When I heard a brief reference in a news story about an "American Century" in a Romney speech, that set off warning sirens in my mind. It should do the same in everyone who remembers the missing 8 years of American history, the time when the NeoCons ran the world through their front man George W. Bush during the Cheney presidency. Romney's noises about getting tough with China and his declared intention to "reset the reset with Russia" show that the NeoCons are still in firm control of the Republican approach to foreign policy. The leading definition of NeoCon at the Urban Dictionary sums it up:
1. Neocon
Neoconservative. Criminally insane spenders that believe in killing brown people for the new world order. Huge Orwellian government, unfathomable amounts of spending, bomb tens of thousands of people to death to rearrange the globe. Take the worst aspects of the liberal and conservative positions and combine them into one and you would have a NeoCon.
Neocons are the greatest threat to life, liberty and property this country has ever known.
There's a quote ascribed to Talleyrand about the return of the Bourbons to power in France, which
according to wiki.answers.com goes something like:
"...they learned nothing from the events leading up to, during, and after the French Revolution and Napoleonic Empire, but forgot nothing when they returned to power and immediately put their old cronies back in charge and did all in their power to humiliate and impoverish those that turned them out."
emphasis added
If you liked what Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the NeoCons gave us during the W years, they've got a sequel all set to roll out as soon as they and their surrogates get back in power.
More below the Orange Omnilepticon.
American Century isn't just a catchy title - it's a direct reference to the Project for the New American Century. (pdf) It was the product of a group of conservatives and former liberals who had abandoned traditional conservative isolationism and small government ideals, seduced by the idea that... well, essentially who could stop them? Here's an excerpt from a profile of the group:
PNAC's 1997 "Statement of Principles" set forth an ambitious agenda for foreign and military policy that William Kristol and Robert Kagan, PNAC’s founders, described as "neo-Reaganite."5 Signatories of this charter document included many leading figures from the Christian Right and other conservative political factions. The statement argued, "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 U.S. global responsibilities."6
Here's a link to
the principles of the PNAC organization. The logic is simple. The U.S. had outlasted the Soviet Union to become the overwhelmingly dominant military power in the world. That leverage could and should be used to reshape the world according to American values - with no other rivals allowed. To
quote from the pdf:
...The United States is the world’s only superpower, combining preeminent military power, global technological leadership, and the world’s largest economy. Moreover, America stands at the head of a system of alliances which includes the world’s other leading democratic powers. At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the relatively peaceful, prosperous and free condition the world enjoys today. Up to now, they have been deterred from doing so by the capability and global presence of American military power. But, as that power declines, relatively and absolutely, the happy conditions that follow from it will be inevitably undermined.
emphasis added
In other words, expand U.S. defense spending and be prepared to prevent any other rivals from challenging that dominance, all in the name of "Freedom" and "American Values". Or, as Thomas Friedman explained how it applied to invading Iraq:
What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?"
You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow?
Well, Suck. On. This.
But... you can't do that kind of thing unless you have a military too big to challenge, which is why the NeoCons insisted then and insist now we must maintain Pentagon spending and even increase it.
Romney's all in on that:
"I am here today to tell you that I am guided by one overwhelming conviction and passion: This century must be an American Century. In an American Century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. In an American Century America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world." - remarks at The Citadel 10/7/11
And how would this be done by President Romney? From
Air Force Magazine Daily Report for 9-11-12:
Raptor's Republican Rising: Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney said he would "add F-22s" to the Air Force's inventory if he moves into the Oval Office. That was one of the defense-related moves he discussed during an interview with WAVY TV 10 of Virginia Beach, Va., posted at the station's website on Sept. 8. The Air Force's last F-22 rolled off Lockheed Martin's assembly line in Marietta, Ga., in December (see The Last Raptor). Defense officials have said restarting the already shuttered production line would be a costly endeavor—perhaps prohibitively expensive. Beyond the F-22, Romney said he'd have the Navy build 15 ships per year—versus current plans for nine—and would retain some 100,000 Active Duty personnel that the Obama Administration intends to shed. Romney also blasted budget sequestration and the Obama Administration's proposed defense cuts. "I think the idea of shrinking our military to try and get closer to balancing our budget is the wrong place to look," he said. "I want to get our economy growing and get people back to work as the way to build the revenues of the government and get to a balanced budget. But shrinking our military is unacceptable to me."
