New American Century

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservativeFirst Impressions, Second Thoughts: Reflections on the Changing Role of Think Tanks in U.S. Foreign Policy
, Abelson, ''Critical Issues of Our Time'', v.8, Center for American Studies, University of Western Ontario, 2011 think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan.Home page of th
Project for the New American Century
accessed March 4, 2015. Elliott Abrams, et al.
"Statement of Principles"
June 3, 1997, ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed May 28, 2007. PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."
''newamericancentury.org'', n.d., accessed May 30, 2007: "Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project was an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt." The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."

Of the twenty-five people who signed PNAC's founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Max Boot, "Neocons", ''Foreign Policy'' No. 140 (January - February 2004), pp. 20-22+24+26+2

/ref>
*"The PNAC's 33 leaders were highly connected with the American state - displaying 115 such connections: 27 with the Department of Defense, 13 with State, 12 with the White House, 10 with the National Security Council (United States), National Security Council, and 23 with Congress."
*"The PNAC may be considered strongly integrated into the political and administrative machinery of US power; certainly, it is not an outsider institution in this regard."
*"Of the twenty-five signatories of the PNAC's Statement of Principles ... ten went on to serve in the George W. Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others." Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War.
*"It is often argued that the neo-cons hijacked the Bush administration - particularly through the influence of PNAC." Academics such as Inderjeet Parmar, Phillip Hammond, and Donald E. Abelson have said PNAC's influence on the George W. Bush administration has been exaggerated.

The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006; it was replaced by a new think-tank named the Foreign Policy Initiative, co-founded by Kristol and Kagan in 2009. The Foreign Policy Initiative was dissolved in 2017.

Origins and operation

The Project for the New American Century developed from Kristol and Kagan's belief that the Republican Party lacked a "compelling vision for American foreign policy," which would allow Republican leaders to effectively criticize President Bill Clinton's foreign policy record.

During the summer of 1996, Kristol and Kagan co-authored an article in ''Foreign Affairs'' titled "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy" - referring to the foreign policy of President Ronald Reagan. In the article, they argued that American conservatives were "adrift" in the area of foreign policy, advocated a "more elevated vision of America's international role," and suggested that the United States' should adopt a stance of "benevolent global hegemony." In June 1997, Kristol and Kagan founded the PNAC in order to advance the goals they had first laid out in ''Foreign Affairs,'' echoing the article's statements and goals in PNAC's founding ''Statement of Principles.''

According to Maria Ryan, the individuals who signed the PNAC's statements and letters were not employees or members of the group, and "supporters of PNAC's initiatives differed from case to case." While its permanent staff was relatively small, the organization was "especially well connected," with some of its statements and letters attracting the support of prominent conservatives and neoconservatives.

In this regard, Stuart Elden has stated that "The influence that PNAC had was astonishing," and noted that

The number of figures associated with PNAC that had been members of the Reagan or the first Bush administration and the number that would take up office with the administration of the second President Bush demonstrate that it is not merely a question of employees and budgets.

Statement of Principles

PNAC's first public act was to release a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997. The statement had 25 signers, including project members and outside supporters (see Signatories to Statement of Principles). It described the United States as the "world's pre-eminent power," and said that the nation faced a challenge to "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests." In order to achieve this goal, the statement's signers called for significant increases in defense spending, and for the promotion of "political and economic freedom abroad." It said the United States should strengthen ties with its democratic allies, "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values," and preserve and extend "an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." Calling for a "Reaganite" policy of "military strength and moral clarity," it concluded that PNAC's principles were necessary "if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."

In September 2000 PNAC released "Rebuilding America's Defenses" a report that promotes "the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." The report also states, "advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

Calls for regime change in Iraq

In 1998, Kristol and Kagan advocated regime change in Iraq throughout the Iraq disarmament process through articles that were published in the New York Times. Following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, core members of the PNAC including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliott Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick, and John Bolton were among the signatories of an open letter initiated by the PNAC to President Bill Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Portraying Saddam Hussein as a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, and emphasizing the potential danger of any weapons of mass destruction under Iraq's control, the letter asserted that the United States could "no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections." Stating that American policy "cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council," the letter's signatories asserted that "the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.""Open Letter to President Bill Clinton"
January 26, 1998, accessed May 28, 2007. Believing that UN sanctions against Iraq would be an ineffective means of disarming Iraq, PNAC members also wrote a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, Elliott Abrams, et al
Letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott
May 28, 1998, newamericancentury.org, accessed May 30, 2007. urging Congress to act, and supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655) which President Clinton signed into law in October 1998.

