- There are many vital interests in the Persian Gulf region: Protecting allies, defeating terrorism, maintaining peace, protecting our economy and that of our allies, especially in Europe and Japan - these however are all just outgrowths of the main vital interest - Oil
- We have maintained a military presence in the Gulf region for decades to protect our vital oil interests. This includes…
o Maintaining peace in the region so that the flow of oil is not disrupted, including…
§ keeping terrorists from disrupting our “vital interests” (oil)
§ eliminating “aggressors” in countries such as Iraq and Iran
§ Intervening when outside forces seek to influence the area
- In more recent years the US has sought to mare a more substantial and more permanent presence in the region to protect our vital oil interests. This involves…
o Removing Saddam Hussein’s regime from power
o Dealing with Iranian threats
o Establishing and maintaining permanent military bases in the region
Jimmy Carter
January 23, 1980
State of the Union Address
Three basic developments have helped to shape our challenges: the steady growth and increased projection of Soviet military power beyond its own borders; the overwhelming dependence of the Western democracies on oil supplies from the Middle East; and the press of social and religious and economic and political change in the many nations of the developing world, exemplified by the revolution in Iran…
The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow.
The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil…
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
During the past 3 years, you have joined with me to improve our own security and the prospects for peace, not only in the vital oil-producing area of the Persian Gulf region but around the world…
The crises in Iran and Afghanistan have dramatized a very important lesson: Our excessive dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our Nation's security. The need has never been more urgent. At long last, we must have a clear, comprehensive energy policy for the United States…
The single biggest factor in the inflation rate last year, the increase in the inflation rate last year, was from one cause: the skyrocketing prices of OPEC oil. We must take whatever actions are necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign oil--and at the same time reduce inflation…
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml
Ronald Reagan
Remarks on Signing the Bill Amending the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act
May 21, 1987
Well, to get serious, this week, we were all given a grim reminder of the human cost of our national security. We grieve the loss of our brave sons, but let no one doubt our resolve to protect our vital interests in the Persian Gulf or anywhere else. The Gulf is a particularly volatile area, but an area of utmost importance to us and to the free world. Our fleet has been there for almost 40 years, helping to ensure freedom of navigation and protect commerce. This difficult yet essential mission will continue.
Today we import only about 5 percent of our petroleum from the Gulf. Western Europe and Japan have a much higher dependency. We saw in 1974 and 1979 the disastrous effects which a disruption of Gulf oil can have upon the economy of the United States and our principal trading partners. We're working to see that that experience is not repeated. Achieving this requires American military and political strength, the cooperation of our allies, as well as economic strength and independence, especially in matters concerning energy.
Statement by Assistant to the President for Press Relations Fitzwater on United States Policy in the Persian Gulf
May 29, 1987
The President directed additional consultation with our allies and will be raising the issue at the summit in Venice. The President also directed his advisers to provide continued full consultation to the Congress and to begin preparation of reports to the Congress on our proposed action. The President clearly reaffirmed United States policy to remain in the Persian Gulf to protect vital United States national vital interests.
Remarks on United States Policy in the Persian Gulf
May 29, 1987
I want to speak directly this afternoon on the vital interest of the American people, vital interests that are at stake in the Persian Gulf area. It may be easy for some, after a near record 54-month economic recovery, to forget just how critical the Persian Gulf is to our national security. But I think everyone in this room and everyone hearing my voice now can remember the woeful impact of the Middle East oil crisis of a few years ago: the endless, demoralizing gas lines; the shortages; the rationing; the escalating energy prices; the double-digit inflation; and the enormous dislocation that shook our economy to its foundations.
This same economic dislocation invaded every part of the world, contracting foreign economies, heightening international tensions, and dangerously escalating the chances of regional conflicts and wider war. The principal forces for peace in the world, the United States and other democratic nations, were perceived as gravely weakened. Our economies and our people were viewed as the captives of oil-producing regimes in the Middle East. This could happen again if Iran and the Soviet Union were able to impose their will upon the friendly Arab States of the Persian Gulf , and Iran was allowed to block the free passage of neutral shipping.
