Author: Jim Lobe

The independent National Security Archive has just published recently declassified documents regarding the birth and evolution of the infamous Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) that was leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post in early 1992 and that later became the inspiration for the Project for the New American Century in 1997 and eventually codified in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America in September 2002 — the codification of the so-called “Bush Doctrine.” The document, which Sen. Joseph Biden, among others, denounced as a “Pax Americana” at the time, called, among other things, for a global strategy based on U.S. military pre-eminence, pre-emption of rogue states and possible rivals, and coalitions of the willing (which it called “ad hoc assemblies”). The 15 documents featured by the Archive was drafted between June 5, 1991 — just after the first Gulf War — and January 1993 when then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney released an official, if euphemistic, version of the controversial document. Most of the documents, however, are heavily redacted.

Among other things, the document illustrates the important role played by Scooter Libby, as well as Paul Wolfowitz (who is generally given credit or blame for the document) in coordinating the project, an additional piece of evidence that Libby, rather than Wolfowitz or Elliott Abrams, was probably the most important and influential neo-conservative in the current administration. It’s increasingly clear that Libby’s demise in October 2005 marked a heavy blow to neo-conservative hopes of retaining decisive influence in the administration. Unmentioned, however, is the informal role played by Albert Wohlstetter and Richard Perle, among others, in helping to shape the outcome through Abram Shulsky, Wolfowitz, Khalilzad, and Libby.

Not to toot my own horn too loudly, I think I was among the first — if not the first (according to Nexis) — to write about the relationship between the leaked DPG and the strategy pursued by the Bush administration after 9/11 — for IPS in ‘Pax Americana’ All Over Again, December 27, 2001; and for Alternet in Bush’s Foreign Policy Blueprint: A Grand Global Plan, March 26, 2002.

Unfortunately, I haven’t had the time to study the documents in any detail, but this primary source material will obviously be extremely important for those who wish to piece together the evolution of the Bush Doctrine and the antecedents of the radical trajectory on which U.S. foreign policy embarked after 9/11.

Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service’s Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.

For an update on the exodus of Democrats from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, see Wednesday’s article by Spencer Ackerman on the new Washington Independent website and a later piece by Isikoff and Hosenball at the Newsweek website. It seems that three other Democrats, including Rep. Eliot Engel and Sen. Chuck Schumer (whom I didn’t mention in Tuesday’s post), have resigned from the group, which last week hastily reorganized its corporate structure — and gave birth to a new organization, Defense of Democracies — to preserve its 501(c)3 status.

Of course, these Democrats are leaving primarily because FDD has become increasingly partisan in its attacks on specific Democratic lawmakers and leadership, not because of its steady drumbeat of Arabo- and Islamo-phobia that has dominated its work since its inception more than six years ago. I still wonder whether the remaining self-described Democrats, such as former Amb. Marc Ginsberg and, most particularly, James Woolsey and Sen. Lieberman (that will be an interesting test), will also desert the FDD. And what about the Democrats associated with the Committee on the Present Danger, an FDD “project?” They include former Reps. Dave McCurdy and Stephen Solarz, and former Amb. Peter Rosenblatt.

May denied to Newsweek that the funding for the controversial ads came from telecom companies, insisted they came from individual donors. I would imagine that the likely suspects include the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) donors to Freedom’s Watch, which has set a goal of raising and spending $250 million this year in support of its agenda. The current ad campaign in support of Bush’s version of the Protect America Act costs $2 million, according to Newsweek.

Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service’s Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.

It took more than six years, but at least one Democrat enlisted after 9/11 by the hard-line neo-conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) seems finally to have caught on to the fact that its agenda is something other than what its name suggests. In a statement released by her office Monday, Democratic consultant and frequent television political commentator Donna Brazile “strongly condemn[ed]” what she called a “misleading and reckless ad campaign” undertaken against 17 Democratic lawmakers by the FDD for their opposition to the Protect America Act and resigned from its Board of Advisers.

“The organization is using fear mongering for political purposes and worse, their scare tactics have the effect of emboldening terrorists and our enemies abroad by asserting our intelligence agencies are failing to do their job. I am deeply disappointed they would use my name since no one has consulted me about the activities of the group in years.”

Of course, fear-mongering is exactly FDD’s stock in trade, as it has been from the very beginning, something of which Brazile unfortunately appears to unaware, claiming, as she does, that, “due to the influence of their funders, in the last few years, FDD has morphed into a radical right wing organization that is doing the dirty work for the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans.” If she had been paying attention, she would have seen from the moment she signed on that FDD’s messages — particularly concerning virtually anything from the Arab or Islamic worlds — were designed to create fear, starting with the TV ad that ran in 2002 which clearly sought to confuse the viewer into believing that somehow Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden were all part of the same threat. Indeed, FDD, the best profile for which is found on Right Web, has acted primarily as a front for the Likudist founders of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), the same group that is also behind the Freedom’s Watch about which I have posted here and here. Cliff May, FDD’s president since its founding Sep 13, 2001, served previously as RJC’s vice chair.

Might Brazile’s resignation prompt other self-identified Democrats, such as certified Friend of Bill (FOB) former Amb. Marc Ginsberg or Amb. Max Kampelman or Rep. Eliot Engel, to reconsider their own association with FDD (which, incidentally, also sponsors the Committee on the Present Danger)? (I won’t even mention the possibility that “Distinguished Advisors” Sen. Joseph Lieberman or James Woolsey might want to disassociate themselves, let alone Zell Miller.) How about Republicans who might be somewhat less partisan or less Likudnik in their policy preferences, like Jack Kemp, one of the two surviving members of FDD’s board of directors? (The other two are Steve Forbes and the late Jeane Kirkpatrick.) Or former Secretary of State George Shultz, who co-chairs the CPD along with Woolsey)? The full roster of FDD’s many boards, staff members and associates — already heavily weighted to the extreme right — can be found here.

