secret blueprint for US global domination


Richard Moore

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 21:38:06 -0600
From: "GlobalCirclenet" <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: "Smoking Gun" anyone?

"Smoking Gun" anyone?

 [This is explosive -- read carefully and forward widely!]

 Published on Sunday, September 15, 2002 in The Sunday Herald

 Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President
 by Neil Mackay

 A secret blueprint for US global domination reveals that President
 Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to
 secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

 The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of
 a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-
 president), Donald Rumsfeld (defense secretary), Paul Wolfowitz
 (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis
 Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding
 America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New
 Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-
 tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

 The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of
 the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It
 says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more
 permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved
 conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for
 a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the
 issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

 The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-
 eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
 international security order in line with American principles and

 This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the
 future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US
 to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre
 wars' as a 'core mission'.

 The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on
 the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier
 document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US
 must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our
 leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

 The PNAC report also:

 --refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and
 efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

 --describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political
 leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

 --reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the

 --says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia
 and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in
 the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well
 prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

 --spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase
 the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says,
 may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the
 process of democratization in China';

 --calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and
 the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the
 internet against the US;

 --hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing
 weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing
 biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to
 come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal',
 biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will
 take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the
 world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that
 can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from
 the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

 --and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous
 regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-
 wide command-and-control system'.

 Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of
 the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is
 garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men
 who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea
 of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

 'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of
 their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans
 who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour
 Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this
 moral standing.'

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 22:25:18 -0700
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
From: Joseph Antaree <•••@••.•••> (by way of Tom Atlee)
Subject: This is interesting

The Anniversary of a Neo-Imperial Moment

By Jim Lobe, AlterNet
September 12, 2002

When excerpts of the document first appeared in the New York Times in the spring
of 1992, it created quite a stir. Sen. Joe Biden, now chairman of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee was particularly outraged, calling it a prescription
for "literally a Pax Americana," an American empire.

The details contained in the draft of the Defense Planning Guidance(DPG) were 
indeed startling.

The document argued that the core assumption guiding U.S. foreign policy in the 
21st century should be the need to establish permanent U.S. dominance over 
virtually all of Eurasia.

It envisioned a world in which U.S. military intervention would become "a 
constant fixture" of the geo-political landscape. "While the U.S. cannot become 
the world's 'policeman' by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we 
will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those 
wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or 
friends," wrote the authors, Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby -- who at the 
time were two relatively obscure political appointees in the Pentagon's policy 

The strategies put forward to achieve this goal included "deterring potential 
competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role," and taking 
pre-emptive action against states suspected of developing weapons of mass 

The draft, leaked apparently by a high-ranking source in the military, sparked 
an intense but fleeting uproar. At the insistence of then-National Security 
Adviser Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker, the final DPG 
document was toned down beyond recognition.

But through the nineties, the two authors and their boss, then-Pentagon chief 
Dick Cheney, continued to wait for the right opportunity to fulfill their 
imperial dreams.

Their long wait came to an end on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when two 
hijacked commercial airliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers in 
Manhattan and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington.

And the timing could not have been more ideal. Dick Cheney had already become 
the most powerful vice president in U.S. history, while the draft's two authors,
Wolfowitz and Libby, were now Deputy Defense Secretary and Cheney's chief of 
staff and national security adviser, respectively.

In the year since, these three men, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
and like-minded officials strategically located elsewhere in the administration,
have engineered what former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke recently described
as a "radical break with 55 years of bipartisan tradition" in U.S. foreign 

U.S. foreign policy after World War II was based on two broad strategies: a 
realist policy organized around containment and deterrence to U.S. power; and a 
more liberal, internationalist policy based on the construction of a set of 
multilateral institutions and alliances to promote open market-based economies 
and democratic values.

While Republican administrations leaned more towards the realist agenda and 
Democratic administrations toward the internationalist perspective, neither 
deviated very far from the core assumptions.

But now, "[f]or the first time since the dawn of the Cold War, a new grand 
strategy is taking shape in Washington," says Georgetown University professor G.
John Ikenberry. In his article 'America's Imperial Ambition' published in the 
current edition of "Foreign Affairs," he argues that the Bush administration's 
foreign policy since Sept. 11 is driven by the desire for global dominance 
rather than the threat of terrorism.

