woensdag, 2 augustus 2006
Doorsturen Doorsturen   Printen Printen

PNAC: Project for the New American Century

Het PNAC is een van de invloedrijkste neoconservatieve denktanks. Het heeft ten doel het wereldleiderschap van de VS te bevorderen. Dit artikel gaat in op het rapport “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, dat het PNAC in september 2000 publiceerde. Sinds 9/11 speelt dit een hoofdrol in de defensiepolitiek van President Bush. Onderstaand artikel geeft een samenvatting van dit programma. In hoeverre zal het Congres hierin meegaan ?

Het PNAC is gebaseerd op twee veronderstellingen: dat Amerikaans leiderschap goed is voor Amerika en voor de wereld en dat zulk leiderschap, dat zich beroept op een moreel beginsel, berust op militaire macht en diplomatieke inspanning. Het PNAC is een non-profit organisatie, die in 1997 werd opgericht door William Kristol en Robert Kagan. In het rapport van 2000 wordt een neoconservatieve visie gegeven op de mondiale rol van de VS in de 21e eeuw en op welke manier het defensie-apparaat daarvoor zou moeten worden hervormd en ingezet.

“America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.” (from the Statement of Principles)

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.


The challenge for the coming century is to preserve and enhance this “American peace.”
Yet unless the United States maintains sufficient military strength, this opportunity will be lost. And in fact, over the past decade, the failure to establish a security strategy responsive to new realities and to provide adequate resources for the full range of missions needed to exercise U.S. global leadership has placed the American peace at growing risk. This report attempts to define those requirements. In particular, we need to:

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


21st Century Security system: Cold War:Bipolar -> 21st Century: Unipolar
Strategic goal: Cold War: Contain Soviet Union -> 21st Century: Preserve Pax Americana
Main military mission(s): Cold War: Deter Soviet expansionism -> 21st Century: Secure and expand zones of democratic peace; deter rise of new great-power competitor; defend key regions; exploit transformation of war
Main military threat(s): Cold War: Potential global war across many theaters ->21st Century: Potential theater wars spread across globe
Focus of strategic competition: Cold War:Europe ->21st Century: East Asia

Today, America spends less than 3 percent of its gross domestic product on national defense, less than at any time since before the United States established itself as the world’s leading power.


None of the defense reviews of the past decade has weighed fully the range of missions demanded by U.S. global leadership, nor adequately quantified the forces and resources necessary to execute these missions successfully.

America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains essential. But the new century has brought with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.

Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces.
This resembles the “two-war” standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.

CONSTABULARY DUTIES. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. A decade’s experience and the policies of two administrations have shown that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new, long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These duties are today’s most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations.

TRANSFORM U.S. ARMED FORCES. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the socalled “revolution in military affairs,” sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets.

The administration’s stewardship of the nation’s deterrent capability has been described by Congress as “erosion by design.”

The Joint Chiefs have admitted they lack the forces necessary to meet the two-war benchmark.

For the United States to retain the technological and tactical advantages it now enjoys, the transformation effort must be considered as pressing a military mission as preparing for today’s theater wars.


Guarding the American security perimeter today – and tomorrow – will require changes in U.S. deployments and installations overseas.

In Southeast Asia, American forces are too sparse to address rising security requirements adequately.

It would be wise to reduce the frequency of carrier presence in the Mediterranean and the Gulf while increasing U.S. Navy presence in the Pacific.


Elements of U.S. Army Europe should be redeployed to Southeast Europe, while a permanent unit should be based in the Persian Gulf region.

Likewise, as high-intensity combat changes, the Army must find new ways to recruit and retain soldiers with hightechnology skills, perhaps creating partnerships with industry for extremely skilled reservists, or considering some skills as justifying a warrant-officer, rather than an enlisted, rank structure. In particular, the Army should:

–Be restored in active-duty strength and structure to meet the requirements of its current missions. Overall active strength should rise to approximately 525,000 soldiers from the current strength of 475,000. Much of this increase should bolster the overdeployed and under-manned units that provide combat support and combat service support, such as military intelligence, military police, and other similar units.

