By Elliot Cohen
John McCain has long been a major player
in a radical militaristic group driven by an ideology of global expansionism
and dominance attained through perpetual, pre-emptive, unilateral, multiple
wars. The credo of this group is “the end justifies the means,”
and the end of establishing the United States as the world’s sole
superpower justifies, in its estimation, anything from military control
over the information on the Internet to the use of genocidal biological
weapons. Over its two terms, the George W. Bush administration has planted
the seeds for this geopolitical master plan, and now appears to be counting
on the McCain administration, if one comes to power, to nurture it.
The Road Map to War
The blueprint for this “new order”
was drafted in February 1992, at the end of the George H.W. Bush administration
when Defense Department staffers Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis Libby and
Zalmay Khalilzad, acting under then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney,
drafted the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG). This document, also known
as the “Wolfowitz Doctrine,” was an unofficial, internal document
that advocated massive increases in defense spending for purposes of
strategic proliferation and buildup of the military in order to establish
the pre-eminence of the United States as the world’s sole superpower.
Advocating pre-emptive attacks with nuclear, chemical or biological
weapons, it proclaimed that “the U.S. must show the leadership necessary
to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing
potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or
pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.”
The document was also quite clear about what should be the United States’
main objective in the Middle East, especially with regard to Iraq and
Iran, which was to “remain the predominant outside power in the region
and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.” The Wolfowitz
Doctrine was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post, which
published excerpts from it. Amid a public outcry, President George H.W.
Bush retracted the document, and it was substantially revised.
The original mission of the Wolfowitz
Doctrine was not lost, however. In 1997, William Kristol and Robert
Kagan founded The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a nongovernment
political action organization that sought to develop and advocate for
the militant, geopolitical tenets contained in the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
PNAC’s original members included Wolfowitz, Cheney, Khalilzad, Libby,
John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, William J. Bennett, and
other soon-to-be high officers in the Bush administration.
McCain’s Ties to PNAC
John McCain’s connection to PNAC can
be traced back to before its formation in 1997. In fact, he was president
of the New Citizenship Project, founded by Kristol in 1994. This organization
was parent to PNAC, and served as its chief fundraising organ.
McCain also worked cooperatively with
PNAC and Wolfowitz in attempting to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime
in Iraq. In 1998, he co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act-drafted
by PNAC-which decreed “regime change” in Iraq to be U.S. policy,
and which appropriated $97 million in U.S. military aid to the Iraqi
National Congress (INC). The INC was a group of anti-Hussein Iraqi militants
whose purpose was to instigate a national uprising against Hussein.
It was led by Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi informant whose subsequent faulty
intelligence-claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and
ties to al-Qaida-was used to sell the Iraq war to the American public.
In 2004, in response to accusations that he deliberately misled U.S.
intelligence agencies, Chalabi glibly stated, “We are heroes in error.”
McCain also was co-chair (with Sen. Joseph
Lieberman) of The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI). Established
by PNAC in late 2002, this committee continued to finance Chalabi’s
INC with millions of taxpayer dollars, until shortly after the U.S.
invasion of Iraq in 2003, when it was discontinued. In 2004, McCain
became a signatory of PNAC, ironically signing on to a PNAC letter condemning
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy for its return to
the “rhetoric of militarism and empire.”
McCain has accordingly been a foot soldier for PNAC from its inception,
and, although this organization is no longer in existence, its ideology
and its signatories (many of whom now serve as advisers to the McCain
presidential campaign) are still very much active.
The Master Plan
In September 2000, prior to the presidential election that year, PNAC
carefully formulated its chief tenets in a document called Rebuilding
America’s Defenses (RAD). This document, which was intended to guide
the incoming administration, had a substantial influence on the policies
set by the Bush administration and is likely to do the same for a McCain
administration if McCain becomes president. Here are some of the recommendations
of the RAD report:
Fighting and winning multiple, simultaneous
major wars
Among its core missions was the rebuilding
of America’s defenses sufficient to “fight and decisively win multiple,
simultaneous major theater wars.” And it explicitly advocated sending
troops into Iraq regardless of whether Saddam Hussein was in power.