"According to this new paradigm, America is to be less bound to its partners and
to global rules and institutions while it steps forward to play a more 
unilateral and anticipatory role in attacking terrorist threats and confronting 
rogue states seeking WMD (weapons of mass destruction)," Ikenberry writes. "The 
United States will use its unrivaled military power to manage the global order."

Aside from a strong belief in U.S. military power, advocates of the new paradigm
share a number of key attitudes that shape their foreign policy prescriptives. 
These include a contempt for multilateralism which necessarily denies the 
"exceptional" nature of the United States; a similar disdain and distrust for 
Europeans, especially the French; and a conviction that "fundamentalist" Islam 
poses a major threat to the United States and the West. They also consider China
a long-term strategic threat that should be confronted sooner rather than later.

And these views have shaped the White House's policy decisions, including its 
strong support of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and its attack on various 
multilateral institutions, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), and 
key arms-control accords, like the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, not
to mention its push for a war on Iraq and "regime change" in a number of Middle 
Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia.

In other words, U.S. foreign policy today looks and sounds remarkably like the 
DPG draft leaked nearly ten years ago.

On this anniversary of Sept. 11, it is increasingly clear that Cheney and his 
proteges have used the tragedy to validate their dangerous delusions of 
grandeur. The so-called War on Terror was always just an expedient reason for 
the unilateral use of military power to achieve global dominance.


A bit of research on Google revealed hundreds of pages about the DPG, including 
this from the Nordic News Network  26 August 2000 - which gives excerpts and the original 
NYTimes references:

...there can be no doubt that
world domination is the objective of the interests which
dominate U.S. politics today. That was made very clear by the
first systematic formulation of U.S. global strategy following the
collapse of the Soviet Union. Entitled "Defense Planning
Guidance", the high-level policy document includes the
following elements:

      Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence
      of a new rival, either on the territory of the former
      Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on
      the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet
      Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying
      the new regional defense strategy and requires
      that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power
      from dominating a region whose resources would,
      under consolidated control, be sufficient to
      generate global power. These regions include
      Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the
      former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

      There are three additional aspects to this objective:
      First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary
      to establish and protect a new order that holds the
      promise of convincing potential competitors that
      they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a
      more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate
      interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we
      must account sufficiently for the interests of the
      advanced industrial nations to discourage them
      from challenging our leadership or seeking to
      overturn the established political and economic
      order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms
      for deterring potential competitors from even
      aspiring to a larger regional or global role. . . .

      NATO continues to provide the indispensable
      foundation for a stable security environment in
      Europe. Therefore, it is of fundamental importance
      to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of
      Western defense and security, as well as the
      channel for U.S. influence and participation in
      European security affairs. While the United States
      supports the goal of European integration, we
      must seek to prevent the emergence of
      European-only security arrangements which
      would undermine NATO, particularly the alliance's
      integrated command structure.

      . . . The most promising avenues for anchoring the
      east-central Europeans into the West and for
      stabilizing their democratic institutions is their
      participation in Western political and economic
      organizations. East-central European membership
      in the (European Community) at the earliest
      opportunity, and expanded NATO liaison. . . .

      In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our
      overall objective is to remain the predominant
      outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and
      Western access to the region's oil. . . .

Defense Planning Guidance was leaked to the New York Times,
which noted: "The document is conspicuously devoid of
references to collective action through the United Nations. . .
What is most important, it says, is 'the sense that the world
order is ultimately backed by the U.S.' and 'the United States
should be postured to act independently when collective action
cannot be orchestrated. . '."

Caught with its plan in the global cookie jar, the administration
of George Bush attempted to pass off the document as a
low-level draft of minor significance. But, in fact, it had been
approved by numerous senior officials, including General
Powell who at the time was serving as the president's chief
military adviser, and Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense
and current vice-presidential candidate.

More importantly, subsequent events have confirmed the
validity of the document. With few exceptions, everything has
been going according to plan.

See also New York Times:

8 March 1992, "U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals
Develop", including excerpts from Defense Planning Guidance

10 March 1992, "Lone Superpower Plan: Ammunition for Critics"

cyberjournal home page:

"Zen of Global Transformation" home page:

QuayLargo discussion forum:

cj list archives:'cj'

newslog list archives:'newslog'

cj_open list archives:'cj_open'

subscribe addresses for cj list:

subscribe addresses for cj_open list:

Share this: