Here’s another angle on the Irving Kristol piece
in the Weekly Standard where he identifies the current administration as being neo-conservative, while explaining just what that means. This article comes from the “market anarchist”/anti-state site Strike The Root—another non-liberal, non-Democrat source.

Neoconservatism Made Kristol Clear

by Michael Tennant
August 18, 2003

Memo to Irving Kristol: Get yourself to a secure, undisclosed location immediately if not sooner. You are in grave danger. No, you needn’t worry about receiving threats from left-wing loonies like Al Gore or his disciple, the Unabomber. You don’t even have to fear the paleoconservatives and libertarians.

You should, however, keep your eyes open for members of the National Review/Wall Street Journal crowd. IMPORTANT: If you receive a package in the mail from David Frum, call the bomb squad immediately!

Why do I say Irving Kristol had better keep a close eye on his allies on the “official” right? Simply this: He recently wrote
a piece for The Weekly Standard in which he spelled out exactly what neoconservatism is. What’s worse is that ol’ Irv’s description of neoconservatism proves that it is everything its critics have said it is–and worse.

Now that “the ‘godfather’ of all those neocons,” as Kristol describes himself, has spoken on the subject (and written a book entitled Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea), the NR/WSJ crowd can no longer plausibly deny the existence of such a movement, as some have tried to do. In addition, they can no longer plausibly claim that neoconservatism is merely another form of traditional conservatism. Nor can they plausibly insist that neoconservatism has anything at all to do with the American founding and tradition of limited government and avoidance of entangling alliances. Kristol has blown all these arguments out of the water.

…

Full commentary

The following commentary is fairly punchy, and it’s definitely highly critical, and if it had come from a "left-wing" web site, I doubt I would feel inclined to post here. Long time visitors to PNAC.info are probably aware that we aim to post articles that are civil, reasoned and researched—rather than angry, partisan, and "anti-Bush". So while most of the
opinion articles here end up being, by the nature of the critical process, opposed to the policies of the Bush administration, a much smaller number of those articles are written by people who are generally cheering for the "other team"—i.e., liberals, Democrats, and the like. Many of the articles posted here are written by people who were just as critical of Bill Clinton, when he displayed any of the same tendencies, as they are of George Bush.

Which brings me to Ilana Mercer’s column, "Bush is a neoconservative", which was published on WorldNetDaily.
Most liberals probably consider WorldNetDaily to be "right-wing", and that’s at least partially true—it’s a mixture of conservatives and libertarians generally. And while I’d be among the first to argue that libertarian is not right-wing, what’s important for the sake of discussion is that WND certainly is not a left-wing site. By virtue of being an opinion author at WND, one can assume that Ilana Mercer is either a conservative or a libertarian—in her case, a libertarian, perhaps with a conservative streak.

And so the idea that she is a bleeding heart liberal, or a left-wing Bush-basher, is frankly unsupportable. A number of comments have been posted to this site and e-mailed to me to the effect of this site being composed of "typical whiny liberal crap", or the like. Those writers must have missed the Pat Buchanan articles, and Republican Congressman Ron Paul’s unimpeachable speech Neo-Conned, and the opinion piece by the leaders of the Cato Institute, and the piece by conservative icon Gary North, and the American Conservative Union’s open memo to conservatives.

Well, if they did somehow miss all that, then here’s Ilana Mercer’s "Bush is a neoconservative".

Bush is a neoconservative

It’s a positive sign when conservative commentators rush to defend President Bush from being defiled by the neoconservative label. The tag, thankfully, is becoming a pejorative. They will, however, have to pry Mr. Bush from the loving arms of the self-proclaimed "godfather" of neocons himself.

Irving Kristol, who emerged to "sex-up" the already flashy neoconservative "persuasion" in a Weekly Standard article, gave Mr. Bush the neocon seal of approval. The author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea," credits the "current president and his administration" with reviving the faith. Under Mr. Bush it "began enjoying a second life," says Kristol. 

Well, the "godfather" has spoken. And you may not want to argue with Kristol. Neoconservatives have ways and means of making you see The Truth: "The historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism," he writes, is "to convert" American conservatives "against their respective wills" into statists and imperialists. As you’d expect, Kristol doesn’t quite admit to the program of statism at home and imperialism abroad, but by the time he is through counting the ways of neoconservatism, the writing is on the wall. Or as Prof. Paul Gottfried, author of "The Conservative Movement," explained: "Their belief in the welfare state has been a permanent aspect of their ideology," as has their affinity for a global democratic revolution.

