1stly, I'm pretty certain i didnt ask for DRG to lead the investigation; nor did I state that WTC3 did not collapse, to my recollection. Irrelevant. Anyway...
Ok, that is a hell of a lot of replies.
Unfortunately, very few of them touch on the point at hand, which is, for the moment, PNAC. So let's look into that. Now, since some have pointed out that this has been "debunked ad nauseam", I'm going to take the PNAC section of Gravy's Loose Change Guide, and go through it. I am aware that you have discussed it at points, but with little clarity, it would seem. So.
I have yet to come across a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who DID NOT use this quote as "evidence" that the terrorist attacks were an "inside job" by the neo-cons in the U.S. government. However, the PNAC quote is about the typically slow growth of military technology, abetted by budget cuts in defense R&D.
Problems already. Firstly, the quote is not about slow growth in technology. The transformation addressed is quite clear to ascertain- that of technology
and operational concepts. This is evident from:
The United
States cannot
simply declare a
“strategic pause”
while
experimenting
with new
technologies and
operational
concepts
and an instance of potential transformation cited:
A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies.
A clear example of a transformational strategy that is not merely technological in nature. Thus, the term "transformation" refers not only to technologies, but also to operational concepts- global posture, transformation of the DoD, using cyberspace as a defense tool- which have been the subject of much of the document.
It is in no way a plan or suggestion for a "new Pearl Harbor."
It states that for such a transformation, crucial, to occur within a timeframe shorter than decades, a new Pearl Harbour would need to happen. Given that for such to happen within years/months, rather than decades is propitious, especially bearing in mind the aims of the "Projects for
the new american century", then we can equally conclude that they deem a new PH propitious to policy.
Is it plausible that these "conspirators" would publicly announce a plan to kill thousands of Americans?
This is pretty silly. The idea that "they wouldnt say it, so they didnt say it". is pretty worthless in discussion- it is there in black and white. If you can discredit its purported import, then go ahead. To state that it ipso facto could not happen, is pretty myopic in my opinion.
According to CT logic, these "conspirators" are the smartest, most devious, most capable connivers the world has ever seen - but are incredbly stupid. This PNAC quote issue is a lot like the CTist emphasis on Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" quote. Right: whenever I commit a billion-dollar crime, I always tell the media I did it.
Wrong. These conspirators are the dumbest, most bungling bunch that could ever be imagined. 9/11 is pretty much as evident an inside job as can be reasonably expected. The calling card of the Bush admin is all over it. The PNAC doc is a prime example of such stupidity. People's dismissal of it is a prime example of why such stupidity can persist.
What is the main thrust of the PNAC plan for military transformation? A nationwide missile defense shield, and dominance of outer-space for offensive and defensive purposes. That's right: "Star Wars."
I'm sorry, but this is only true with pretty slack reading of the document. The main thrust if their plan is outlines clearly in the "Key Finding" section at the start. I do not take too much stock in the total execution of these strategies, since they are reflective of execution rather than design, but I do want to go through them, since they do reflect quite accurately, the current "War on Terror"
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary
allocations.
So, let's look at these budgetary allocations. From 2001 to 2003, the defense budget increased by 33%- an unprecedented amount. This increase was pursued almost exclusively under the aegis of the War on Terror, which of course, is pursued under the aegis of the new PH.
In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a
global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats,
not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
This was again, pursued via the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, which states explicity the need for pursuing this in the new uncertain, post 9/11 world in which we live. Indeed:
The second leg of the New Triad requires development and deployment of both active and passive defenses--a recognition that offensive capabilities alone may not deter aggression in the new security environment of the 21st century. The events of September 11, 2001 underscore this reality.
Next:
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength
from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
This number is increasing, from 1.41million to 1.43. This is a small change, but to add even 10,000 troops costs $1.2 bn, according to Richard Myers (would love to be posting URLs here btw)
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting
permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval
deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
Again done via the 2002 Global Posture Review
MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while
increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine
and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight
ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine
Corps.
All done, I believe, save the Comanches
CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier,
and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding
while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled
programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
Not sure about the JSF, but done for the Crusader.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and
American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
This was relaunched in 2002, and the Star Wars type systems are indeed being pursued, with the UK mooted as a possible base.