But this will not happen again, not while this President serves. I'm determined our national economy will never again be held captive, that we will not return to the days of gas lines, shortages, inflation, economic dislocation, and international humiliation. Mark this point well: The use of the vital sealanes of the Persian Gulf will not be dictated by the Iranians. These lanes will not be allowed to come under the control of the Soviet Union. The Persian Gulf will remain open to navigation by the nations of the world…
In summary then, the United States and its allies maintain a presence in the Gulf to assist in the free movement of petroleum, to reassure those of our friends and allies in the region of our commitment to their peace and welfare, to ensure that freedom of navigation and other principles of international accord are respected and observed -- in short, to promote the cause of peace. Until peace is restored and there's no longer a risk to shipping in the region, particularly shipping under American protection, we must maintian an adequate presence to deter and, if necessary, to defend ourselves against any accidental attack or against any intentional attack. As Commander in Chief, it's my responsibility to make sure that we place forces in the area that are adequate to that purpose.
Our goal is to seek peace rather than provocation, but our interests and those of our friends must be preserved. We're in the gulf to protect our national interests and, together with our allies, the interests of the entire Western World. Peace is at stake; our national interest is at stake. And we will not repeat the mistakes of the past. Weakness, a lack of resolve and strength, will only encourage those who seek to use the flow of oil as a tool, a weapon, to cause the American people hardship at home, incapacitate us abroad, and promote conflict and violence throughout the Middle East and the world.
Radio Address to the Nation on Foreign Policy
October 17, 1987
In the past we've proven ourselves a nation of good will and a reliable ally to these friends and to others. Today our Navy plies the waters of the Persian Gulf helping to keep the shipping lanes open. Freedom of navigation in international waters is a cardinal principle of our policy and, especially in that region of the world, a vital interest. We've had a naval presence in the Gulf since 1949. Any risk to that naval presence or to U.S.-flagged commercial ships operating peacefully in the waters of the Gulf will be dealt with appropriately.
George H. W. Bush
(Regarding Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait)
Needless to say, we view the situation with the utmost gravity. We remain committed to take whatever steps are necessary to defend our longstanding, vital interests in the Gulf, and I'm meeting this morning with my senior advisers here to consider all possible options available to us.
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=2123&year=&month=
Immediately after the Iraqi invasion, I ordered an embargo of all trade with Iraq and, together with many other nations, announced sanctions that both freeze all Iraqi assets in this country and protected Kuwait's assets. The stakes are high. Iraq is already a rich and powerful country that possesses the world's second largest reserves of oil and over a million men under arms. It's the fourth largest military in the world. Our country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic independence. Much of the world is even more dependent upon imported oil and is even more vulnerable to Iraqi threats.
And this past Monday, the United Nations Security Council approved for the first time in 23 years mandatory sanctions under chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. These sanctions, now enshrined in international law, have the potential to deny Iraq the fruits of aggression while sharply limiting its ability to either import or export anything of value, especially oil.
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=2147&year=&month=
Bill Clinton
RADIO ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Today I know the thoughts and prayers of every American are with our men and women in uniform serving in the Persian Gulf, standing up for America's interests. I want to speak with you about why, 10 days ago, I ordered our Armed Forces to strike Iraq, what we have accomplished and where we go from here.
America's vital interests in the Persian Gulf are constant and clear: to help protect our friends in the region against aggression, to work with others in the fight against terrorism, to preserve the free flow of oil, and to build support for a comprehensive Middle East peace. Any group or nation that threatens the stability of the region threatens those interests.
For the past five years, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly threatened the stability of the Persian Gulf and our allies, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Time and again, he has lashed out recklessly against his neighbors and against his own people. America's policy has been to contain Saddam, to reduce the threat he poses to the region, and to do it in a way that makes him pay a price when he acts recklessly. That is why, when Saddam sent his troops to the Kurdish city of Urbil in Northern Iraq two weeks ago, we responded -- strongly, immediately and strategically.
If we had failed to answer Saddam's provocation, he would have been emboldened to act even more recklessly and in a manner more dangerous to our interests. That is why we did respond and why we did so in a way that made our interests more secure. We acted in Southern Iraq, where our interests are the most vital and where we had the capacity to increase the international community's ability to deter aggression by Saddam against his neighbors.
http://clinton6.nara.gov/1996/09/1996-09-14-radio-address-by-the-president-to-nation.html
Although military activities are an important pillar of our effort to shape the global security environment, we must always be mindful that the primary mission of our Armed Forces is to deter and, if necessary, to fight and win conflicts in which our vital interests are threatened…
The Decision to Employ Military Forces
The decision whether to use force is dictated first and foremost by our national interests. In those specific areas where our vital interests are at stake, our use of force will be decisive and, if necessary, unilateral…
Providing for Energy Security
The United States depends on oil for about 40 percent of its primary energy needs, and roughly half of our oil needs are met with imports. And although we import less than 15% of the oil exported from the Persian Gulf, our allies in Europe and Japan account for about 80% of those exports. The United States is undergoing a fundamental shift away from reliance on Middle East oil. Venezuela is our number one foreign supplier, and Africa supplies 15% of our imported oil. Canada, Mexico and Venezuela combined supply almost twice as much oil to the United States as the Arab OPEC countries. The Caspian Basin, with potential oil reserves of 160 billion barrels, promises to play an increasingly important role in meeting rising world energy demand in coming decades.