Bush’s domestic and foreign policy bear the birthmarks — nay, the pockmarks — of neoconservatism. It will not do for his defenders to say that if not for the trauma of Sept. 11, Bush would not have grown so abusive. Crisis need not result in conquest. (Besides, there is evidence that Bush came to power with a plan to remove Saddam.)

Where does it say that defending the homeland must translate into bringing about "the triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan and beyond," as the president said in his latest Address to the Nation? Sep. 11 could have just as well resulted in a circling of the wagons at home. But such prudence would have contravened the handbook of neoconservatism.

Full article…

There are a number of other sites devoted to explaining, critiquing, and exposing the Project for the New American Century, and it’s long past time that they are acknowledged here.

Of course, there’s the aforementioned "Neocon 101" feature from the Christian Science Monitor, which is an excellent (and relatively even-handed) primer.

PNAC Revealed has collected biographical pages for each of the PNAC signatories, as well as a bunch of articles, including some that aren’t linked to here. While the background of the editor seems to be politically left-of-center, that slant doesn’t show up much—the site is primarily a compilation of original sources.

TVNewsLies, which is sort of a very excited, left-wing web tabloid, has compiled a page of links to PNAC-related articles and sites.

The Four Reasons, also apparently left-leaning and Democrat-oriented (though calmer than TVNewsLies), has a good page
of links to info about a dozen or so of the PNAC core group, and a page of a lot of links to info about Leo Strauss, a purported "godfather" of the neoconservative ideology. I’m a little confused because they have a list of think tanks, which I think is supposed to be a list
of neocon think tanks, but which includes the Cato Institute, as well as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Cato is libertarian, not neoconservative—the president and chairman co-authored an article opposing neocons in July—and back in April, Joseph Cirincione from the Carnegie Endowment was on NPR opposing PNAC. It’s possible that the list is supposed to be think tanks on both sides of the issue…it’s not clear, which is why I’m confused.

A site I just discovered called Post 9-11 Timeline has a decent page of PNAC-related links, along with a number of other feature pages designed to "do our best to provide you with all the information you need to know in a post-September 11th America." They have an intense intro page that features a rapid-fire presentation of images from the past two years accompanied by rapid-fire music. It’s not cheery, but it’s quite entrancing.

Wikipedia, a free, openly-editable encyclopedia, has an entry for the PNAC, which has quite a few helpful links, and provides a pretty straightforward overview. I take issue with the contention there that the PNAC is "right-wing"—there’s not much that’s legitimately conservative about the PNAC’s embrace of government power and growth, and neither pre-emptive war or "liberating" foreign countries are right-wing any more than they are left-wing tendencies.

Feel free to post further resources in the comments area of this entry.

It appears that the Christian Science Monitor has put together the best journalistic primer to the neoconservative movement—in other words, the parents and children of the Project for the New American Century. Upon initial
examination, this would seem to be a strong candidate for "hottest resource" in the category of surface-level introductions to the world of the PNAC and beyond.

Empire Builders: Neoconservatives and their blueprint for US power

It features profiles and photos of the top dozen players in the modern movement: Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Lewis Libby, John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, Michael Ledeen, William Kristol, and Frank Gaffney, Jr.. They also have a Neocon 101 page, with the most basic questions answered; an "Are You a Neocon?" interactive quiz; analysis Q & A from neocon Max Boot and foreign policy expert Walter Russel Mead; a pop-up timeline of U.S foreign policy since 1783; a collection of short quotes from neocon figures; and a page of links to neocon thinktanks and key documents (our main target, the PNAC, made the top of that list).

It’s clear, succinct, journalistic (not editorial), and from a source which is not known for being especially liberal, or liberal at all as far as I know. In other words, it’s probably the best location going for introducing this bunch of issues to someone.

Of course, you might want to send them right here to this PNAC.info entry, so that they can see that the CSMonitor
focus area comes out of an atmosphere of concern that goes well beyond that one publication. Their web area doesn’t seem to have links or references to other critical or investigative resources related to the PNAC—or things like Rep. Ron Paul’s fantastic "Neo-conned" speech.