In February 1998, some of the same individuals who had signed the PNAC letter in January also signed a similar letter to Clinton, from the bipartisan Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf.

In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective. The memo questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition, which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion."MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS, FROM: MARK LAGON, SUBJECT: Iraq"
January 7, 1999, newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, accessed May 30, 2007.

Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, specifically advocating regime change through "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." The letter suggested that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," even if no evidence surfaced linking Iraq to the September 11 attacks. The letter warned that allowing Hussein to remain in power would be "an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism." William Kristol, et al.
Letter to George W. Bush
September 20, 2001, ''newamericancentury.org'', n.d., accessed June 20, 2014. From 2001 through the invasion of Iraq, the PNAC and many of its members voiced active support for military action against Iraq, and asserted leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."Neil MacKay
"Former Bush Aide: US Plotted Iraq Invasion Long Before 9/11"
''The Wisdom Fund'', Scottish '' Sunday Herald'' January 11, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007.

Some have regarded the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton urging "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power,""Chronology: The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine"

The War Behind Closed Doors
'. '' Frontline'', WGBH-TV ( Boston, Massachusetts), Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), online posting February 20, 2003, accessed June 1, 2007
"Home page"
includes menu of links to "Analysis", "Chronology", "Interviews", and "Discussion" as well as link to streaming video of the program.) and the involvement of multiple PNAC members in the Bush Administration as evidence that the PNAC had a significant influence on the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq, or even argued that the invasion was a foregone conclusion.Margie Burns
"Warriors Behind the Scenes Coached the Stars On Stage"
'' The Washington Spectator'', May 1, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007, updated November 16, 2013. (1 of 3 pages.) Writing in Der Spiegel in 2003, for example, Jochen Bölsche specifically referred to PNAC when he claimed that "ultra-rightwing US think-tanks" had been "drawing up plans for an era of American global domination, for the emasculation of the UN, and an aggressive war against Iraq" in "broad daylight" since 1998. Similarly, BBC journalist Paul Reynolds portrayed PNAC's activities and goals as key to understanding the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration after September 11, 2001, suggesting that Bush's "dominant" foreign policy was at least partly inspired by the PNAC's ideas. Paul Reynolds
"Analysis: Power Americana:
The US Appears to Be Heading to War with Iraq Whatever Happens, with Implications for the Future Conduct of American Foreign Policy", '' BBC News'', March 2, 2003, accessed May 29, 2007.

Some political scientists, historians, and other academics have been critical of many of these claims. Donald E. Abelson has written that scholars studying "PNAC's ascendancy" in the political arena "cannot possibly overlook the fact" that several of the signatories to PNAC's ''Statement of Purposes'' "received high level positions in the Bush administration," but that acknowledging these facts "is a far cry from making the claim that the institute was the architect of Bush's foreign policy."

''Rebuilding America's Defenses''

One of the PNAC's most influential publications was a 90-page report titled ''Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.'' Citing the PNAC's 1997 ''Statement of Principles,'' ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' asserted that the United States should "seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership" by "maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." The report's primary author was Giselle Donnelly, then going by the first name Thomas. Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt are credited as project chairmen. It also lists the names of 27 other participants who contributed papers or attended meetings related to the production of the report, six of whom subsequently assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration.At the end of the list of "Project Participants", on page 90 of ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'', there appears the following statement: "The above list of individuals participated in at least one project meeting or contributed a paper for discussion. The report is a product solely of the Project for the New American Century and does not necessarily represent the views of the project participants or their affiliated institutions." It suggested that the preceding decade had been a time of peace and stability, which had provided "the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth" and "the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy." The report warned that "no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself.

