Antiwar.com Blog

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.

Mother Night

We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be.

~ Kurt Vonnegut

 

 

“The Nukes of October“:

Codenamed Giant Lance, Nixon’s plan was the culmination of a strategy of premeditated madness he had developed with national security adviser Henry Kissinger.

Now, thanks to documents released through the Freedom of Information Act, it’s clear that Giant Lance was the leading example of what historians came to call the “madman theory”: Nixon’s notion that faked, finger-on-the-button rage could bring the Soviets to heel.

Nixon’s madman pose and Giant Lance were based on game theory, a branch of mathematics that uses simple calculations and rigorous logic to help understand how people make choices — like whether to surge ahead in traffic or whether to respond to a military provocation with a strike of one’s own.

The madman theory was an extension of that doctrine.
The sudden conclusion reinforced the madman pose.

Denying that there was ever a madman theory in operation, he emphasized that Giant Lance was designed to be a warning, not a provocation to war.

Jim Lobe notes that former Amb. Marc Ginsberg now appears to have resigned from the FDD board of advisers, and expands on his previous posts about the Foundation for Defense of Democracy’s defections:

As Donna Brazile blamed the “influence of their funders” on FDD’s increasingly “radical right-wing” orientation, it might be helpful to list those individuals and institutions that, according to publicly available tax records, have contributed $100,000 or more — sometimes much more — to the group from 2002 through 2005.

Check out the list over at LobeLog.com.

I notice that many of the obituaries of Buckley make a positive mention of his manners and civility. That was often accurate. But one way to judge someone’s real civility is to see how he reacts when he’s losing a debate. Yesterday, I rewatched all of the YouTube videos from when he had Noam Chomsky on in the late 1960s and they discussed, among other things, the Vietnam War. Buckley was often good when he knew more than the person he interviewed, which was often. But Chomsky had a calm command of the facts and Buckley got rattled a lot. One way to respond when you get called out is to admit the point. That was not Buckley’s way. Instead he got belligerent, interrupting Chomsky every time Chomsky tried to respond to the latest Buckley thrust. I challenge anyone to watch those videos and come out thinking well of Buckley’s civility.

I write this as someone who liked Buckley somewhat and was even, for 6 months, the economics editor of National Review who wrote 2 unsigned short editorials every issue (in 1986 and early 1987). And I’m not making a total statement of support for everything Noam Chomsky has written or said. But I do think that the scales must be balanced.

Polls released yesterday and today show that Antiwar congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are well ahead in their reelection campaigns. Both polls were conducted by Public Policy Polling.

Ron Paul leads his only GOP opponent, Chris Peden, 63-30%. He has no Democratic Party opponent.

Dennis Kucinich leads his Democratic opponents with 55%, over 29% for Joe Cimperman. Three other candidates register 5% or lower.