According to RAD, “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.”
The RAD report also admonished, “Iran
may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq
has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based
forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security
strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.”
Therefore, it had both Iraq and Iran in its sight as zones of multiple,
simultaneous major wars for purposes of advancing “longstanding American
interests in the region”-in particular, its oil.
McCain’s recent chanting of “bomb,
bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran” to the beat of an old Beach Boys tune,
his suggestion that the war with Iraq might last 100 years and his recent
statement that the war in Afghanistan might also last 100 years-all
of these pronouncements are clearly in concert with the PNAC mission
to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater
wars.”
RAD also stressed the need to have additional
forces equipped to handle ongoing “constabulary” duties such as
enforcement of no-fly zones and other operations that fell short of
full theater wars. It claimed that unless the military was so equipped,
its ability to fight and win multiple, simultaneous wars would be impaired.
Along these same lines, McCain has recently stated, “‘It’s time
to end the disingenuous practice of stating that we have a two-war strategy
when we are paying for only a one-war military. Either we must change
our strategy-and accept the risks-or we must properly fund and structure
our military.”
Designing and deploying global missile
defense systems
RAD also emphasized, as an additional
core value, the need to “transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution
in military affairs.’ ” This included the design and deployment of
a global ballistic missile defense system consisting of land-, sea-,
air- and space-based components said to be capable of shielding the
U.S. and its allies from “limited strikes” in the future by “rogue”
nations such as Iraq, North Korea and Iran.
Along these lines, McCain has maintained
that a ballistic missile defense system was “indispensable”-even
if this meant reneging on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972
at the expense of angering the Russians. Unfortunately, while RAD acknowledged
the “limited” efficacy of such a weapons system (presumably because
it cannot realistically provide a bulletproof shield, especially against
large-scale missile attacks), neither it nor McCain addressed the problem
that deployment of such a system could be destabilizing: It could encourage
escalation, instead of de-escalation, of ballistic missile arsenals
by nations that fear becoming sitting ducks, and might even provoke
a pre-emptive strike. Further, there is still the question of whether
the creation of such costly, national defense shields is even technologically
feasible.
The use of genocidal biological warfare
for political expediency
Not only did RAD advocate the design
and deployment of defensive weaponry, it also stressed the updating
of conventional offensive weapons including cruise missiles along with
stealthy strike aircraft and longer-range Air Force strike aircraft.
But it went further in its offensive posture by envisioning and supporting
the use of genotype-specific biological warfare. According to RAD, “”
advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target’ specific
genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror
to a politically useful tool.” In this chilling statement, a double
standard is evident. In the hands of al-Qaida, such genocidal weapons
would belong to “the realm of terror,” but in those of the U.S.,
they would be “politically useful tools.”
Rejection of the United Nations
PNAC’s double standard is also inherent
in its rejection of the idea of a cooperative, neutral effort among
the nations of the world to address world problems, including the problem
of Iraq. “Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality,”
states the RAD report. “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.” Accordingly, a McCain administration
founded on a PNAC platform of self-interested exercise of force would
oppose giving the United Nations any central role in setting and implementing
foreign affairs policy.
Control of space and cyberspace
PNAC’s quest for global domination
transcends any literal meaning of the geopolitical, and extends
also to the control, rather than the sharing, of outer space. It also
has serious implications for cyber freedom. Thus the RAD report states,
“Much as control of the high seas-and the protection of international
commerce-defined global powers in the past, so will control of the
new “international commons’ be a key to world power in the future.
An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies
in space or the “infosphere’ will find it difficult to exert global
political leadership. … Access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet
are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation
wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new
“global commons.’ ”
There is a difference between protecting
the Internet from a cyber attack and controlling it. The former is defensive
while the latter is offensive. But RAD also advocated going on the offensive.
It stated that “an offensive capability could offer America’s military
and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in
a decisive manner.”
