Hillary Clinton’s Project For A New American Century

by Dan Wright

Here we go again. Earlier this year, some were surprised to see Project For The New American Century (PNAC) co-founder and longtime DC fixture Robert Kagan endorse former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for president.
They shouldn’t have been. As is now clear from a policy paper [PDF] published last month, the neoconservatives are going all-in on Hillary Clinton being the best vessel for American power in the years ahead.
The paper, titled “Expanding American Power,” was published by the Center for a New American Security, a Democratic Party-friendly think tank co-founded and led by former Undersecretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy. Flournoy served in the Obama Administration under Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and is widely considered to be the frontrunner for the next secretary of defense, should Hillary Clinton become president.
The introduction to Expanding American Power is written by the aforementioned Robert Kagan and former Clinton Administration State Department official James Rubin. The paper itself was prepared in consultation with various defense and national security intellectuals over the course of six dinners. Among the officials includes those who signed on to PNAC letters calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, such as Elliot Abrams, Robert Zoellick, Craig Kennedy, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, and Flournoy herself, who signed on to a PNAC letter in 2005 calling for more ground troops in Iraq.
The substance of the document is about what one would expect from an iteration of PNAC. The paper cites a highly revisionist history of post-World War II American policymaking, complete with a celebration of America’s selfless motives for every action. Left out is any mention of overthrowing democratically elected and popular governments for US business, or the subsequent blowback for such actions in Latin America, the Middle East, and elsewhere.
For the neocons and liberal interventionists at the Center for a New American Security, the United States has always acted for the benefit of all.
The paper primarily focuses on the economy and defense budget, and American security interests in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Supporting the Trans-pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are considered the highest priority, as they will bind the main drivers of the US-led “liberal world order”—the US and Europe—closer together.
According to the paper, “Even in a world of shifting economic and political power, the transatlantic community remains both the foundation and the core of the liberal world order.” In other words, the West must maintain control of the planet, for the good of all, of course.
Part of the European concerns are a rise in nationalist sentiment in eastern Europe and the United Kingdom, for which the paper blames Russia, even bizarrely claiming that Russian funding is the cause of the disunity within the European Union—a claim without foundation, especially in the UK’s case.
The revisionist history continues, as the paper makes an astonishingly absurd claim on the US role in Asia, stating, “U.S. leadership has been indispensable in ensuring a stable balance of power in Asia the past 70 years.” No mention of the calamitous US war in Vietnam or its reciprocal effects in the killing fields of Cambodia. Nor is the US role in the genocide in East Timor dispensed with anywhere.
Then we come to the Middle East, where things really get slippery. The paper breezes past the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with a sorry, not sorry statement: “Despite recent American misjudgments and failures in the Middle East, for which all recent administrations, including the present one, bear some responsibility, and despite the apparent intractability of many of the problems in the region, the United States has no choice but to engage itself fully in a determined, multi-year effort to find an acceptable resolution to the many crises tearing the region apart.”
And with that, the paper demands regime change in Syria and that “Any such political solution must include the departure of Bashar al-Assad (but not necessarily all members of the ruling regime), since it is Assad’s brutal repression of Syria’s majority Sunni population that has created both the massive exodus and the increase in support for jihadist groups like ISIS.” Left out is the US role in destabilizing Iraq and arming jihadist rebels in Syria.
The paper goes on to regurgitate alarmingly facile claims about regional tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia that could have been written by the government of Saudi Arabia itself, such as, “We also reject Iran’s attempt to blame others for regional tensions it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia.” It also states that “the United States must adopt as a matter of policy the goal of defeating Iran’s determined effort to dominate the Greater Middle East.”
If that appears like a commitment to more reckless regime change in the Middle East, that’s because it is.
But the overriding concern of the entire paper, with all its declarations about bipartisanship and universal altruism, is a concern with the American people being increasingly apprehensive towards the empire, and that concern leading to further defense budget cuts and unwillingness to support adventurism abroad.
The authors of the paper hope an improved economy can help change the current situation. “Ensuring that the domestic economy is lifting up the average American is still the best way to ensure support for global engagement and also contribute to a stronger, more influential America,” they write, though they see no end in sight, regardless of public support, claiming, “the task of preserving a world order is both difficult and never-ending.”
That this is what a think tank closely associated with Hillary Clinton is openly claiming should be concerning to all. While such analysis and declarations no doubt please the Center for a New American Security’s defense contractor donors, the American people are less-than-enthused with perpetual war for perpetual peace.
Former Secretary Clinton already affirmed her belief in regime change during the campaign, but now it looks like those waiting in the wings to staff her government are anxious to wet their bayonets.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Sherilynn
Reader
Sherilynn

I am just a lowly American voter, but I represent millions of just everyday people. I am so sick and tired of Clinton and all these so called braniacs trying to destroy the United States. I hope that these people who are supporting this wicked evil lying murderous woman get theirs. Eventually if the people of The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA keep seeing this great country fall apart because of all the dirt in Washington and who they rub elbows with, there will be another war. It will be the people vs the government, and I fear the government won’t… Read more »

Alec
Reader
Alec

Yet again no one mentions the similarity in objectives between …. ‘a clean break strategy …’ policy paper presented to Netanyahu by Israeli Americans Feith Perle and the Wurmsers in 1996 and who, after 9/11, were “parachuted” into Bush govt. and produced PNAC which proposed, and has almost achieved, all the objectives of ‘clean break’ of destroying completely Iraq Syria Lebanon Iran but using US taxpayers money and body bags.