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.
This has been done- check the “National Space Policy”, and the “National Strategy for Securing Cyberspace”.
Note that these sorts of policies would have been very hard to justify without the WOT as theor pretext.
EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of
U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced
technologies, and,
produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition
between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
I think this has been dealt with above
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.
Done, as intimated above, to the tune of ~$130bn from 01-03.
Back to the guide:
That type of technology would not have stopped the attacks of 9/11. So what about those low-tech terrorists that we're at war with now? "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
Sorry, who are we at war with again?
In case you hadn’t realized, the War on Terror is not in fact a war on terror. Not even the Bush admin would be so stupid as to try and vanquish an abstract noun. Nor is it a War on Terrorism. A quick look at the massive terrorists being granted asylum by the US- Luis Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, Carlos Sanchez Berzain to name a few- debunks this idea. I don’t think that such a notion is intended to be taken seriously by serious people.
The WOT is, as illustrated above, what was once called the “Rebuilding (of) America’s Defenses”, i.e. a serious of radical military measures aimed at furthering US hegemony.
Now, if you wanted to increase defense spending in the areas that the PNAC recommends, what is the LAST thing you'd want to do? Answer: get involved in a ground war and subsequent occupation of a country where many citizens are fighting a guerilla-style campaign against you and against each other with AK-47s, RPGs, and IEDs made from cell phones and 10,000 tons of old artillery shells.
As I am writing this, on May 6, 2006, the news has come on: 3 car bombs have gone off in Baghdad and one in Karbala, killing at least 30 Iraqis, including 10 soldiers, and several Italian and Romanian troops. In Basra, a British helicopter was shot down, killing its five crew members, and rescuers were bombarded with fire bombs and rocks. They opened fire on the rioting crowd, killing 4 Iraqis, including a child, and wounding 30. Yesterday, Porter Goss, the incompetent CIA chief, was forced to resign.
The fact that such spending and policies are indeed being justified by 9/11 simply makes the case all the more stark that 9/11 is being used as a pretext for military radicalisation, as outlined in RAD, no matter how incongruously. Such spending and programs have been launched, with the WOT as its aegis. The fact that these programs aren’t not being pursued, with more anti-terror policies in their stead- border control, more police, perhaps, again makes clear that the new PH was to be used as the catalyst for the rebuilding of america’s defenses, no matter what the disconnect.
The disaster in Iraq is the opposite of what the PNAC would want to happen to help effect the military transformation they desired in 2000. So why did those same people lie to us and use fear of terrorism as a pretext to invade Iraq? Because they thought replacing Saddam Hussein would be easy. They didn't listen to the generals, they ignored the intelligence reports, and they expected to be greeted with open arms by the Iraqi people after ousting Hussein. These are the people the CTists think are so clever that they can hide a massive conspiracy. They're the same neo-cons who are under investigation for their petty revenge against Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. They couldn't even handle THAT without screwing up.
PNAC wanted, with regards to Iraq 2 things- a permanent military base there (done), and Saddam overthrown with US control over oil (done). The rest isn’t so important. It is essential to realise that the war in Iraq is merely one in a lattice of policies forming the WOT. Almost everything laid out in the key findings has been pursued with 911 as the catalyst.
There we have several very confident, matter-of-fact statements about what how the U.S. should impose its military presence on the Mid East. So we established bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to protect our oil interests. But we failed to defend New York and Washington, D.C. against terrorists who were furious at the fact that we had bases in their back yard, and who declared a Jihad against the U.S. because of it.
Again, I’m sorry, but this just betrays a gross misunderstanding of the document. It is stating that we need a new PH- a mass terror attack on US soil, ingrained on the public’s consciousness- in order to catalyse hegemonic aims. Not that we need to prevent a new PH ever happening- this is in fact the opposite of what is said.
Just to deal with a couple of omissions:
1. The doc states that the myriad of transformations needs to happen within one framework, i.e. under one banner. This is, clearly, the WOT. You think this is just a big coincidence not worth investigating?
2. The doc also states that the defense policies it outlines need to be crystalised in the president’s mind by October 2001; the time of the QDR, thus implying that a new PH might have to happen by this date. Again, coincidence? I hope you would not think not.
Sorry about the length, but I hope you can appreciate the focus.