According to the report, current levels of defense spending were insufficient, forcing policymakers "to try ineffectually to "manage" increasingly large risks." The result, it suggested, was a form "paying for today's needs by shortchanging tomorrow's; withdrawing from constabulary missions to retain strength for large-scale wars; "choosing" between presence in Europe or presence in Asia; and so on." All of these, the report asserted, were "bad choices" and "false economies," which did little to promote long-term American interests. "The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements," the report argued, "will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity."

''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' recommended establishing four core missions for US military forces: the defense of the "American homeland," the fighting and winning of "multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars," the performance of "'constabular' duties associated with shaping the security environment" in key regions, and the transformation of US forces "to exploit the 'revolution in military affairs.'" Its specific recommendations included the maintenance of US nuclear superiority, an increase of the active personnel strength of the military from 1.4 to 1.6 million people, the redeployment of US forces to Southeast Europe and Asia, and the "selective" modernization of US forces. The report advocated the cancellation of "roadblock" programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter (which it argued would absorb "exorbitant" amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited gains), but favored the development of "global missile defenses," and the control of "space and cyberspace," including the creation of a new military service with the mission of "space control." To help achieve these aims, ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' advocated a gradual increase in military and defense spending "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. That amount is at least 17% to 19% or $355 billion to $386 billion of the US federal tax revenue in 2000 with annual increases of 4%-6%.

Critics

''Rebuilding America's Defenses''

Written before the September 11 attacks, and during political debates of the War in Iraq, a section of ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" became the subject of considerable controversy: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that the Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans. John Pilger
"John Pilger Reveals the American Plan"
'' New Statesman'', December 16, 2002, accessed June 20, 2014.

Some critics went further, asserting that ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' should be viewed as a program for global American hegemony. Writing in Der Spiegel in 2003, Jochen Bölsche claimed that ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' "had been developed by PNAC for Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby," and was "devoted to matters of 'maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.'"Ebrahim Afsah
"Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy – The Origins of the Current Neo-Conservative Revolution in US Strategic Thinking"
, ''The German Law Journal'', No. 9 (September 2003), n. 5, citing Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan - Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam", ''Der Spiegel'' March 4, 2003.Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan - Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam", ''Der Spiegel'' March 4, 2003; English translation, "This War Came from a Think Tank", trans. Alun Breward, published in Margo Kingsto
"A Think Tank War: Why Old Europe Says No
, '' The Sydney Morning Herald'', March 7, 2003, accessed May 28, 2007. British MP Michael Meacher made similar allegations in 2003, stating that the document was "a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana," which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration. Academic Peter Dale Scott subsequently wrote

" NAC'sideology was summarized in a major position paper, ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'', in 2000. This document advocated a global Pax Americana unrestrained by international law ..."

Other academics, such as Donald E. Abelson and Phillip Hammond, have suggested that many of these criticisms were overblown, while noting that similar statements about PNAC's origins, goals, and influence "continue to make their way into the academic literature on the neo-conservative network in the United States." Hammond, for example, notes that while ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'' "is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under cover of the war on terrorism," it was actually "unexceptional." According to Hammond, the report's recommendations were "exactly what one would generally expect neoconservatives to say, and it is no great revelation that they said it in publicly available documents prior to September 2001." Similarly, Abelson has written that "evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward" as Meacher and others maintain," as "we know very little about the inner workings of this think tank and whether it has lived up to its billing as the architect of Bush's foreign policy".

Focus on military strategies, versus diplomatic strategies

PNAC fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht stated:

"We have no choice but to re-instill in our foes and friends the fear that attaches to any great power. ... Only a war against Saddam Hussein will decisively restore the awe that protects American interests abroad and citizens at home".