–Undertake selective modernization efforts, primarily to increase its tactical and operational mobility and increase the effectiveness of current combat systems through “digitization” – the process of creating tactical information networks. The Army should accelerate its plans to purchase medium-weight vehicles, acquire the Comanche helicopter and the HIMARS rocket-artillery system; likewise, the heavy Crusader artillery system, though a highly capable howitzer, is an unwise investment given the Army’s current capabilities and future needs, and should be canceled.

–Improve the combat readiness of current units by increasing personnel strength and revitalizing combat training.

–Make efforts to improve the quality of soldier life to sustain the current “middle class,” professional Army.

–Be repositioned and reconfigured in light of current strategic realities:
elements of U.S. Army Europe should be redeployed to Southeast Europe, while a permanent unit should be based in the Persian Gulf region; simultaneously, forward-deployed Army units should be reconfigured to be better capable of independent operations that include ongoing constabulary missions as well as the initial phases of combat.

–Reduce the strength of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, yet recognize that these components are meant to provide a hedge against a genuine, large-scale, unanticipated military emergency; the continuing reliance on large numbers of reservists for constabulary missions is inappropriate and short-sighted.

–Have its budget increased from the current level of $70 billion annually to $90 to $95 billion per year.

Returning the National Guard to its traditional role would allow for a reduction in strength while lessening the strain of repeated contingency operation deployments. American landpower is the essential link in the chain that translates U.S. military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence.

In addition to terminating the Crusader artillery program, the Army’s annual budget must increase to the $90 to $95 billion level to finance current missions and the Army’s longterm transformation.

In particular, the Air Force should:

–Be redeployed to reflect the shifts in international politics. Independent, expeditionary air wings containing a broad mix of aircraft, including electronic warfare, airborne command and control, and other support aircraft, should be based in Italy, Southeastern Europe, central and perhaps eastern Turkey, the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia.

–Realign the remaining Air Force units in Europe, Asia and the United States to optimize their capabilities to conduct multiple large-scale air campaigns.

–Make selected investments in current generations of combat and support aircraft to sustain the F-15 and F-16 fleets for longer service life, purchase additional sets of avionics for specialmission fighters, increase planned fleets of AWACS, JSTARS and other electronic support planes, and expand stocks of precision-guided munitions.

–Develop plans to increase electronic warfare support fleets, such as by creating “Wild Weasel” and jammer aircraft based upon the F-15E airframe.

–Restore the condition of the institutional Air Force, expanding its personnel strength, rebuilding its corps of pilots and experienced maintenance NCOs, expanding support specialties such as intelligence and special police and reinvigorating its training establishment.

–Overall Air Force active personnel strength should be gradually increased by approximately 30,000 to 40,000, and the service should rebuild a structure of 18 to 19 active and 8 reserve wing equivalents.

Air Combat Command, the main tactical fighter command based in the United States, has suffered a 50 percent drop in readiness rates.

The Air Force’s fleets of support aircraft are too small for rapid, large-scale Deployments and sustained operations.

The Joint Strike Fighter, with limited capabilities and significant technical risk, is a roadblock to future transformation and a sink-hole for needed defense funds.

The Navy must begin to reduce its heavy dependence on carrier operations.
To meet the strategic need for naval power today, the Navy should be realigned and reconfigured along these lines:

–Reflecting the gradual shift in thefocus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the U.S. fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia.

–The Navy must begin to transition away from its heavy dependence on carrier operations, reducing its fleet from 12 to nine carriers over the next six years. A moratorium on carrier construction should be imposed after the completion of the CVN-77, allowing the Navy to retain a ninecarrier force through 2025. Design and research on a future CVX carrier should continue, but should aim at a radical design change to accommodate an air wing based primarily on unmanned aerial vehicles. The Navy should complete the F/A-18E/F program, refurbish and modernize its support aircraft, consider the suitability of a carrier-capable version of the Air Force’s F-22, but keep the Joint Strike Fighter program in research and development until the implications of the revolution in military affairs for naval warfare are understood better.

–To offset the reduced role of carriers, the Navy should slightly increase its fleets of current- generation surface combatants and submarines for improved strike capabilities in littoral waters and to conduct an increasing proportion of naval presence missions with surface action groups. Additional investments in countermine warfare are needed, as well.

