Project for the New American Century

Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

Formation	1997 (1997)
Founder	William Kristol, Robert Kagan
Dissolved	2006
Type	Public policy think tank
Location	Washington, D.C.
Chairman	William Kristol
Directors	Robert Kagan Devon Gaffney Cross Bruce P. Jackson John R. Bolton

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. Often described as a neoconservative group, the PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership." The organization advocated the view that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."

Some of the individuals affiliated with PNAC, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, later occupied key positions in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, and multiple observers have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War. Academics such as Inderjeet Parmar, Phillip Hammond, and Donald E. Abelson, however, have state that PNAC's influence on the George W. Bush administration has been "greatly exaggerated."

The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006

Origins

The Project for the New American Century developed out of Kristol and Kagan's belief that Republican Party lacked a "compelling vision for American foreign policy" that would allow Republican leaders to effectively criticize President Bill Clinton's foreign policy record. Frustrated by what they viewed as poor performances by Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole in foreign policy debates during the 1996 Presidential Election, Kristol and Kagan asserted that the Republican Party should "stand for strong and assertive world leadership." They founded PNAC in order to advance this goal.

PNAC's first public act was to release a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997. The statement had 25 signatories, including both project members and outside supporters (see Signatories to Statement of Principles). The statement described the United States as the "world's pre-eminent power," and asserted that the nation faced a challenge to "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests." In order to achieve this goal, the statement's signatories called for significant increases in defense spending, and for the promotion of "political and economic freedom abroad." The statement asserted that the Unites States should strengthen ties with its democratic allies, "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values," and preserve and extend "an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." Calling for a "Reaganite" policy of "military strength and moral clarity," the statement concluded that PNAC's principles were necessary "if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."

Calls for regime change in Iraq

The PNAC advocated regime change in Iraq throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis. Following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, core members of the PNAC including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick, and John Bolton were among the signatories of an open letter to President Clinton calling for the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in January 1998. Portraying Hussein as a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, and emphasizing the potential danger of any Weapons of Mass Destruction under Iraq's control, the letter asserted that the United States could "no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections." Stating that American policy "cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council," the letter's signatories asserted that "the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf." Believing that UN sanctions against Iraq would be an ineffective means of disarming Iraq, PNAC members also wrote a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, urging Congress to act, and supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655).

In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective. The memo questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition, which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.

Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq", or regime change. The letter suggested that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," even if no evidence surfaced linking Iraq to the September 11 attacks. The letter warned that allowing Hussein to remain in power would be "an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism." From 2001 through the invasion of Iraq, the PNAC and many of its members voiced active support for military action against Iraq, and asserted leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."

Commentators from divergent parts of the political spectrum, including former Republican Congressmen Pete McCloskey and Paul Findley, have voiced their concerns about the influence of the PNAC on President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Some have regarded the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton urging "the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power," and the involvement of multiple PNAC members in the Bush Administration as evidence that the PNAC had a significant influence on the Bush Administration's decision to Invade Iraq, or even argued that the invasion was a foregone conclusion. Writing in Der Spiegel in 2003, for example, Jochen Bölsche specifically referred to PNAC when he claimed that "ultra-rightwing US think-tanks" had been "drawing up plans for an era of American global domination, for the emasculation of the UN, and an aggressive war against Iraq" in "broad daylight" since 1998. Similarly, BBC journalist Paul Reynolds portrayed PNAC's activities and views as key to understanding the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration after September 11, 2001, suggesting that Bush's "dominant" foreign policy was at least partly inspired by the PNAC's ideas..

Many political scientists, historians, and other academics have been critical of many of these claims. As Donald E. Abelson has written, for example, scholars studying "PNAC's ascendancy" in the political arena "cannot possibly overlook the fact" that several of the signatories to PNAC's Statement of Purposes "received high level positions in the Bush administration." He writes, however, that acknowledging these important connections "is a far cry from making the claim that the institute was the architect of Bush's foreign policy," and that "we should not assume that this or any other organization dictated his foreign policy."

Rebuilding America's Defenses

One of the PNAC's most influential publications was a 90-page report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century. The report's primary author was Thomas Donnelly, but it also credited Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt as project chairmen. Citing the PNAC's 1997 Statement of Principles, Rebuilding America's Defenses asserted that the United States should "seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership" by "maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." It suggested that the preceding decade had been a time of peace and stability, which had provided "the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth" and "the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy." The report warned, however, that "no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself.