Paul Krugman has a succinct analysis of what this amounts to:
Weaponized Keynesianism. To the extent that anything can be extracted from the
nebulous Romney/Ryan budget plans, it will be 'paid for' with massive cuts to the social safety net, increased taxes on the middle class, tax cuts for the rich, and massive deficits as far as the eye can see. Or something - NeoCons are great at making up shit as they go along. As in, the invasion of Iraq after 911. The primary reason we invaded was because it was always on the
NeoCon agenda as part of their plan to
dominate democratize the Middle East with American style freedom. Kurt Eichenwald's piece in the NY Times, "
The Deafness Before The Storm" is just the latest confirmation that they were obsessed with Iraq, and would use anything as an excuse to do regime change.
...An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
emphasis added
Members of the original PNAC group were aware that implementing their vision would not be easy, that it might take something like Pearl Harbor to move public opinion in the direction they wanted to go. Paul Wolfowitz gave a speech at West Point months before 911 that makes it clear this was on their minds - except they were expecting the attack to come from Iraq.
And so they got what they wanted anyway. Meanwhile we're still trying to get out of Afghanistan; it took Obama to run down Bin Laden - and we're still paying off the bills. For the NeoCons, Al Qaida was just a distraction from, and an excuse to pursue, their original agenda by other means.
Next on their list: Iran. Romney has been rattling sabers for some time now.
A Credible Military Option
U.S. policy toward Iran must begin with an understanding on Iran’s part that a military option to deal with their nuclear program remains on the table. This message should not only be delivered through words, but through actions. The United States should restore the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. The United States should repair relations with Israel, increase military coordination and assistance, and enhance intelligence sharing to ensure that our allied capabilities are robust and ready to deal with Iran. The United States should also increase military coordination with our Arab allies in the region and conduct more naval exercises as a demonstration of strength and resolve. Only if Iran understands that the United States is utterly determined when we say that their nuclear-weapons program is unacceptable is there a possibility that they will give up their nuclear aspirations peacefully.
One of the highlights of his "Idiots Abroad" trip to Europe was
a speech greenlighting an Israeli strike on Iran. Given all the military force he calls for having in place around the region, how hard do you think it would be for the U.S. to 'discover' it had to attack as well when the inevitable Iranian response occurred? Romney has since walked back slightly from that position - but the message has been sent.
IF you compare the people and groups behind the original PNAC project, people connected with the George W. Bush Administration, and look at the people and groups Romney lists as his foreign policy/national security team, it would be criminal not to connect the dots.
Romney's call for an "American Century" should be recognized for what it is: PNAC with a new front man. That this is even being talked about is an indictment of those who refused to look back at the Bush Administration, those who refused to drag the lies and the criminals behind them into the light, those who have tacitly endorsed 8 years of insanity and criminal incompetence, those who even today refuse to take the NeoCons seriously. They're still out there, and to reference Talleyrand again, they have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.
IF Romney and Ryan are elected, we can adjust our expectations even farther downward from what we endured under George W. Bush. These two are already basing their campaign on lies, distortions, and misdirections; what will they do when they gain further access to power beyond what they and those behind them already have? This election isn't just about defeating them - it also has to be about defeating everything they represent - or there won't be a century for anyone, let alone an American Century. As the still unfolding situation in both Egypt and Libya shows, the last thing we need is the return to power of a bunch of people who think the U.S. military is a big hammer, and the rest of the world is a nail.
If you have the time, here's about 10 minutes on just how PNAC got us into Iraq via a 2005 BBC documentary.
UPDATE: The continuing story all day, so far as Romney is concerned, is how badly he's handled the killings of American diplomats in Libya. Even Republicans are distancing themselves from him on this, although the usual suspects like Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingrahm, etc. are all repeating Romney's original lies to reinforce him. It doesn't help Romney that he can't keep a nervous smirk off his face when he is challenged on this by the press. The man simply can't handle any challenge to his authority. If any further demonstration was needed to prove that he is unfit to be president, I shudder to think what it would involve.
For another take on Romney's NeoCon conversion, Ed Kilgore points to an article by John B Judis at The New Republic - Mitt Romney, Latter-Day NeoCon.
Romney’s recent gung-ho romanticizing of America’s imperial calling might simply be ascribed to ignorance. But a close reading of his books and speeches suggest that the one-time quasi-isolationist is in the grips of a very different ideology. Romney has embraced a sharply defined worldview that calls for the United States to engage in a no-holds-barred struggle for global hegemony against the forces of darkness threatening Americans’ freedom. First among evils is Russia (our “number one geopolitical foe”), followed by China, and Iranian and other Islamists who want to establish a “caliphate with global reach and power.” To defeat them, Americans should use any means available, including what Romney euphemistically dubs “interrogation techniques.”
Bush on steroids, in other words.