The Navy has built up a ‘modernization deficit’ – of surface ships, submarines and aircraft – that will soon approach $100 billion.

The Navy’s surface fleet is too small to meet current requirements, war plans and future missile defense duties.

To maintain its unique and valuable role, the Marine Corps should:

–Be expanded to permit the forward basing of a second Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) in East Asia. This MEU should be based in Southeast Asia along with the repositioned Navy carrier battle group as described above.

–Likewise be increased in strength by about 25,000 to improve the personnel status of Marine units, especially nondeployed units undergoing training.

–Be realigned to create lighter units with greater infantry strength and better abilities for joint operations, especially including other services’ fires in support of Marine operations.
The Marine Corps should review its unit and force structure to eliminate marginal capabilities.

–Accelerate the purchase of V-22 aircraft and the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle to improve ship-to-shore maneuver, and increase tactical mobility and range.

Navy Department spending should be increased to between $100 and $110 Billion annually.


The effects of the RMA will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what weapons dominate, and which nations enjoy military preeminence.

In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership, tomorrow’s U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions:

–Global missile defenses. A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its allies and forward-deployed forces, must be constructed. This must be a layered system of land, sea, air and spacebased components.

–Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new “international commons” be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the “infosphere” will find it difficult to exert global political leadership.

–Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces. In exploiting the “revolution in military affairs,” the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix of current and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new systems, organizations and operational concepts. This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions. Any successful process of transformation must be linked to the services, which are the institutions within the Defense Department with the ability and the responsibility for linking budgets and resources to specific missions.

To increase their effectiveness, ground-based interceptors like the Army’s Theater High-Altitude Area Defense System must be networked to space-based systems

The Clinton Administration’s adherence to the 1972 ABM Treaty has frustrated development of useful ballistic missile defenses.

In the future, it will be necessary to unite the current SPACECOM vision for control of space to the institutional responsibilities and interests of a separate military service.

Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of a constant allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn.

Toward a 21st Century Army

In particular the process of Army transformation should:

–Move ahead with experiments to create new kinds of independent units using systems now entering final development and early procurement – such as the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft and the HIMARS light-weight rocket artillery system – capable of longerrange operations and selfdeployments. Once mature, such units would replace forward-based heavy forces.

–Experiment vigorously to understand the long-term implications of the revolution in military affairs for land forces. In particular, the Army should develop ways to deploy and maneuver against adversaries with improved long-range strike capabilities.

Therefore, the Air Force should:

–Complete its planned F-22 procurement while terminating its participation in the JSF program and upgrading the capabilities of existing tactical aircraft, especially by purchasing additional precision munitions and developing new ones and increasing numbers of support
aircraft to allow for longer-range operations and greater survivability;

–Increase efforts to develop long-range and high-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, not merely for reconnaissance but for strike and even air-combat missions;

–Pursue the development of largebodied stealthy aircraft for a variety of roles, including lift, refueling, and other support missions as well as strike missions.

–Target significant new investments toward creating capabilities for operating in space, ncluding inexpensive launch vehicles, new satellites and transatmospheric vehicles, in preparation for a decision as to whether space warfare is sufficiently different from combat within earth’s atmosphere so as to require a separate “space service.”

Navy transformation should be a two-phase process:

–Near-term Navy transformation should accelerate the construction of planned generations of 21st century surface combatants with increased stealth characteristics, improved and varied missiles and long-range guns for strikes ashore. Efforts to implement “network-centric” warfare under the cooperative engagement concept should be accelerated. The Navy should begin to tructure itself for its emerging role in missile defenses, determining, for example, whether current surface combatant vessels and a traditional rotational deployment scheme are apropos for this mission.

–In the longer term, the Navy must determine whether its current focus on littoral operations can be sustained under a transformed paradigm of naval warfare and how to retain control of open-ocean areas in the future. Experiments in operating varied fleets of UAVs should begin now, perhaps employing a retired current carrier. Consideration should be directed toward other forms of unmanned sea and air vehicles and toward an expanded role for submarines.

