The New (Old) Solution Of Neocons: More Nukes!

Neocons prove once again that they just can't live without an "all fearful enemy" to contend with. They've missed the USSR so much, they've kept trying to make Russia the same at its former monolithic "Iron Curtain" incarnation (hence their predictable, wrongheaded and misinforming reaction with regards to the latest Georgia crisis). They've likewise been crying wolf over China for years. Remember what Bush, one whose ears were ever glued to the Cassandra megaphone of neocons, said early on in his Presidency? That China is not a partner but a competitor.

We all know how China reacted to such dismissal, especially when an American spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter aircraft off the coast of China.

Now, we of course know all too well what the little neocons in the White House have wrought additionally since then.

And it's all about making their wet dreams of Empire come true.

Case in point, their own (PNAC) statement of principles:

We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. 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 this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is 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.

A more staunch support of the "values" of the so-called "Military-Industrial Complex" remains to be seen.

The signatories of these principles have become (infamously) well known throughout the two terms of the Bush/Cheney administration and the recent G.O.P. primaries (emphasis on some names added):

Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz.

Some of them you now find as foreign policy advisors of the McCain campaign.

These are the "wise folks" who were the thinkers/architects/promulgators of the "Axis of Evil", the Bush Doctrine, the Iraq war, of "regime change", and all assorted military-industrial complex WMD paraphernalia - such as pushing for "missile defense shield", more use of "tactical nukes", more use of "depleted uranium bombs", "all options on the table", etc.

Well, if you thought these "wise folks" were gone, then guess again (link and emphasis added):

US told to increase nuclear arsenal as China threat looms
The US must increase its nuclear arsenal in response to China's growing military might, according to a State Department report.

The International Security and Advisory Board (Isab), which reports to Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, warned that "holding the US homeland hostage to missile attack is important to Chinese military goals".

It claimed that China will have "in excess of 100 nuclear-armed missiles that could strike the United States" by 2015.

By contrast, it said the US had allowed its nuclear stockpile and expertise to "deteriorate and atrophy across the board" for the last two decades.

(...) The ISAB was asked to draft a report on how the US could bring its relationship with China "towards greater transparency and mutual confidence".

(...) The ten-page report, which was leaked onto the internet, seems to justify a decision by the US to sell $6.5 billion (£3.6 billion) of arms to Taiwan, a move that has infuriated China and led it to cut several high-level military ties with the US. Mr Wolfowitz is also chairman of the US-Taiwan Business Council.

The report suggests that a conflict between the US and China could be triggered by the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty and claims China will invade the island in the near future. "If China is to become a global power, the first step must include control [of Taiwan]," it states.

It adds that there has been a "substantial expansion" of China's nuclear arsenal in order to force America to "back away rather than fight". The report claims China has "new thermonuclear warheads as well as tactical arms, encompassing enhanced radiation weapons, nuclear artillery, and anti-ship weapons". Current US intelligence reports paint a less dramatic picture and there is no evidence of a tactical nuclear arsenal.

It also claims that "Chinese espionage in the United States is comprehensive and pervasive" and that there is no point in trying to shape Chinese policy by "educating" the Chinese. Instead, the US must build a new missile shield and "undertake the development of new weapons [...] to convince China that it will not be able to overcome the US militarily."

And who is chairman of this ISAB and whom else sit on this board? That's right (emphasis added):

The ISAB is chaired by Paul Wolfowitz, the former World Bank president who was often referred to as the "major architect" of the war in Iraq while he was deputy defence secretary.

Mr Wolfowitz was appointed by Miss Rice last year. Other hawkish members of the Isab are Robert Joseph, the former undersecretary for arms control and international security affairs, and James Schlesinger, the former defence secretary. Executives from arms companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing also sit on the board.

Conclusion: the neocons, aided by their military-industrial complex friends and fellow warhawks, are now pushing for a cold war with China - and it feels like the 1980's all over again:

Hans M Kristensen, a director at the Federation of American Scientists, an anti-nuclear think tank in Washington, said that instead the report "appears to have drawn up a very effective plan for a Cold War with China".

He added: "The authors land on a set of recommendations and observations that strongly resemble a China-version of the Reagan administration's aggressive military posture against the Soviet Union." Mr Kristensen also called on Miss Rice to disown the Isab's conclusions.

This sounds an awful lot like the self-serving scare about the former USSR's nuclear capabilities/stockpiles - which lead the U.S. in wasting billions and billions in nuclear weapons stockpiling, all the while remaining blind to the fact that they were already well ahead of this insane arms race when the USSR had no choice but to scale down - if not actually stop - on keeping building/improving its own stockpiles due to being on the verge of going bankrupt.

Yet there them neocons go again ... advocating de novo massive nuclear stockpiling against their new "enemy" of choice, China - which is doubly ludicrous considering the current global economic woes.

But the truism remains that neocons see confrontation and the use of military force as solutions to anything and everything - the Sixth Principle of Incompetence.

And as bona fides incompetents that they are, they remain consistent with themselves - the Seventh Principle of Incompetence.

The trillion-dollar question is: are Americans this time around more the wiser and thereby refuse to be taken for a ride once again by the neocons?

That remains to be established ...


(Cross-posted at NION and TWWL)