on national security issues.
That is wishful thinking. Simply exploiting administration policy failures without laying out a coherent critique of the GOP philosophy toward the rest of the world will take Democrats only so far in challenging Bush's claim that the country is more secure than it was when he took office. More importantly, Democrats must offer a clear, bold, and principled alternative strategy for advancing U.S. values and interests in a dangerous world if they are to refute Republican efforts to label them as untrustworthy on national security issues.
To that end, a distinguished group of 15 national security experts convened by the Progressive Policy Institute have drafted an important new document aimed at reconnecting Democrats with their proud tradition of muscular internationalism."I am not open to broad claims of Kerry's intent as it relates to these DLC documents. I do feel that we can interpret his views on these issues in the context of his actual statements and actions. In that regard I don't think we can tie him to every word in the DLC manifesto. I fully expect John Kerry to form and promote his personal philosophy on these issues if he reaches a position of ultimate influence.
John Kerry Issues Page: Foreign Policy
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy John Kerry on Foreign Policy:
http://www.issues2002.org/International/John_Kerry_Foreign_Policy.htm Text of John Kerry Speech at GU on Foreign Policy
http://www.themoderntribune.com/john_kerry_-_presidential_candidate_-_ ...
John Kerry on VoteMatch
Supports multilateral cooperative internationalism; Progressive Internationalism
http://issues2002.org/John_Kerry_VoteMatch.htm 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