The Navy should consider using a deactivated carrier to better understand the possibilities and problems of operating large fleets of UAVs at sea.


Use of the post- Cold War “peace dividend” to balance the federal budget has created a “defense deficit” totaling tens of billions of dollars annually.
If defense spending remains at current levels, U.S. forces will soon be too old or too small.

The program we advocate – one that would provide America with forces to meet the strategic demands of the world’s sole superpower – requires budget levels to be increased to 3.5 to 3.8 percent of the GDP.

Bewerking: SpyNose

Christian Science Monitor
Hijacking Catastrophe 9/11
video: “event like a new Pearl Harbour”

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars

Door , topic: Internationaal
Reacties op dit artikel kunnen gevolgd worden op de RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. Hub schreef op : 1
    Hub Jongen

    Het lijkt er inderdaad op dat Bush (Amerika?) bezig is een groot deel van dit programma uit te voeren.

    Het is de politie-agent van de wereld, en "Rule the world by power".
    Dit moet wel leiden tot meer collectivisme, terwijl de oplossing voor een wereldvrede en welvaart net gezocht zou moeten worden in de richting van grotere vrijheid voor IEDER individu.

  2. SpyNose (auteur van dit artikel) schreef op : 2

    Inderdaad Hub. De Homeland Security Act, de Patriot Act zijn pregnante voorbeelden.
    En als je leest, dat het document praat over een "defence deficit" van jaarlijks tientallen miljarden dollars, moet je je toch gaan afvragen, wat hier allemaal achter zit.

    Voor Nederland is opmerkelijk, dat dit document (van 2000) al praat over het geldverspillende JSF-project, dat dat geld beter anders besteed zou kunnen worden, terwijl Nederland nog steeds blijft investeren. Dan vraagt elk redelijk denkend wezen zich af, of die Nederlandse politici zich ook lenen, anders dan voor geldverspillende projecten.

  3. M. schreef op : 3

    Ja, het is erg onlibertarisch allemaal maar in de wereld zoals die nu eenmaal is (vol van dictators met grensoverschrijdende ambities), ben ik toch blij dat het de Amerikanen zijn die voor politie-agentje spelen dan pakweg een of andere Moslim- of Kremlin-tyran.
    Ik hoop dan ook van harte dat de VS zijn macht zal kunnen bestendigen, maar vrees uiteraard dat dit uiteindelijk onhoudbaar zal blijken.
    Enerzijds kunnen we dan blij zijn dat de VS de wereld niet meer loopt rond te commanderen. Maar ik vrees dat wat we in de plaats krijgen nog erger is.


  4. SpyNose (auteur van dit artikel) schreef op : 4

    [3] M.,
    Ik vrees, dat "de Amerikanen" -evenals "de Europeanen" trouwens – allesbehalve blij kunnen zijn met de aantasting van hun burgelijke vrijheden door hun provocerende, expansionistische, corporatistische neoconservatieve regering met zijn zogenaamd democratische zendingsdrang.


  5. rinze schreef op : 5

    Dank@Spy,.. Dit soort officiële documenten zouden we vaker moeten lezen…..

    Het wordt echt tijd dat mensen leren dat er een verschil is tussen Amerika en wat bijvoorbeeld de Neo-Cons ontwikkelen…

    RepubliCrats….. Links-Rechts-debat wat richting geeft…. waarbij het publiek het gevoel heeft dat haar belangen worden verdedigd door één van beide partijen…..
    Doorgaans is het compromis altijd in nadeel van het publiek en precies de richting die bepaalde partijen graag opgaan.
    Problem,… solution.. direction…

    "De slimme manier om mensen passief en gehoorzaam te houden is het spectrum van de aanvaardbare mening strikt te beperken, maar laat zeer levendig debat binnen dat spectrum toe en moedigt zelfs de meer kritiekere en dissidente meningen aan. Dit geeft mensen het idee dat er een vrije vorm van denken gaande is, terwijl al die tijd de vooronderstellingen van het systeem worden versterkt door de beperkingen die op de richting van het debat geplaatst worden."

