|
I have a Sept. 2000 pdf of The Project for The New American Century, on a "floppy" disc.
Page 50: "To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Dept. of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are beoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These informational technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having on the larger world. The effects of this military transmormation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, whch nations enjoy military preeminence. The United States enjoys evewry prospect of leading this transformation...."
Page 51 quote: "Further, 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. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions."
In a fit of rage last year, I typed out a few excerpts and emailed them to some congressmen and press:
Page iv: "Establish four core missions for U.S. military forces: - defend the American homeland; - fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars; perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions; - transform U.S. forces to exploit the 'revolution in militaryaffairs;"
"The Navy's surface fleet is too small to meet current requirements, war plans and future missile defense duties."
Page 2: "In broad terms, we saws the project as building upon the defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department in the waning days of the Bush administration. The Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992 provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. Leaked before it had been formally approved, the document was criticized as an
effort by 'cold warriors' to keep defense spending high and cuts in forces small despite the collapse of the Soviet Union; not surprisingly, it was subsequently buried by the new administration.'"
Page 10: "In sum, while retaining the spirit of past force-planning for major wars, the Department of Defense must undertake a more nuanced and thoroughgoing review of real requirements. The truths that gave rise to the original two-war standard endure: America's adversaries will continue to resist the building of the American peace; when they see an opportunity as Saddam Hussein did in 1990, they will employ their most powerful armed forces to win on the battlefield what they could not win in peaceful competition; and American armed forces will remain the core of efforts to
deter, defeat, or remove from power regional aggressors."
Page 11: "Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality; the preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf, or even when it deploys forces in Africa. Finally, these missions demand forces basically configured for combat ... American troops, in particular, must be regarded as part of an overwhelmingly powerful force."
Page 14: "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."
Page 54: "No system of missile defenses can be fully effective without placing sensors and weapons in space."
Page 56: "In the future, it will be necessary to unite the current SPACECOM vision for control of space to the institutional responsibilities and interests of a separate military service." "...the ability to preserve American military preeminence in the future will rest in increasing measure on the ability to operate in space militarily..."
Page 60: "Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems, combatants and noncombatants - will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(780 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