snipping tool
Reader

Clinton makes history, Trump gets more viewers. Both candidates are disgusting, but one is so boring that her own husband dozed off during her speech (youtube it). If nothing else, Trump is dynamic and interesting. That the DNC would frantically try to reinvent itself as patriotic was and is insulting because they aren’t sincere. Day one, they didn’t even have the flag featured on camera, it was shoved off to the far corners of the stage. They were hammered for it and by the last day, they were handing out flags for people to wave. That’s rudderless and reactive, it… Read more »

James Carless
Reader
James Carless

What better a way to take climate change off the agenda than escalating military conflict world wide to feed the insatiable MIC at the expense of dumbed down public.

Hwatha
Reader
Hwatha

Google “ARAB SPRING” from 2005- which is when the CIA ops vs Syria began. From College of St Andrews In the aftermath of the [Iraq War] term “ARAB SPRING” and “democracy revolution” was used by the US State Department to advertise US justification for the attack on Iraq when no WMDs were found. The first of such contrived “Democracy Dominoes” occurred in 2005 incited by Lebanonese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s assassination which was immediately blamed by the US and Israel on Syrian President Bashar Assad. The murder was an attempt to overthrow the Assad government in Damascus by putting Syria… Read more »

Eurasia News Online
Reader

Reblogged this on Eurasia News Online.

nexusxyz
Reader
nexusxyz

If that document is what passes as strategic thinking then the US is in a lot more trouble than we think. The whole thing is built on a house of cards economy. The document uses the term ‘competitive’ but nowhere does it define it in the context of the global world order or alternatively in an economic context. With a failing economy it will become more difficult to maintain public programs and project military power.

John
Reader
John

Of course the neo-traitors will back Clinton. Her husband already shafted the Palestinians on their behalf and she will meekly submit to the same agenda. There are also the oil deposits waiting to be exploited in the illegally occupied Golan Heights, which is why the current Assad regime is unacceptable to them. They want a quiescent bunch of quislings to deal with in Syria, not Assad. What is interesting about the comments on this web site is how many are from overseas observers. It seems intellectual objectivity and analysis are now so in decline in the US that it takes… Read more »

joekano76
Reader

Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.

Brian Harry, Australia
Reader
Brian Harry, Australia

If the American voters elect Hillary Clinton as their next President, She will hand what’s left of the USA(and there’s certainly not much dignity left) over to Israel. The American Congress and “those people” who keep showing up through the “Revolving Door” into positions of high power, need to be assessed, and if necessary, tried for Treason against the USA, for putting Israel first.
“I want to tell you something very clear; Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it”………Ariel Sharon……..October 3rd 2001.

Marc Krizack
Reader
Marc Krizack

This paper is essentially an updated version of the original PNAC report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” published in 2000. Then, the Neocons openly called for permanent war; now they have to say, “a determined multi-year effort.” The concern about the American public not supporting this policy is exactly what they said in 2000 when they proposed “boots on the ground” and a “global theater war” in Iraq, Syria, and Iran. Only that time they stated that it might take ten years to get the public to come around to their point of view “unless there were a Pearl Harbor type incident.”… Read more »

Jeffrey Golin
Reader

The first PNAC brought us 9/11 as we all now know 15 years later. What will be the new New Pearl Harbor this time? Maybe even worse than the sham attacks on Washington and New York in 9/11/01, maybe much worse. Now that people have wised up to what really happened and how we were tricked into the war with Iraq, what really happened to those buildings and demolitions, they need another 9/11 to stoke up the fear porn in the media trick us again to start a real war, WWIII with nukes this time, in Russia. October 2016 looks… Read more »

Stuart Hill
Reader

Amen. She is the warhawk in this election, despite what the media is telling us. William Kristol at the Weekly Standard and Fox News was bemoaning that she is blowing it (because he wants Hillary to win). That tells you what you need to know…

Jeffrey Golin
Reader

I hate having to vote for Trump. I really don’t want to. It’s going to require a lot fo sacrifices for me. But the lesser of two evils is backfiring on Hillary because when you consider whether we will have a country or homes or our lives if WWIII breaks out, she ends up being the worst of the two evils, with her warmongering and lack of judgment. She is so horrible. The DNC should have taken Sanders and they would easily have won. But, no, they wanted their war so badly they didn’t care about playing chicken with our… Read more »

sonya roussina
Reader
sonya roussina

Good comment. I would just like to add that TPP and TPIP are about corporate hegemony – the twin arm of “permanent war” and the ultimate goal of both – the rape and control of world resources.

failedevolution (@failedevolution)
Reader

Clinton vs Trump: back to zero options for the US voters … again
… and it’s going to be very ugly
http://bit.ly/1tohDMy

Schlüter
Reader

Hillary Clinton is the real danger not only for the US, but for the whole world. Clinton is the spearhead of the Neocons in the democratic party. She brought Victoria Nuland (quote: “fuck the EU”) into the Obama administration. Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan. Kagan is co-founder of the neoconservative “Project for the New American Century“. The neocons are more and more in control of the democratic party and of the US administration. If one wants to know what is in the Neocon „pipe“, one should read their think tank papers. In September 2000 the US Think Tank… Read more »