    Dit zien we tussen de Republikeinen en Democraten gebeuren: Een beetje zeuren over homo’s of over het sexleven van Clinton,…. maar de hardcore-issues worden buiten het debat gehouden, terwijl de bevolking zich druk maakt om details….

    PNAC is dus een document van de NeoCons,.. Al snel denken we nu aan Republikeinen,.. maar ik zou toch nu even zelf op onderzoek gaan of dit wel zo gemakkelijk als 1 groepering is in te delen…

    PNAC vraagt om een Pearl Harbour-event, waardoor er meer ruimte is om internationale strategie uit te voeren…… 9/11?

    NeoConservatief,.. Klinkt conservatief, maar ondertussen zijn deze "jongens" wel bezig met het ondermijnen van de Grondrechten…..

    Feitelijk doen Democraten en Republikeinen een spel, waarbij beide partijen continu schaven aan de burgerrechten….. En het volk moet kiezen tussen één van deze twee….

    In Nederland is het ook niet veel beter, want ik hoor alleen maar gezeur over de achternaam van Hirshi en de normen en waarden van onze vriend Balkenende.
    Balkenende.. goh.. zijn naam doet me altijd denken aan:

    Balkanization is a geopolitical term originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region into smaller regions that are often hostile or non-cooperative with each other. The term has arisen from the conflicts in the 20th century Balkans. The first Balkanization was embodied in the Balkan Wars, and the term was reaffirmed in the Yugoslav wars..

    Divide and Conquer… en dat is precies wat men aan het doen is…..

    Dus dat hele gelul over rechts,.. links, .. groen,. paars of progressief of conservatief, gaat totaal niet op als het gaat om vrijheid vs. totalitaire staat.

    Dus het gaat niet om welke groep jezelf toerekent, maar om je individuele vrijheden.

    (PNAC kom ik vanavond nog wel op terug…)

    Groetjes and nogmaals bedankt voor dit draadje..

  6. M. schreef op : 6

    [4] Mee eens, maar we leven wel in een reele wereld en daarin zal wie nu eenmaal de sterkste is zich altijd wel zo opstellen als Bush nu. Dat is doorheen de geschiedenis nooit anders geweest.

    Nou dan liever een Christen (van welk allooi dan ook) dan een Moslim in de driver’s seat.

    Daarmee keur ik Bush’ gedrag moreel niet goed, maar ik ben niet zo naief te denken dat als hij een stapje terug zou doen er dan geen ander ambitieus dictatortje dit machtsvacuum zou opvullen.

    Kortom: liever een foute Westerling (met normen en waarden die toch nog iets met de mijne gemeen hebben) dat een Moslim o.i.d.

  7. Krijn. schreef op : 7

    [2] "Voor Nederland is opmerkelijk, dat dit document (van 2000) al praat over het geldverspillende JSF-project, dat dat geld beter anders besteed zou kunnen worden, terwijl Nederland nog steeds blijft investeren. Dan vraagt elk redelijk denkend wezen zich af, of die Nederlandse politici zich ook lenen, anders dan voor geldverspillende projecten." …Nederland doet ook niet mee aan de JSF omdat het zo’n goed vliegtuig is! We doen mee omdat het Amerikaans is. De Typhoon II (eurofighter) kan in zijn uitontwikkelde versie alles dat de JSF kan voor een lagere aanschaf en onderhoudsprijs. Typhoon vliegt ook al paraat terwijl JSF nog in ontwikkeling is.

  8. Joop schreef op : 8

    [7] Waarom zou een onbeduidend landje als NL uberhaupt straaljagers dienen te hebben…?! Duur en totaal overbodig speelgoed voor een kleine militaire elite lijkt me.

  9. rinze schreef op : 9

    PNAC,.. okay..

    Dit is dus een organisatie die verschrikkelijk veel documenten heeft geproduceert:


    Het is voor een leek totaal niet inzichtelijk,..

    In essentie komt het er op neer dat de Amerikaanse troepen anders ingericht moeten worden. Ook de manier waarop en waar men deze inzet wordt besproken.

    Helemaal logisch,.. Elk land met leger heeft zo zijn plannen uitgewerkt.