According to the report, current levels of defense spending were insufficient, forcing policymakers to "to try ineffectually to “manage” increasingly large risks." The result, it suggested, was a form "paying for today's needs by shortchanging tomorrow's; withdrawing from constabulary missions to retain strength for large-scale wars; "choosing" between presence in Europe or presence in Asia; and so on." All of these, the report asserted, were "bad choices" and "false economies," which did little to promote long-term American interests. "The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements," the report argued, "will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity."

Rebuilding America's Defenses recommended establishing four core missions for US military forces: the defense of the "American homeland," the fighting and winning of "multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars," the performance of "'constabular' duties associated with shaping the security environment" in key regions, and the transformation of US forces "to exploit the 'revolution in military affairs.'" Its specific recommendations included the maintenance of US nuclear superiority, an increase of the active personnel strength of the military from 1.4 to 1.6 million people, the redeployment of US forces to Southeast Europe and Asia, and the "selective" modernization of US forces. The report also advocated the cancellation of "roadblock" programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter (which it argued would absorb "exorbitant" amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited gains), the development of "global missile defenses," and the control of "space and cyberspace," including the creation of a new military service with the mission of "space control." To help achieve these aims, Rebuilding America's Defenses advocated a a gradual increase in military and defense spending "to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.

Responses to Rebuilding America's Defenses

In the years after of the September 11 Attacks, and during political debates of the War in Iraq, a section of Rebuilding America's Defenses entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" became the subject of considerable controversy. The passage suggested that the transformation of American armed forces through "new technologies and operational concepts" was likely to be a long one, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." Some critics, including such as journalist Mark Danner,journalist John Pilgerand Bernard Weinerpointed to this passage in later years, when they argued that PNAC members had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans.

Some critics went further, asserting that Rebuilding America's Defenses should be viewed as a program for global American hegemony. Writing in Der Spiegel in 2003, Jochen Bölsche claimed that Rebuilding America's Defenses "had been developed by PNAC for Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby," and was "devoted to matters of 'maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.'" British MP Michael Meacher made similar allegations in 2003, stating that Rebuilding America's Defences was "a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana," which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration.

Academics such as Donald E. Abelson and Phillip Hammond have suggested that many of these criticisms were overblown, while noting that similar views of PNAC's origins, goals, and influence "continue to make their way into the academic literature on the neo-conservative network in the United States." Hammond, for example, notes that while Rebuilding America's Defenses "is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under cover of the war on terrorism," it was actually "unexceptional." According to Hammond, the report's recommendations were "exactly what one would generally expect neoconservatives to say, and it is no great revelation that they said it in publicly-available documents prior to September 2001." Similarly, Abelson has written that "evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward" as Meacher and others maintain," as "we know very little about the inner workings of this think tank and whether it has lived up to its billing as the architect of Bush's foreign policy".

Other Controversies

Excessive focus on military strategies, neglect of diplomatic strategies

The Strategic Studies Institute' s Jeffrey Record in his monograph Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, Gabriel Kolko, research professor emeritus at York University and author of Another Century of War? (The New Press, 2002), in his article published in CounterPunch, and William Rivers Pitt, in Truthout, respectively, argued that the PNAC's goals of military hegemony exaggerated what the military can accomplish, that they failed to recognize "the limits of US power", and that favoring pre-emptive exercise of military might over diplomatic strategies could have "adverse side effects." (Paul Reynolds and Max Boot have made similar observations.)

The Sydney Morning Herald published an English translation of an article published in German magazine Der Spiegel summarizing former President Jimmy Carter's position, in which Carter states he:

judges the PNAC agenda in the same way. At first, argues Carter, Bush responded to the challenge of September 11 in an effective and intelligent way, "but in the meantime a group of conservatives worked to get approval for their long held ambitions under the mantle of 'the war on terror'."

The restrictions on civil rights in the U.S. and at Guantanamo, cancellation of international accords, "contempt for the rest of the world", and finally an attack on Iraq "although there is no threat to the US from Baghdad" – all these things will have devastating consequences, according to Carter.

"This entire unilateralism", warns the ex-President, "will increasingly isolate the US from those nations that we need in order to do battle with terrorism".

Inexperience in realities of war

Former U.S. congressman Lionel Van Deerlin and UK Labour MP Tam Dalyell criticized PNAC members for promoting policies that support an idealized version of war, even though only a handful of PNAC members have served in the military.

As quoted in Reynolds' BBC News report, David Rothkopf stated:

Their [The Project for the New American Century's] signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened. The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a region that has been less than susceptible to democracy. Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception and horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own ideas and the incompetence of the Bush administration.