However, state control of cyberspace
for political purposes can have serious implications for the Fourth
Amendment right to privacy. The Bush administration has already engaged
in mass illegal spying on the phone and e-mail messages of millions
of Americans through its National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance
program. As a result of copying these messages and depositing them into
an NSA computer database, it began to assemble a massive “Total Information
Awareness” computer network. The FBI has also begun to develop and
integrate such personal data with a biometric database that includes
digital iris prints and facial images. Combine this with other computerized
databases including credit card information, banking records and health
files, and the result is an incredible ability to exercise power and
control over anyone deemed by a political leader to be an “adversary”-including
journalists, political opponents and others who might not see eye to
eye with the administration.
In concert with the PNAC mission of control
over cyberspace, McCain has supported making warrantless spying on American
citizens legal. When asked if he believed that Bush’s warrantless
surveillance program was legal, McCain responded, “You know, I don’t
think so, but why not come to Congress? We can sort this out. … I
think they will get that authority, whatever is reasonable and needed,
and increased abilities to monitor communications are clearly in order.”
Consistent with his conviction that such
extended powers should be granted to the president, McCain has also
recently voted for Senate Bill S.2248, which vacates substantial civil
liberties protections included in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA). In contrast to the 1978 FISA, S.2248 would allow the president,
acting through the attorney general, to spy on the phone and e-mail
communications of Americans without individual court warrants or the
need to judicially show probable cause.
Despite the fact that McCain has said
that Bush’s NSA spying program was not legal, he has also supported
granting retroactive legal immunity to the telecommunication companies
(such as AT&T and Verizon) that helped Bush illegally spy on millions
of Americans. This means that he has openly admitted that the Bush administration
acted unlawfully in eavesdropping on Americans’ phone and e-mail messages,
while at the same time opted for taking away their legal right to redress
this violation. And this unequivocally means that McCain is prepared
to allow executive authority to trump the rule of law.
Meet the McCain Team
Given John McCain’s firm allegiance
to the core missions of PNAC, it should come as no surprise that many
of the old PNAC guard have shown up as foreign policy advisers in McCain’s
current presidential campaign, and are likely re-emerge as high officials
in his administration if he becomes president. Here are snapshots of
some of these potential members of a McCain Cabinet, giving their PNAC
profiles, their advisory capacities in the McCain 2008 presidential
campaign, and their politics.
William Kristol
Editor and founder of Washington-based political magazine, Weekly Standard.
PNAC co-founder.
Foreign policy adviser.
Has consistently been wrong in his foreign policy analyses regarding
Iraq. For example, on March 5, 2003, he stated, “I think we’ll be
vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when
we liberate the people of Iraq.”
Robert Kagan
Served in State Department in Reagan administration on Policy Planning
Staff.
PNAC co-founder.
Foreign policy adviser.
Has defended global expansionism by claiming it is an American tradition:
“Americans’ belief in the possibility of global transformation-the
“messianic’ impulse-is and always has been the more dominant strain
in the nation’s character.”
Randy Scheunemann
Former adviser to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Co-director and executive director of Committee for Liberation of Iraq.
Defense and foreign policy coordinator.
With regard to recent National Intelligence Estimate finding that Iran
discontinued its nuclear weapons program in 2003, stated “a careful
reading of the NIE indicates that it is misleading.” And he claimed
that the NIE harmed our efforts to achieve a “greater diplomatic consensus”
to crack down on Iran.
James Woolsey
Director of CIA, Clinton administration, 1993-1995. (Reported to have
met only twice with Clinton during time as CIA chief.)
PNAC signatory.
Energy and national security adviser.
Speaking to a group of college students in 2003 about Iraq, he stated
that “” the United States is engaged in World War IV.” Described
the Cold War as the third world war. Then said, “This fourth world
war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I
or II did for us. Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold
War.”
John R. Bolton
Former U.S. ambassador to U.N. (Nomination to U.N. rejected by Senate,
but George W. Bush put him in place on a recess appointment. Name floated
for possible secretary of state for McCain.
PNAC director.
Ardent supporter of McCain for president in 2009.
Publicly derided the United Nations: In 1994, he stated “there is
no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally
can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that’s the
United States, when it suits our interest, and when we can get others
to go along.” Advocates attacking Iran.