    Wat PNAC stelt is dat de wereldverhoudingen van bipolar naar unipolar zijn geshift,.. Dus dat er nog maar één grote millitaire macht is,.. Men spreekt over het transformeren van het leger tot een globale macht, waarbij men dus verder dan de eigen landsgrenzen kijkt. ( ! )
    De échte ruimte wil men millitair claimen en zelfs cyberspace moet worden gecontroleerd.
    Cyberspace valt onder het stuk "infosphere", waarbij het dus duidelijk is strategen ook over het internet nadenken.
    We mogen dan denken aan communicatie, organisatie, informatie, maar ook aan registratie, belasting, propaganda en censuur.

    In China kun je met Google de "tankman" niet meer terugvinden,…..

    Dan hebben we nog o.a. Echelon:


    Deze vriend vind het aardig om informatie te vergaren, waarbij het een andere insteek heeft dan Wikipedia. Niet dat er over wikipedia niet genoeg te vertellen valt… maar deze zou ik niet meteen een spion noemen..

    Vervolgens wil ik nog even aangeven dat er systemen zijn die een persoonsprofiel maken aan de hand van de sites die je bezoekt. ( denk ook aan: google die je keywords verzamelt en je probeert te catagoriseren. )

    Ik heb dus niet alle PNAC documenten gelezen en ik beschuldig tot nu toe ook geen enkele organisatie.
    Ik ben gewoon huiverig voor het idee dat ik "tankman" zometeen niet meer kan vinden…..

    Of o.a. de eerste foto’s van het Pentagon, waarbij de gevel nog niet is ingestort en we slechts een klein gat zien…..

    Ik ben geen aanhanger van een stroming, maar ik ben voor individuele vrijheid…. en tkost me geen moeite om bedreiging van deze vrijheid vast te stellen.

    ( ! ) transformeren van het leger,.. revolutionaire verandering etc. : Hierbij kun je dus voorstellen dat deze Unipolaire macht haar troepen inzet als een soort van wereld-politie… waarbij de andersdenkende burger dus de vijand is. (Bipolar,… Unipolar,.. transformatie…)
    Je voelt de spanning……

    Goed.. kstop nu met typen.. want wie typt leest te weinig……

  10. Krijn. schreef op : 10

    [8] Ach, d’r komt iedere week wel een onbekend vliegtuig Nederland binnen op weg naar de Nationale Nederlanden toren in Rotterdam of de Rembrandt in Amsterdam.

    Wel fijn om dan een stel jachtvliegtuigen te hebben om ze neer te halen wanneer Al Qaeda aan het roer zit.

  11. Ron Paul Fan schreef op : 11


    Goed nieuws! Er komt geen Nieuwe Amerikaanse Eeuw! De [kuch] ‘neocons’ achter dit onzalige plan geloven er klaarblijkelijk zelf niet meer in en zijn waarschijnlijk allen afgedropen naar Israel. De website van de club… www.newamericancentury.org is ‘suspended’.

    Amerika wordt de nieuwe Sovjetunie en Rusland het nieuwe Amerika. De Russen hebben de neocon-alliantie (Israel/VS/US) een gevoelige klap gegeven met die prachtige actie in Georgie.

    Verder heeft Rusland ervoor gezorgd dat ze de alleen-distributeur zijn geworden van turkmeens gas, waarmee ze zo ongeveer gasleverancier van de werld zijn geworden: globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9853

    Nu moeten wij Europeanen de beslissende stap zetten en de Amerikanen dumpen ten faveure van de Russen: globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9859

    “Grey is right, but what choice does Putin have? His task is to avoid a military confrontation with the United States while demonstrating to his Europeon partners that their future lies with Russia not America. That’s the real goal. To achieve that, he needs to expose Bush as reckless, petulant, and incapable of being a responsible steward of the global system. Maybe Putin will have to back-down at some point and swallow his pride; it makes no difference. What matters, is the endgame; showing that Russia is strong and dependable and will provide its European allies with oil and natural gas in a businesslike manner. That’s the winning hand. Meanwhile, the United States will be forced to take a long-overdue look in the mirror and revisit its strategy for perennial war. Unfortunately, once the Atlantic Alliance is shattered; America’s lifeline to the world is kaput.”