what are your thoughts about the (PNAC) project for the New American Century>>??

Answer 1

I don't think too much of it. It's going to be a hard sell for conservatives because it hints of greater U.S. involvement in the affairs of international organizations and most of the Christian Falangists and neo-cons in the Republican Party think the U.S. should shy away from those sorts of involvement.
It is also, in my opinion, somewhat redundant. U.S. influence in the world is a given at this point in time. When I went to Europe in the mid-1950s, I could instantly spot an American walking toward me on the street by the way he was dressed. Now, everyone on the planet under the age of 35 is dressed the same way: Jeans, T-shirt and athletic shoes. We didn't force that wardrobe on folks by armed persuasion. I've also been a listener to English language short wave radio since 1949. With the exception of North Korea and Cuba, at least one of the top three stories on every station's news block is datelined Washington D.C.
The literati and cognescenti of the world who are critical of our policies are not representative of even their own people. And an American can gain a clear understanding of that by just taking a stroll down the Strip in the Las Vegas area. You will encounter the world all about you. And they come because of their curiousity about this country and their envy of this country. They do so, whether or not PNAC is around.

Answer 2

The PNAC document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is a portrait of incredible greed and arrogance. It starts off by saying that:

“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.” (p. ii)

The report then outlined (p. iv-v) the means by which to achieve this “grand strategy”:

1. Restructure the military in such a way that it will be able to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” and “perform ‘constabulary’ duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions” (translation: perform “peacekeeping-style” duties when they benefit American interests).
2. Increase the size of the military from 1.4 million to 1.6 million troops.
3. Establish permanent military bases in areas of strategic importance (particularly Southeast Europe, Southwest Asia, and Southeast Asia).
4. Maintain nuclear superiority over all other nations.
5. Develop a missile defense system.
6. “Control the new ‘international commons’ of space and ‘cyberspace,’ and pave the way for the creation of a new military service—U.S. Space Forces—with the mission of space control.”
7. “Increase defense spending gradually 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.”

As the authors of the document correctly pointed out, gaining the support of the American people (along with the acquiescence of foreign powers) necessary to achieve these goals would be difficult (due mainly to the cost, in the view of Americans, and the perception of a new world empire, by the rest of the world). What was needed, they said, was a "new Pearl Harbor." This happened on September 11, and the Neocons who wrote the document--many of whom, including Wolfowitz, Pearl, and Cheney, were now part of the administration--went about putting the plan into effect.

The Bush administration's goal was never to catch Bin Laden, or to truly launch a "war on terror"; the plan was to keep Americans scared long enough to put the PNAC plan into effect.

Doesn't it seem odd to anyone else that even after nearly six years, Bin Laden hasn't been captured? And please don't tell me that we've truly made a concerted effort to do so (or blame Clinton for not having done so years ago). We could have found him by now, but instead we invaded Iraq...remember the idea of "permanent bases in Southwest Asia"? And Bush, in a rare show of honesty, even said he doesn't "think about Bin Laden anymore".

The document scares the hell out of me, because it outlines the same kind of imperial, world-domineering philosophy that eventually led to the decline and fall of Rome. Instead of working with the world--and by so doing assure that we will all last--we are playing the world empire game, which will surely lead to our downfall.

Answer 3

I dont like it much. Sounds like some type of Imperialist Synod. Sure they want they think is "best" for America but at what cost, and the cost to millions around the globes. That cost is simply incalculable