What's so bad about PNAC?

[Marek]

I asked this question in another thread because someone was raving about it, but it hasn't been answered. I am fairly familiar with the organization, so I don't need an explination on it. I just want to know what's so terrible about it. Here's the website for those that are not familiar with the organization: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

 

[nvxplorer]

PNAC promotes American hegemony through imperialist actions. It welcomes an attack on the US to sway public opinion in supporting its agenda. I believe PNAC has advocated lying to the American public if it sees this as necessary in acheiving its goals.

Simply put, the PNAC agenda stinks of fascism.

 

[JustOneWay]

I asked this question in another thread because someone was raving about it, but it hasn't been answered. I am fairly familiar with the organization, so I don't need an explination on it. I just want to know what's so terrible about it. Here's the website for those that are not familiar with the organization: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Since you are familiar with PNAC, and you ask a question concerning what is bad with it, I assume you are for PNAC? Is this the case?

 

[Marek]

Since you are familiar with PNAC, and you ask a question concerning what is bad with it, I assume you are for PNAC? Is this the case?

I am neutral towards it. I think they have some good ideas and some questionable ideas. I can see why some would oppose it, but I don't understand why some go to the lengths of treating their ideas as 'evil'.

 

[JustOneWay]

I am neutral towards it. I think they have some good ideas and some questionable ideas. I can see why some would oppose it, but I don't understand why some go to the lengths of treating their ideas as 'evil'.

Thanks for the response.
I know little about them, but that little I do know about scares me. Most of their major players have prominant roles in our government. So if there is any plan for America's future, their's seems to be it. I will have to read more before I jump on my high horse

 

[Marek]

PNAC promotes American hegemony through imperialist actions. It welcomes an attack on the US to sway public opinion in supporting its agenda. I believe PNAC has advocated lying to the American public if it sees this as necessary in acheiving its goals.

Simply put, the PNAC agenda stinks of fascism.

I'd say fascism is a stretch. PNAC pushes for an increase in military spending and more forceful, assertive foreign policies. As far as I understand, it does not want more regulation in economic and social affairs, nor a dictatorship.

 

[nvxplorer]

I'd say fascism is a stretch. PNAC pushes for an increase in military spending and more forceful, assertive foreign policies. As far as I understand, it does not want more regulation in economic and social affairs, nor a dictatorship.

It may not compare to the fascism of Mussolini or Hitler, but its ideology is very similar. PNAC promotes world domination by America. It promotes pure state power. It is militaristic and imperialistic. It feels that state objectives should be immune to public opinion. These ideas are central to classic fascism.

PNAC claims its objectives are world peace, and this may be the case. However, the methods it supports are not peaceful, and they are antithetical to a free society.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

It is arrogant imperialism. America must be a leader among equals, not an overlord. We shouldn't allow others to dictate to us, but neither should we forcefully dictate to others. We have every right to protect ourselves and our interests and to defend ourselves, but PNAC seems to support aggressive advancement of American interests at the expense of the rest of the world.

 

[Alarum]

PNAC is creepy and evil. Their imperialism is nicely shrouded in their public letters, only revealing itself in sudden, scary lapses. Take these, culled from various letters on their website:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] By every measure, current defense spending is inadequate for a military with global responsibilities. Ten years ago, America's defense burden was 4.8% of GDP. Although the decline in defense spending has been halted, we have not done nearly enough to make up for this decade of neglect. The modest increase planned for next year will still leave Pentagon spending at about 3.4 % of GDP, and Congressional Budget Office projections are that the proportion will decline to approximately 3% by 2007

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Inadequate funding results in an inadequate force. Today's military is simply too small for the missions it must perform. A reduced active-duty force means an increasing reliance on reserve troops, not just in times of war but to meet daily presence requirements.[/FONT]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20030123.htm

If that doesn't creep you out, you haven't read enough statements by former fascists. The key themes revolve around military responsibilities - responsibilities that somehow seem to have little to do with protecting hearth and home (though they're often justified in roundabout ways). Also note the roundabout statements. What missions (it's been adequate so far). What presence requirements? Clearly not home defense - it more then meets those.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]January 26, 1998

...
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Donald Rumsfeld [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Paul Wolfowitz

And others you might know (but are less public)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

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

 

[burrow_owl]

I have two objections to PNAC, one from foreign policy realism, the other from Democratic methodology.

The former: their ideology is dangerous pie-in-the-sky nutjobbery of the highest order. Wilsonianism is nothing but trouble, as the Iraq war bears out. At a minimum, the costs vastly outweigh any ephemeral or hippie-idealist gains that may be made.

The latter: PNAC has shown itself to be cravenly dishonest. Rather than making its case honestly and openly, they cynically threw any justification at the American people and waited to see what would stick. WMDs, advancing freedom, al-Qaeda, reverse domino theory, and so on. That's just scummy, and typically Bush/Rove (as distinguished from actual conservatives, who actually have scruples and respect for honesty).