In discussing the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000), Neil MacKay, investigations editor for the Scottish Sunday Herald, quoted Tam Dalyell: "'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. These are the thought processes of fanaticist Americans who want to control the world.'"

Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"

Future biological weapons that can "target" specific genotypes

Main article: Ethnic bioweapon

Critics of the Project for the New American Century, including Austin American-Statesmen book reviewer Kip Keller, highlighted the following quote from PNAC's report "Rebuilding America's Defenses":

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.

In a review of a book on the history of eugenics in the United States, Keller cited the quote as an example of modern-day thinking that continues the tradition of eugenics, saying that the quote proposed "a sort of 'gene bomb'" and accusing the authors of supporting "the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group -- i.e., genocide, the ultimate eugenic practice". The Project for a New American Century responded with a letter to the editor calling Keller's accusations "disgusting and utterly false" and stating that the quotation was intended to describe "threats the U. S. military may confront in the future" rather than weapons that the organization advocated developing.

End of the organization

By the end of 2006, PNAC was "reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website [with a] a single employee … left to wrap things up", according to the BBC News. According to Tom Barry, "The glory days of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) quickly passed." In 2006 former executive director of the PNAC Gary Schmitt stated that PNAC never been intended to "go on forever," and had "already done it's job," suggesting that "our view has been adopted."

People associated with the PNAC

Project directors

[as listed on the PNAC website:]

• William Kristol, Co-founder and Chairman
• Robert Kagan, Co-founder
• Bruce P. Jackson

• Mark Gerson
• Randy Scheunemann

Project staff

• Ellen Bork, Deputy Director
• Gary Schmitt, Senior Fellow
• Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow
• Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow

• Mitch Jackson, Senior Fellow
• Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director
• Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate

Former directors and staff

• Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director

Signatories to Statement of Principles

• Elliott Abrams
• Gary Bauer
• William J. Bennett
• John Ellis "Jeb" Bush
• Dick Cheney
• Eliot A. Cohen
• Midge Decter
• Paula Dobriansky
• Steve Forbes
• Aaron Friedberg
• Francis Fukuyama
• Frank Gaffney
• Fred C. Ikle

• Donald Kagan
• Zalmay Khalilzad
• I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
• Norman Podhoretz
• J. Danforth Quayle
• Peter W. Rodman
• Stephen P. Rosen
• Henry S. Rowen
• Donald Rumsfeld
• Vin Weber
• George Weigel
• Paul Wolfowitz

Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports

The listed individuals contributed in some way to the project, but the report does not necessarily reflect their views.

• Elliott Abrams
• Kenneth Adelman
• Richard V. Allen
• Richard L. Armitage
• Gary Bauer
• Jeffrey Bell
• William J. Bennett
• Jeffrey Bergner
• John Bolton
• Ellen Bork
• Rudy Boschwitz
• Linda Chavez
• Eliot Cohen
• Seth Cropsey
• Midge Decter
• Paula Dobriansky
• Thomas Donnelly
• Nicholas Eberstadt,
• Hillel Fradkin
• Aaron Friedberg
• Francis Fukuyama
• Frank Gaffney
• Jeffrey Gedmin
• Reuel Marc Gerecht
• Charles Hill
• Bruce P. Jackson
• Eli S. Jacobs
• Michael Joyce
• Donald Kagan
• Robert Kagan
• Stephen Kantany
• Zalmay Khalilzad

• Jeane Kirkpatrick
• Charles Krauthammer
• William Kristol
• John Lehman
• I. Lewis Libby
• Tod Lindberg
• Rich Lowry
• Clifford May
• John McCain
• Joshua Muravchik
• Michael E. O'Hanlon
• Martin Peretz
• Richard Perle
• Daniel Pipes
• Norman Podhoretz
• Peter W. Rodman
• Stephen P. Rosen
• Donald Rumsfeld
• Randy Scheunemann
• Gary Schmitt
• William Schneider, Jr.
• Richard H. Shultz
• Henry Sokolski
• Stephen J. Solarz
• Vin Weber
• Leon Wieseltier
• Marshall Wittmann
• Paul Wolfowitz
• R. James Woolsey
• Dov Zakheim
• Robert B. Zoellick

See also

• Center for a New American Security
• American Century
• A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
• Imperialism
• Committee for the Liberation of Iraq
• Office of Special Plans
• Foreign Policy Initiative

External links

• Project for the New American Century, archived copy from October 22, 2013
• Project for the New American Century, archived copy from June 9, 2013 (with working links)
• Project For The Old American Century — critical website