New American Century (political) Comments please.

[denisenh]

Want to know where we are headed thanks to the leaders in the Conservative party? Check it out:
http://www.newamericancentury.org

"Mission" Statement: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm


Who are the men behind it all? (From the bottom of the "mission" statement

Elliott AbramsGary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

(from forbes magazine "Steve Forbes says smart investors will turn oil gains into equity oppurtunity. ..." gee, what a surprise.)

Aaron FriedbergFrancis ***uyamaFrank GaffneyFred C. Ikle

Donald KaganZalmay KhalilzadI. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan QuaylePeter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald RumsfeldVin WeberGeorge WeigelPaul Wolfowitz

 

[iwantahemi]

Looks like a good direction to me!!

 

[denisenh]

iwantahemi, what is it that makes you feel that the plan laid out by "New American Century" is taking America in a good direction?

Edited to add: Is anyone else (besides Iwantahiknee) familiar with the New American Century organization? I am extremely interested in hearing from those who are.

 

[denisenh]

No one is familiar with this? That could be good, but it could be bad too.
Rebublicans, do you agree with the New American plan?

 

[Galahad]

The only way this is remotely disturbing to you is if you harbour a lot of conspiratorial thoughts. It seems rational, reasonable, and I do think I've heard of this before. It was a political "think-tank" organization like "Empower America" for out-of-power Republicans during the Clinton adminstration. Nothing more.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Just spent some time reading through the web site; quite interesting. Thanks for posting this link!

I agree with Galahad... the only reason someone might think this is "bad" is if it threatens their own geo-political beliefs. From their mission statement

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is 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.

Sounds good to me.

 

[lyeag]

NOthing upsetting there at all.

 

[denisenh]

I think what bothers me, for one thing, is that this plan seems to invite terrorism. It is obviously here for anyone from any country to read. There are several American leaders backing the plan up. There are no doubt may that would not want the plan to be a success.
It seems that so much of what the Bush administation does and this plan outlines is done under the assumption that the current or future "foe" is stupid and lacks any type of motivavtion.
There is not enough thought regarding "what ifs"....it is just plan crazy in my opinion.
What am I missing or not understanding?

 

[Bob Slydell]

I think what bothers me, for one thing, is that this plan seems to invite terrorism. It is obviously here for anyone from any country to read. There are several American leaders backing the plan up. There are no doubt may that would not want the plan to be a success.
It seems that so much of what the Bush administation does and this plan outlines is done under the assumption that the current or future "foe" is stupid and lacks any type of motivavtion.
There is not enough thought regarding "what ifs"....it is just plan crazy in my opinion.
What am I missing or not understanding?

This "plan" was created in 1997 and you're implying that current leaders are still following, let alone even remember, what's in this plan.

 

[denisenh]

This "plan" was created in 1997 and you're implying that current leaders are still following, let alone even remember, what's in this plan.

uh huh...good point.

 

[bsnyder]

I think what bothers me, for one thing, is that this plan seems to invite terrorism. It is obviously here for anyone from any country to read. There are several American leaders backing the plan up. There are no doubt may that would not want the plan to be a success.
It seems that so much of what the Bush administation does and this plan outlines is done under the assumption that the current or future "foe" is stupid and lacks any type of motivavtion.
There is not enough thought regarding "what ifs"....it is just plan crazy in my opinion.
What am I missing or not understanding?

I've heard many a conpiracy theory concerning "New American Century". All from liberals who have had a hard time adjusting to the reality of their party being out of power.

I AM curious, what exactly in the mission statement do you find objectionable? And why did you bold certain names in your first post?

 

[caitycaity]

The only way this is remotely disturbing to you is if you harbour a lot of conspiratorial thoughts. It seems rational, reasonable, and I do think I've heard of this before. It was a political "think-tank" organization like "Empower America" for out-of-power Republicans during the Clinton adminstration. Nothing more.

i don't particularly agree with some of their mission, but i think calling them dangerous is a stretch. francis ***uyama, donald kagan, and eliot cohen are well-respected scholars (probably others too, but those are the names i recognized).

 

[denisenh]

Well, lets see.

#1 I bolded names that most people would recognize as republican/ conservative leadership.

#2 I find the New America plan objectionable because it is a plan for America to become a world unipower.
It is at the least, stupid, and it appears to be evil as well.

America should be a world leader not a police of the world.