We at PNAC.info won’t pretend to take full credit for this happening…but we’ll take partial credit.

A Debate Over U.S. ‘Empire’ Builds in Unexpected Circles

By Dan Morgan
The Washington Post
Washington Post original (will expire)

Sunday 10 August 2003

At forums sponsored by policy think tanks, on radio talk shows and around Cleveland Park dinner tables, one topic has been hotter than the weather in Washington this summer: Has the United States become the very “empire” that the republic’s founders heartily rejected?

Liberal scholars have been raising the question but, more strikingly, so have some Republicans with impeccable conservative credentials.

For example, C. Boyden Gray, former counsel to President George H.W. Bush, has joined a small group that is considering ways to “educate Americans about the dangers of empire and the need to return to our founding traditions and values,” according to an early draft of a proposed mission statement.

Full story…

Another submission from Matt Hannon:

This is the second college paper I wrote that talks about PNAC. Much of the PNAC info is repeated. However, this paper gives an interesting look into why the government wanted war so badly in Iraq. There are also some diesel links in the works referenced section.

Comments welcome
Matt

Download File

This article, by long-time PNAC-focused investigative journalist Jim Lobe, features claims made by an apparent whistleblower of sorts from the Pentagon. If the claims are true—and it seems that at the very least, the names and affiliations of the various people named are likely accurate—then they would substantiate most of what the detractors of PNAC, myself included, have claimed and feared. Which is to say, that a group of like-minded policymakers and administrators has managed to acquire an actionable amount of influence upon the U.S.’s foreign policy, and have used that influence to direct the U.S. strongly toward a new body of policy that involves many of the goals outlined in the Project for the New American Century’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” strategy document, among other places.

Those goals being, briefly, to move the world toward a “unipolar” power structure—with the United States being the one driving pole of power and influence in global matters—by means of the aggressive and widespread use of the U.S. force capabilities, high-pressure diplomacy, or any of the other strategic tools in the U.S. foreign policy toolbox. (Though it often seems that the use of force, and high-pressure diplomacy, are the preferred tools, along with manipulation of evidence and data to bolster their arguments.)

POLITICS-U.S.: Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network

Analysis – By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Aug 7 (IPS) – An ad hoc office under U.S. Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith appears to have acted as the key base for an informal network of mostly neo-conservative political appointees that circumvented normal inter-agency channels to lead the push for war against Iraq.

The Office of Special Plans (OSP), which worked alongside the Near East and South Asia (NESA) bureau in Feith’s domain, was originally created by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to review raw information collected by the official U.S. intelligence agencies for connections between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Retired intelligence officials from the State Department, the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have long charged that the two offices exaggerated and manipulated intelligence about Iraq before passing it along to the White House.

But key personnel who worked in both NESA and OSP were part of a broader network of neo-conservative ideologues and activists who worked with other Bush political appointees scattered around the national-security bureaucracy to move the country to war, according to retired Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski, who was assigned to NESA from May 2002 through February 2003.

The heads of NESA and OSP were Deputy Undersecretary William Luti and Abram Shulsky, respectively.

Other appointees who worked with them in both offices included Michael Rubin, a Middle East specialist previously with the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI); David Schenker, previously with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); Michael Makovsky; an expert on neo-con icon Winston Churchill and the younger brother of David Makovsky, a senior WINEP fellow and former executive editor of pro-Likud ‘Jerusalem Post’; and Chris Lehman, the brother of the John Lehman, a prominent neo-conservative who served as secretary of the navy under Ronald Reagan, according to Kwiatkowski.

Full story…

The Cato Institute is one of the most respected libertarian think tanks in America.

Upholding Liberty in America

by Ed Crane and William Niskanen
Ed Crane is president of the Cato Institute and William Niskanen is its chairman.

Excerpts:

In the aftershock of September 11, 2001, there is a heightened awareness among most Americans of how precious their freedom is. They also realise the need for better government intelligence work to fight terrorism. But they should not let the government usurp basic liberties.

This is a danger as more and more anti-terrorist laws and rules straightjacket the nation. There is a congruent danger: the rise of neoconservatism on the right. The movement is using the threat of terrorism to expand government at home and abroad. America must safeguard its freedoms in the fight against terrorism, but protect itself from pernicious policies that erode freedom in the name of liberty.

