Bush's Security
Policy Written Long Before 9/11
“[A] tightly knit group of conservative ideologues and
right-wing think tanks (which have defense CEOs on their boards) have also been
influential in shaping and developing President Bush's security policy. From
the doctrine of preemptive strikes and regime change in Iraq to deploying a
Star Wars style missile defense and a new nuclear weapons policy to overall
U.S. national security strategy, the fingerprints of groups like the Project
for a New American Century, the National Institute for Public Policy and the
Center for Security Policy can be seen. In fact, every major element of the
Bush administration's national security strategy was developed in significant
part before Bush took office, and before the September 11th terror
attacks.
Project for the New American Century Members:
Dick Cheney's speech at the
London Institute of Petroleum, 1999:
"[B]y
2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So
where is the oil going to come from?
Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about
ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business.
While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East
with two thirds of the world?s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the
prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access
there, progress continues to be slow."
The transcript from this speech was removed from the original
London Institute of Petroleum website www.petroleum.co.uk/speeches.htm,
but the full text is available here: http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html
Document 1:
Excerpts from the Project for the New American Century's report - the most
important policy/strategy paper prepared by and for the Bush administration.
REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES
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; [Homeland
Security Dept.]
-
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous
major theater wars; [Afghanistan
/ Iraq]
-
perform the “constabulary” duties associated with
shaping the security environment in critical regions; [Occupation of Iraq / Afghanistan]
-
transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in
military affairs;” [Increased
Military budget]
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, [Missile
Defense System] 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. [Enlistments after 9/11]
-
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 .
To preserve American military preeminence in the
coming decades, the Department of
Defense must move more
aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational
concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs….
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts…. 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…. [Operation Northwoods?]
Full report here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Document 2:
The Baker Institute
and the Council on Foreign Relations put together a task force report for
the final deliberations of Dick Cheney's infamous 2001 secret Energy Task
Force. The report identified Iraq
and the Caspian Basin as two critically
urgent geo-strategic regions. Afghanistan was the key to
export the oil out of the Caspian region.
Below is a brief excerpt - full document available here: http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/study_15.pdf
STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Report of an Independent Task Force
Sponsored by the
James A. Baker III
Institute for Public Policy of Rice University
and the
Council on Foreign Relations
April 2001
The opening of new media outlets in the Middle East
has also increased the likelihood that a linkage will emerge in the minds of
citizens there between the U.S. alliance with Israel and cooperation on oil
prices. Moreover, a trend toward anti-Americanism could affect regional leaders’
abilities to cooperate with the U.S. in the energy area. The resulting tight
markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided
adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key “swing” producer,
posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government….
Investigate whether any changes to U.S. policy would
quickly facilitate
higher exports of oil from the Caspian Basin region…. the exports from some oil discoveries in the
Caspian Basin could be hastened if a secure, economical export route [Afghanistan]
could be identified
swiftly….
[The Strategy of the Silk Route]
A. Remove bottlenecks and other obstacles to energy supply, both domestically and internationally…. Investigate whether any changes in U.S. policy would rapidly facilitate higher Caspian Basin oil exports [Afghanistan]….
The Strategy of the Silk Route:
"One of the world’s richest
oil fields is on the eastern shore of the Caspian sea just north of Afghanistan. The Caspian oil reserves are of top
strategic importance in the quest to control the earth’s remaining oil
supply. The US government developed a
policy called 'The
Strategy of the Silk Route.' The policy was designed to lock out Russia, China,
and Iran from the oil in this region.
This called for U.S. corporations to construct an oil pipeline running
through Afghanistan." -- Boston Herald, 12.10.01