The Strategic Studies Institute' s Jeffrey Record in his monograph ''Bounding the Global War on Terrorism'' and William Rivers Pitt, in '' Truthout'' argued that the PNAC's goals of military hegemony exaggerated what the military can accomplish, that they failed to recognize "the limits of US power", and that favoring pre-emptive exercise of military might over diplomatic strategies could have "adverse side effects."William Rivers Pitt
"Of Gods and Mortals and Empire"
("Editorial: Truthout Perspective"), '' Truthout'', February 21, 2003, accessed May 31, 2007. ( Paul Reynolds and Max Boot have made similar observations. Max Boot
"Doctrine of the 'Big Enchilada'"
'' The Washington Post'', October 14, 2002, online posting, ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed May 31, 2007.)

End of the organization

By the end of 2006, PNAC was "reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website ith asingle employee ... left to wrap things up", according to a correspondent at the BBC News. Paul Reynolds
"End of the Neo-con Dream:
The Neo-conservative Dream Faded in 2006", '' BBC News'', December 21, 2006, accessed May 29, 2007. In 2006 former executive director of the PNAC Gary Schmitt said PNAC had never been intended to "go on forever," and had "already done its job," suggesting that "our view has been adopted." In 2009 Robert Kagan and William Kristol created a new think tank, the Foreign Policy Initiative, which scholars Stephen M. Walt and Don Abelson have characterized as a successor to PNAC. From September 5, 2018, till January 13, 2019, the PNAC homepage went back online without any further explanation.

People associated with the PNAC

Project directors

s listed on the PNAC website:

* William Kristol, Co-founder and Chairman
* Robert Kagan, Co-founder
* Bruce P. Jackson

* Mark Gerson
*Randy Scheunemann

Project staff

* Other director(s):
** Ellen Bork, Deputy Director
** Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director
* Other associates:
**Senior fellows:
*** Giselle (formerly Thomas) Donnelly, Senior Fellow
*** Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow
*** Gary Schmitt, Senior FellowGary J. Schmitt
is currently Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and Director of its program in Advanced Strategic Studies.

*Research associates:
** Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate
* Comptroller:
** Dov Zakheim, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (2001-2004)

Former directors and staff

* John R. Bolton, Director, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001-2005) and United States Ambassador to the United Nations (2005-2006), former National Security Advisor of the United States (2018-2019), former senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
*Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director"Daniel McKivergan"
''newamericancentury.org'', ''web.archive.org'', accessed May 30, 2007.
*Christopher Maletz, former Assistant Director
*Richard N. Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs under the Reagan administration, an AEI associate, and member (and former chairman) of the Defense Policy Board

Signatories to ''Statement of Principles''

* Elliott Abrams, National Security Advisor (2005-2009)
* Gary Bauer
*William J. Bennett
* John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Governor of Florida (1999-2007)
*Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States (2001-2009)
*Eliot A. Cohen, Counselor of State Department (2007-2009)
* Midge Decter
* Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs (2001-2009)
* Steve Forbes
* Aaron Friedberg
* Francis Fukuyama
*Frank Gaffney
* Fred C. Ikle

* Donald Kagan
* Zalmay Khalilzad, Ambassador to Afghanistan (2003-2005), Ambassador to Iraq (2005-2007), Ambassador to United Nations (2007-2009)
* I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff to Vice President (2001-2005)
*Norman Podhoretz
*J. Danforth Quayle
*Peter W. Rodman
* Stephen P. Rosen
* Henry S. Rowen
*Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (2001-2006)
* Vin Weber
* George Weigel
* Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001-2005)

See also

* American Century
* American Imperialism
* Liberal internationalism
* Wilsonianism
* Center for a New American Security
* Committee on the Present Danger
* Committee for the Liberation of Iraq
* '' A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm''

Notes and references

External links

Project for the New American Century
- archived copy (with working links)

— critical website
Preserving Pax Americana: Defense Reform for the Unipolar Moment
by Thomas Donnelly
Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century
- PNAC September 2000 Report
Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy
by William Kristol and Robert Kagan

{{Authority control

1997 establishments in Washington, D.C.
2006 disestablishments in Washington, D.C.
Conservative organizations in the United States
Organizations established in 1997
Organizations disestablished in 2006
Foreign policy and strategy think tanks in the United States
Iraq War
Neoconservatism
Non-profit organizations based in Washington, D.C.
Political and economic think tanks in the United States