PNAC not working?... Bush screwed UP!

[Tellurian]

Second Statement on Post-War Iraq

We write in strong support of efforts by Prime Minister Tony Blair to "get America and Europe working again together as partners and not as rivals." While some seem determined to create an ever deeper divide between the United States and Europe, and others seem indifferent to the long-term survival of the transatlantic partnership, we believe it is essential, even in the midst of war, to begin building a new era of transatlantic cooperation.

The place to begin is post-war Iraq. There should be no question of our common determination to help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful, stable, united, prosperous, and democratic Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction. We must help build an Iraq that is governed by a pluralistic system representative of all Iraqis and fully committed to the rule of law, the rights of all its citizens, and the betterment of all its people. Such an Iraq will be a force for regional stability rather than conflict and participate in the democratic development of the region.

..we all know and agree Bush has alienated most of Europe with his unprecedented arrogance. Sure, he got rid of Saddam. But at what cost?
PNAC has been on the burner since at least 97'.... and the latest plan updates in these links end on Sept/02.

Whats happening now with PNAC?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/whatsnew.htm

[Frangible]

1. Aww, troubled times for the Fourth Reich

So sad! :(

/sarcasm

[Don_G]

2. You Mean The Memo

That calls for a decisive military blow to the armed insurgents before the Iraqi elected government can assume power next January?

Funny, I thought they were discussing the US.

Link: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040524.htm

[ClintonTyree]

3. Yeah.............

"We must help build an Iraq that is governed by a pluralistic system representative of all Iraqis and fully committed to the rule of law, the rights of all its citizens, and the betterment of all its people. Such an Iraq will be a force for regional stability rather than conflict and participate in the democratic development of the region".
As long as the new Iraqi "pluralistic system" is one that can be controlled by the PNACers everything will be fine. If the Iraqis decide that they want a secular form of government, we will keep bombing and shooting them until they get it right. I think that's the primary mission of PNAC.

[Tellurian]

4. PNAC has been the boogy man behind the scenes...

I suspect PNAC is having their own problems. The out of control Bush being the source of many of them..I suggest keeping a "pulse" on the success of PNAC.. and exploring their strengths and weaknesses.

Latest PNAC Report:

May 24, 2004

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: GARY SCHMITT

SUBJECT: Mixed Military Signals on Iraq

Over the weekend, U.S. forces made significant progress in eliminating the threat posed by Muqtada al-Sadr's militia in south-central Iraq. By most accounts, Sadr and his allies are on the run.

Yet while progress is being made on that front, senior American military officials continue to promote "the deal" cut with Baathists and Islamic insurgents in Fallujah as a model for handling security problems in the rest of Iraq. In testimony before Congress last Friday, U.S. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee argued that critics of the deal were all wet: "If that's a defeat, we need more defeats like that." According to the Financial Times account of his testimony (Peter Spiegel, "Military Probe into Deaths of Detainees," May 22), he then added that both Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, overall commander of American forces in Iraq, and Gen. James Mattis, the 1st Marine Division's commanding officer, were looking to "expand this particular concept." By Hagee's lights, the decision to turn over security in Fallujah to the so-called Fallujah Brigade has stabilized and pacified the area.

Stabilized, perhaps. Pacified, absolutely not. The reality is, whatever the short-term merits of striking a deal with the Baathists and insurgents in Fallujah, the city will remain a ticking time bomb that will plague Iraq as it attempts to move toward elections and constitutional government. Moreover, the Fallujah model sends a signal here and abroad that the U.S. is less interested in Iraq's political reconstruction than keeping a lid on things until it can hand these problems over to an inevitably weak Iraqi governing authority.

In contrast, I want to draw your attention to the following op-ed by Project chairman William Kristol and Lewis Lehrman that appeared in yesterday's "Outlook" section of the Washington Post ("Crush the Insurgents in Iraq: What George W. Bush Can Learn from Lincoln and Sherman"). They write: "Strategic success for the global war on terror depends on the decisive tactical victory over the armed insurgents of global terrorism in Iraq. Decisive military blows struck against violent opposition to the July passage of sovereignty and the January general election in Iraq would permit a supportable outcome in the polls in Iraq and the subsequent successful reconstruction of a democratic nation."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040524.htm

..Well, Gen.Sanchez just got kicked out today..And Bush is no where near a "quick study" to keep up with Lincoln and Sherman as Kristol and Lehrman suggest. I would think these two political scions ahould recognize that fact by now.

[calimary]

7. Highly intriguing note:

"...a supportable outcome in the polls in Iraq and the subsequent successful reconstruction of a democratic nation."

A supportable outcome in the polls in Iraq. Translation: the winner THEY want.

[Tellurian]

5. Is PNAC really such a Threat? Their Plans are going down in FLAMES..

"Lowering Our Sights"

Robert Kagan
Washington Post
May 2, 2004

"Calls for a withdrawal from Iraq are starting to pop up all over the place now and will proliferate in the coming days and weeks. I find even the administration's strongest supporters, including fervent advocates of the war a year ago and even some who could be labeled "neoconservatives," now despairing and looking for an exit.

They don't put quite that way, of course. Instead, they say that seeking democracy in Iraq is too ambitious; we need to lower our sights and settle for stability. But this is probably just a way station on the road to calling for withdrawal, for it ought to be clear that even establishing stability in Iraq will require a continued American military occupation and continued casualties for quite some time to come.

Faced with that reality, conservatives and even neoconservatives can be heard muttering these days that if the Iraqis won't take responsibility for their own country, we should leave them to their fate. That is what "lowering our sights" really means.

John Kerry and his advisers moved to this stance a couple of weeks ago when they declared that the goal of democracy was "too heroic" and the United States should limit itself to seeking "stability." Since then Kerry has held firm. It's not inconceivable, though, that he may gradually abandon this rhetoric and begin running openly as the candidate who will get the United States out of the Iraq quagmire, under the guise of handing it off to NATO or the United Nations. That could soon seem a better political strategy. Few Americans will believe that Kerry can really do a better job of fighting the war than President Bush. But he can plausibly present himself as the candidate most likely to get the United States out of Iraq, if a majority of Americans decide they want that.

So get ready for the coming national debate over withdrawal. The unthinkable is becoming thinkable. And it isn't hard to understand why."

...Is Kerry REALLY a proponent of PNAC? Doesn't appear so from what the insiders are discussing.

more at link:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040502.htm

[Tellurian]

6. kick~

[killbotfactory]

8. Golly, who would have thought ignoring thousands of years of history..

and common sense would backfire?

[rustydog]

9. The best layed plans of mice and men...