The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) describes itself on it’s website as “a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions”, and “American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.” This description is interesting and somewhat misleading for a few reasons. If it’s non-profit how does it get it’s funding, what does American leadership mean, and what moral principles is it committed to?

The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (both chaired by William Kristol) and as such is largely funded through it. Direct funding for PNAC comes from, but isn’t limited to, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation ($700,000), the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation ($50,000), and the John M. Olin Foundation ($70,000).

Unsurprisingly these three exceedingly conservative foundations have strong ties to weapons manufacturing. The reason this is expected lies in PNAC’s statement of principles. It claims “we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities”. It is also worth mentioning that “military strength” is it’s first requirement in their aim towards “American global leadership”.

This brings us to PNAC’s argument for global leadership. In the context of it’s publishing it is clear what this phrase means. Through language such as “the preservation of a decent world order”, and “shape[ing] a new century favorable to American principles and interests” as well as tying “increase defense spending” to “our global responsibilities” PNAC’s intentions become clear. To influence and shape the World through their vision via military power.

As for PNAC’s idea of morals it is hard to say. Morality is highly subjective and therefore arguable. That said, it is hard to believe that the general morals of the American public could be aligned with the idea of global dominance through military might.

Why is PNAC Significant

PNAC is significant because of it’s ties to the current administration. Those who signed PNAC’s statement of principles (ie. its backers) create a concrete link between it and the current administration. These signatories include Vice President Dick Cheney and his Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, Special Assistants to the President Elliott Abrams and Zalmay Khalilzad , Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula J. Dobriansky, Jeb Bush, and so on.

This link isn’t the only evidence of PNAC’s influence in our Government. A close look at the parallels in policy and ideology between it and the Bush administration concerning the Middle East are quite alarming. PNAC’s belief to “challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values” and “shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire” seem more like a blueprint for the Bush administration than a little known think tank. A deeper look into the Project uncovers the true rational of many in the current administration for an Iraqi invasion. The project states that the US “has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security.” They go on to say “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.”. Therefore the quickest way to justify a much needed larger military force in the middle east is the “unresolved conflict” with Iraq. Most troubling is the apparent need for justification.

Through ties between PNAC and the Bush administration the principles are evident: to “shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests”. Because after all, as PNAC explains, “American leadership is good both for America and for the world” albeit through “military strength”.

PNAC Chicken Hawks Gain Power

The connection between PNAC and the Bush Administration becomes even more closely entwined through the actions of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Both signed a PNAC letter to President Clinton in 1998 specifically asking for “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power”. The letter goes on to say “If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country.”

True to PNAC when Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense he started immediately creating a new “war plan” for Iraq with the help of Gen. Tommy Franks. This war plan, much denied throughout it’s conception, was to use far less troops than existing Pentagon plans. This being the initial step towards the transformation of the military that PNAC, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and co. had vied for. The only problem was that true military transformation would cost an obscene amount of money. This the public wasn’t prepared for.

In 2000 a PNAC report claimed “Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”. Fortunately for them many architects and supporters of PNAC were in place for just such a “catastrophic and catalyzing event” during Sept. 11, 2001. As predicted this event lead to exorbant amounts of funding into the military as well as justification for a larger military force in the Middle East.

Why isn’t PNAC’s Connections to the Current Administration more Widely Known

The reason PNAC and it’s real influences are widely unknown involves disturbing answers. To a great extent mainstream media, especially 24 hour news channels, seem perfectly happy regurgitating stories involving runaway brides, Michael Jackson, his sister‘s breast, and America’s greatness (or anything else that can be labeled scandalous or patriotic) over and over again. These stories are peppered with brief mentions of important issues that actually effect our lives. And why not, it’s much cheaper.

Sadly much of what is pontificated as “news” by mainstream media is merely a distraction from important issues. This helps create a dumbed down public that loses interest if news doesn’t involve some kind of gossip and ostentatious images. People are told that a runaway bride is important news therefore we except it as such. We can then debate this important issue like one would debate one football team against another. People become happy to simply be told everything is fine while only fleeting shouts of dissent are made and forgotten almost instantly. The Government merely says go back to sleep and we‘ll take care of everything. And if you wake up, go shopping.

This, inevitably, will only lead to a rude awakening in the near future. If in 1997 a militaristic blueprint for an imperialistic leaning American foreign policy is published on the web in the wide open. Than in 2000 many of the architects and supporters of this blueprint get appointed to high offices in our Government and start acting on this blueprint. We can only blame ourselves for any negative consequences that arise from it. If we don’t wake up soon and see what’s really going on behind the distractions of mainstream media and two party politics it will be too late.