The Neoconservative Project (PNAC)

THE PNAC: A NEOCONSERVATIVE THINK TANK

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was founded on June 3, 1997 by William Kristol (editor of the Weekly Standard) and Robert Kagan (political analyst). It is a neoconservative think tank whose declared mission is to promote 'American global leadership.' Among its founding members and signatories of its statement of principles are several individuals who would hold key positions within the Bush administration after 2001: Dick Cheney (vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz (Under Secretary of Defense), Lewis 'Scooter' Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff), Elliott Abrams (NSC), John Bolton (Under Secretary of State), and Zalmay Khalilzad (ambassador).

Other signatories include influential intellectuals: Francis Fukuyama, Gary Bauer, Jeb Bush, Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle, and Norman Podhoretz.

THE DOCUMENT ‘REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES’ (SEPTEMBER 2000)

In September 2000, one year before the September 11 attacks, PNAC published a 90-page document titled ‘Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.’ This document advocates for a massive increase in American military spending, the maintenance of permanent American bases in the Middle East, the development of new-generation biological weapons, and a radical transformation of the American armed forces.

The sentence that would become famous in conspiracy circles appears on page 51: '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.' This is translated as: 'Moreover, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, will probably be long, in the absence of a catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.'

After September 11, this sentence is interpreted by conspiracy theorists as proof that neoconservatives knew that an event of the Pearl Harbor type would be necessary to implement their program, and that they therefore would have had a motive to facilitate or organize it.

It is important to note that, within the context of the document, the sentence can also be read as a simple strategic observation: without a major shock, the desired transformation would be slow. It is an analysis, not necessarily a plan.

THE DOCUMENT ‘A CLEAN BREAK’ (JULY 1996)

The document ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’ is a strategic report drafted in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Other authors include Douglas Feith (future Under Secretary of Defense for Bush), David Wurmser (future advisor to Cheney), and Meyrav Wurmser.

The document recommends to Israel abandoning the Oslo peace process, pursuing a policy of force in the Middle East, working to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq (presented as a major Israeli strategic objective), countering Syria by supporting Lebanese and Kurdish groups, and reconfiguring the balance of power in the Middle East in favor of Israel.

For conspiracy theorists, this document is evidence that the war in Iraq (2003) and the program of regime change in the Middle East were initially planned to serve the interests of Israel, not those of the United States, and that American neoconservatives (some of whom have dual American-Israeli citizenship or close ties to Israel) acted as Israeli agents within the American government.

WESLEY CLARK AND ‘7 COUNTRIES IN 5 YEARS’

In 2007, four-star General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), revealed explosive testimony during a conference and in interviews. According to Clark, a few weeks after September 11, 2001, a senior Pentagon officer showed him a memorandum from the Secretary of Defense’s office describing plans to attack and overthrow the governments of seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

Clark has recounted this episode repeatedly, notably in his book Winning Modern Wars (2003) and during a speech at the Commonwealth Club in 2007. Clark's testimony has not been corroborated by other official sources, and the memorandum itself has never been published. However, it is notable that military interventions or regime changes have indeed taken place in several of the countries mentioned (Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria indirect intervention, Somalia special operations, Sudan sanctions and pressure).

THE ROLE OF NEOCONSERVATIVES IN THE WAR IN IRAQ

The connection between the PNAC and the war in Iraq is the most well-documented part of this theory. As early as January 1998, PNAC sent an open letter to President Clinton calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. After September 11, neoconservatives within the Bush administration immediately pushed for an invasion of Iraq, despite the lack of a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Paul Wolfowitz proposed attacking Iraq as early as September 15, 2001, during the Camp David meeting. Douglas Feith created the 'Office of Special Plans' at the Pentagon, which produced alternative intelligence analyses to justify the war (the infamous weapons of mass destruction that did not exist). Vice-President Cheney exerted unprecedented pressure on the intelligence community to produce conclusions supporting the war.

The absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the fabrication of evidence (the aluminum tubes, Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN with doctored information, the British ‘dossier’ plagiarized from a student thesis), and the links between the architects of the war and the PNAC and the Clean Break document constitute a set of documented facts that provide a substantial factual basis for concerns about the real motivations behind the war.

The dissolution of the PNAC in 2009 and its succession by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), also led by Kristol and Kagan, suggests a continuity in the neoconservative project despite the discredit brought on by the Iraqi catastrophe.

CONCLUSION: BETWEEN FACTS AND THEORIES

It is essential to distinguish between documented facts (the existence of the PNAC, the content of the documents, the positions held by members, lies about weapons of mass destruction) and theories (September 11 as a planned or facilitated operation by neoconservatives). The facts clearly establish that neoconservatives had a pre-existing program of geopolitical transformation of the Middle East, that September 11 served as a pretext to implement it, and that deliberate lies were used to justify the war in Iraq. Determining whether September 11 itself was planned or facilitated is a question of a completely different order, for which the evidence remains insufficient.