…

Underlying neoconservatism is a desire to reshape America and the world through the efforts of a robust federal government. For years, the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative magazine, has promoted the need for initiatives to reinforce America’s international power. Merely living in a free society appears to be insufficient for neoconservatives.

During George W. Bush’s campaign for president, the neoconservative influence was felt in domestic policy ideas such as faith-based initiatives that would involve the federal government in private local charities, often with a religious orientation. It was also seen in the call for a greater federal role in local education. These are both inconsistent with the concept of limited government and federalism.

But neocons tend to be dismissive of the idea that the federal government should be limited to the protection of an individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

…

Some in the neoconservative movement have openly called for an American empire around the globe. Max Boot, the writer, recently praised what he termed America’s “imperialism” and said it should impose its views “at gunpoint”. James Woolsey, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has called for a decades-long campaign to re-order the entire Middle East along neoconservative lines. Such thinking is profoundly un-American.

All is not gloom. What is needed now is for limited government conservatives of the variety exemplified by Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater to join forces with libertarians and enlightened liberals who respect civil liberties. They should speak out in support of America’s heritage of liberty.

Full column

Salon.com is a decidedly left-leaning media source, but I found this article to be a well-written examination of the distance between the neocon/PNAC vision of how the war on Iraq would turn out, and reality. It’s quite a distance.

I haven’t been posting a lot of stories about how the war over there is failing, even though I read a lot of those. No point in beating a dead horse, really—and this isn’t an anti-war site as much as it’s an anti- world-domination-based-foreign-policy site. However, it’s very important to understand that there is that distance between the PNAC vision of the U.S. flexing its world-power muscles, and what the targets of our flexion see. And as long as there is that distance, things will not turn out like the PNAC visionaries have envisioned.

This excerpt is fairly long, as is the article itself. Both are worthy of their length, I think.

(Brief ad view or paid Salon.com membership needed to read full article.)

Salon.com News | From heroes to targets

The U.S. occupation of Iraq has turned into a daily debacle, say experts, because the Washington ideologues who planned the war were living in a fantasy. – – – – – – – – – – – -
By Michelle Goldberg

July 18, 2003 | The Pentagon hawks who planned for postwar Iraq assumed American troops would be welcomed with flowers and gratitude. They assumed Saddam’s regime could be decapitated but the body of the state left intact, to be administered by American advisors and handpicked Iraqis. They assumed that other countries, despite their opposition to the war, would come around once they saw how right America was, and would assist in Iraq’s reconstruction.

The war’s architects placed such unyielding faith in their assumptions that when they all turned out to be wrong, there was no Plan B.

Now, demoralized American forces are being attacked more than a dozen times a day and nearly every day an American soldier is killed. Iraqis are terrorized by violent crime; they lack water, electricity and jobs. With gunfire echoing through the night and no fans to stir the desert heat, people can’t sleep and nerves are brittle. The number of troops on the ground is proving inadequate to restore order, but reinforcements, much less replacements, aren’t readily available, and foreign help is not forthcoming. Saddam Hussein, like Osama bin Laden, is still at large. The White House now says the occupation will cost nearly $4 billion a month. While American fortunes could always improve, on Wednesday, Gen. John P. Abizaid, the new commander in Iraq, said American troops are fighting a guerrilla war, contradicting the sanguine rhetoric coming from the administration.

America isn’t losing the peace. The peace never began.

The current chaos in Iraq, many experts say, is the inevitable result of grandiose neoconservative ideology smacking into reality. The neocons underestimated the Iraqis’ nationalism and their mistrust of America. They were so convinced that a bright new Middle Eastern future would inevitably spring from military victory that they failed to prepare for any other scenario. “Everything derives from a very defective understanding of what Iraq was like,” says retired Col. Pat Lang, who served as the Pentagon’s chief of Middle Eastern intelligence from 1985 until 1992 and who has closely followed the discussions over the Iraq war and its aftermath. “It was a massive illusion that the neocons had. It all flows from that.”

Full story…

Submitted by Matt Hannon:

I’ve uploaded a paper I wrote for my one class at college exposing pnac to ppl, the college profesor was as shocked to learn that this was going on as I was. Your comments are all welcomed.
Matt

Download Matt’s paper (.doc file)