Robert B. Zollick
President, World Bank.
PNAC signatory.
Announced in 2006 he would be joining McCain presidential campaign for
domestic and foreign policy but instead replaced Wolfowitz as president
of World Bank in 2007.
Has touted virtues of corporate globalization under the rubric of “comprehensive
free trade.” But as Kevin Watkins, head researcher for Oxfan, stated,
he pays no heed to the effects of the “blind pursuit of US economic
and corporate special interests” on the world’s poor.
Gary Schmitt
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (home to other
PNAC members including Wolfowitz and Pearle.)
PNAC director.
Foreign policy adviser.
Defended warrantless eavesdropping on Americans by claiming that Constitution
“created a unitary chief executive. That chief executive could, in
times of war or emergency, act with the decisiveness, dispatch and,
yes, secrecy, needed to protect the country and its citizens.”
Richard L. Armitage
Former deputy secretary of state in George W. Bush administration.
PNAC signatory.
Foreign policy adviser.
By his own admission, was responsible for leaking CIA agent Valerie
Plame’s CIA identity to the press. Allegedly involved in Iran-Contra
affair during Reagan administration.
Max Boot
Council on Foreign Relations.
PNAC signatory.
Foreign policy adviser.
Stating that U.S. should “unambiguously … embrace its imperial role,”
has advocated attacking other Middle East countries in addition to Iraq
and Iran, including Syria. Said McCain’s “bellicose aura” could
“scare the snot out of our enemies,” who “would be more afraid
to mess with him” than with other then-potential presidential candidates.
Henry A. Kissinger
President Nixon’s secretary of state.
Embraces expansionist power politics.
Consultant.
Played major role in secret bombings of Cambodia during Nixon administration
as well as having had alleged involvement in covert assassination plots
and human rights violations in Latin America.
What’s in Store for Us if McCain
Becomes President
That McCain has surrounded himself with
such like-minded advisers who support the narrow PNAC agenda speaks
to his unwillingness to hear and consider alternative perspectives.
In fact, six out of 10 civilian foreign advisers to McCain are PNAC
veterans. Even the newly appointed deputy communications director of
the McCain campaign, Michael Goldfard, has been a research associate
for PNAC. A die-hard adherent of the “unitary authority” of the
chief executive, he recently stated that the framers of the United States
Constitution advocated an “executive with near dictatorial power in
pursuing foreign policy and war.”
Add to this list other major PNAC figures
such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Dick Cheney
who would probably play a significant role in a McCain administration
and it is clear in what direction this nation would be moving.
A McCain administration would be likely to:
- Invest incredible amounts
of money in sustaining multiple, simultaneous wars overseas at the expense
of neglecting pressing concerns at home, including the economy, health
care, the environment and education. - Stockpile nuclear weapons,
while seeking to prohibit its adversaries from having them. - Attempt to shield the U.S.
with a multilayered missile defense system based on land, at sea, in
the air and in space, while demanding that nations that are not its
allies become sitting ducks. - Strive to develop more potent
chemical and biological weapons-not to mention the genotype-specific
variety, while at the same time claiming to be fighting a “war on
terror.” - Legalize “Total Information
Awareness”-going through all Americans’ phone calls, e-mail messages
and other personal records without needing probable cause. - Take control of the Internet,
globally using it as an offensive political weapon-while claiming
to be spreading democracy throughout the world. - Dispense with checks and balances
in favor of the “unitary executive authority” of the president. - Alienate nations that refuse
to join our war coalitions. - Deny that there is (or can
be) a United Nations.
A McCain administration would rule by fear, perceive right in terms
of military might and subscribe to the idea of “do as I say and not
as I do.” As a consequence, instead of rebuilding the image of America
as a model of justice and civility, it would further sully respect for
this nation throughout the world.
Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D., is a political
analyst and media critic. His most recent book is
“The Last Days of Democracy: How Big Media and Power-Hungry Government
Are Turning America Into a Dictatorship.” He was first-prize winner
of the 2007 Project Censored Award.
This article was originally published
on Truthdig (www.truthdig.com)