What I found particularly intriguing about Brazile’s statement — other than her naivete about what FDD has been all along — was her assertion that FDD “would use my name since no one has consulted me about the activities of the group in years.” One would think that an organization dedicated to “defending democracies” would try to keep its associates, let alone its leadership, informed of its activities. But apparently that has not been the case. Also intriguing is the fact that she blames the group’s evolution on its the “influence of (its) funders” whose identities, however, she fails to disclose. In the interests of transparency — which all can agree are essential for democracy — perhaps the group will see fit to identify them.

Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service’s Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.

Barack Obama reportedly said something very important and long overdue to a group of some 100 Cleveland Jewish leaders on Sunday — that being pro-Likud and being “pro-Israel” are two different things.

“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress.”

He said even more about the confined nature of the debate over Israel and its security in this country, according to the dispatch in the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA). Apparently in defense of his consultations with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has been harshly critical of neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration, Obama said:

“Frankly some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward.”

And he contrasted those constraints on the debate here with the breadth and vigor of the discussion of those same issues in Israel itself.

“There was a very honest, thoughtful debate taking place inside Israel. All of you, I’m sure, have experienced this when you travel there. Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the U.S. pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation. But all I’m saying though is that actually ultimately should be our goal, to have that same clear-eyed view about how we approach these issues.”

The staunchly pro-Likud New York Sun is carrying a partial transcript of the meeting it obtained from the Obama campaign.

Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service’s Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.

AEI’s Reuel Marc Gerecht now believes that Washington should offer to engage in unconditional, high-level talks and even normalize diplomatic relations with Iran…apparently in order to rally support for war.

In a New York Times op-ed misleadingly entitled “Attack Iran, With Words,” Gerecht, who is certain there’s no way that the mullahs will agree to such offer, argues that their predictable refusal will rally the public and perhaps even Washington’s European allies to support a pre-emptive attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

“If the mullahs don’t want to negotiate, fine: making the offer is something that must be checked off before the next president could unleash the Air Force and the Navy. To make the threat of force against clerical Iran again credible, there needs to be a consensus among far more Democrats and Republicans that a nuclear-armed Iran is intolerable. If the White House tried more energetically to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear threat, if it demonstrated that it had reached out to Iranian “pragmatists” and “moderates,” and that again no one responded, then the military option would likely become convincing to more Americans.

“…If the Bush administration were to use this sort of diplomatic jujitsu on the ruling clerics, it could convulse their world. No, this is absolutely no guarantee that Tehran will stop, or even suspend, uranium enrichment. But a new approach would certainly put the United States on offense and Iran on defense. We would, at least, have the unquestioned moral and political high ground. And from there, it would be a lot easier for the next administration, if it must, to stop militarily the mullahs’ quest for the bomb.”

It’s worth noting that Gerecht, like other neo-cons including several of his AEI colleagues, appears to have given up hope of an attack before the end of Bush’s term and now believes that it will up to his successor to decide what to do about Tehran’s nuclear program. His argument echoes that of the generally more pragmatic Robert Kagan who came out in favor of negotiations after the NIE’s release in early December in a Washington Post column entitled “Time to Talk to Iran.” Two differences: Kagan was less certain than Gerecht that Tehran wouldn’t take up a negotiations offer. He also did not stress the importance of offering high-level talks, although that the fact that he suggested putting all outstanding issues between the U.S. and Iran on the table implied it. The basic line was much the same. Here’s Kagan nearly three months ago:

“Beginning talks today does not limit American options in the future. If the Iranians stonewall or refuse to talk — a distinct possibility — they will establish a record of intransigence that can be used against them now and in the critical years to come. It’s possible the American offer itself could open fissures in Iran. In any case, it is hard to see what other policy options are available. This is the hand that has been dealt. The Bush administration needs to be smart and creative enough to play it well.”

It will be very interesting to see if Gerecht’s and Kagan’s advice, as cynical as it may be, is being considered by the hawks within the administration, and particularly in Cheney’s office.

Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service’s Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.

As Michael Lind pointed out in a brilliant essay published by The Nation almost exactly four years ago, Winston Churchill has been an icon of neo-conservatism for as long as it has existed. Thus, when the neo-conservatives had more confidence in George W. Bush — particularly on the eve of the Iraq invasion and immediately after — they had no hesitation in comparing him to their hero, particularly because they knew that that’s how Bush himself has conceived his own historical role vis-a-vis “Islamo-fascism” in it many forms and that flattery can be very helpful in influencing the president.

So, it’s no surprise that, in their rush to ingratiate themselves with John McCain — with whom, as I’ve noted in a recent post, they already have strong ties anyway — they are now comparing him to the Great Man. In an article entitled “The Model for McCain?” that appeared on the Weekly Standard’s website last week, Michael Makovsky, a Churchill biographer who previously worked in Douglas Feith’s intelligence manipulation office and is now — bizarrely enough — the foreign policy director of the “Bipartisan Policy Center” — points out the many fascinating similarities between Churchill and McCain, concluding that, while “McCain certainly has not reached Churchill’s heights, …he can legitimately claim to be the most Churchillian among the Republicans of his day.” The courtship is well underway.

Michael is the younger brother of David Makovsky, the director of the Washington Institute for Near Policy (WINEP). He also played a key role in re-”organizing” Iraq’s oil sector during the initial phases of the occupation.

Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service’s Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.