Conservation measures and research leading to greater energy efficiency and alternative fuels are a critical element of the U.S. strategy for energy security. Our research must continue to focus on developing highly energy-efficient buildings, appliances, and transportation and industrial systems, shifting them where possible to alternative or renewable fuels, such as hydrogen, fuel cell technology, ethanol, or methanol from biomass.
Conservation and energy research notwithstanding, the United States will continue to have a vital interest in ensuring access to foreign oil sources. We must continue to be mindful of the need for regional stability and security in key producing areas to ensure our access to, and the free flow of, these resources…
European stability is vital to our own security…
Southwest Asia
In Southwest Asia, the United States remains focused on deterring threats to regional stability and energy security, countering threats posed by WMD, and protecting the security of our regional partners, particularly from the threats posed by Iraq and Iran. We will continue to encourage members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to work closely on collective defense and security arrangements, help individual GCC states meet their defense requirements, and maintain our bilateral defense relationships.
We will maintain an appropriate military presence in Southwest Asia using a combination of ground, air and naval forces. We maintain a continuous military presence in the Gulf to enhance regional stability and support our on-going efforts to bring Iraq into compliance with UN Security Council resolutions. Our forces in the Gulf are backed by our ability to rapidly reinforce the region in time of crisis, which we have demonstrated convincingly. We remain committed to enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, which are essential for implementing the UN Security Council resolutions and preventing Saddam Hussein from taking large-scale military action against Kuwait or the Kurd and Shia minorities in Iraq.
Our policy toward Iraq is comprised of three central elements: containment and economic sanctions, to prevent Saddam from again threatening the stability of the vital Gulf region; relief for the Iraqi people from humanitarian suffering via the UN oil-for-food program; and support to those Iraqis seeking to replace Saddam's regime with a government that can live at peace with its neighbors and its people. Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 successfully degraded the threat posed by Iraqi WMD in the wake of Baghdad's decision to cease cooperation with UN weapons inspectors…
We have consistently maintained that the Iraqi regime can only have sanctions lifted when it has met its obligations to the international community. Saddam's actions over the past decade make clear that his regime will not comply with its obligations under the UN Security Council resolutions designed to rid Iraq of WMD and their delivery systems. Because of that and because the Iraqi people will never be free under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, we actively support those who seek to bring a new democratic government to power in Baghdad. We recognize that this may be a slow and difficult process, but we believe it is the only solution to the problem of Saddam's regime.
Our policy toward Iran is aimed at changing the practices of the Iranian government in several key areas, including its efforts to obtain WMD and long-range missiles, its support for terrorism and groups that violently oppose the Middle East peace process, its attempts to undermine friendly governments in the region, and its development of offensive military capabilities that threaten our GCC partners and the flow of oil. We view signs of change in Iranian policies with interest, both with regard to the possibility of Iran assuming its rightful place in the world community and the chance for better bilateral ties. We welcome statements by President Khatemi that advocate a people-to-people dialogue with the United States.
These positive signs must be balanced against the reality that Iran's support for terrorism has not yet ceased and serious violations of human rights persist. Iran is continuing its efforts to acquire WMD and develop long range missiles (including the 1,300 kilometer-range Shahab-3 it flight-tested in July 1998). The United States will continue to oppose Iranian efforts to sponsor terror and to oppose transfers from any country to Iran of materials and technologies that could be used to develop long-range missiles or WMD…
Although the United States imports less than 15% of the oil exported from the Persian Gulf, the region will remain of vital strategic importance to U.S. national security due to the global nature of the international oil market. Previous oil shocks and the Gulf War underscore that any blockage of Gulf supplies or a substantial increase in price would immediately affect the international market, driving up energy costs everywhere -- ultimately harming the U.S. economy as well as the economies of our key economic partners in Europe and Japan. Appropriate responses to events such as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait can limit the magnitude of a crisis in the Gulf and its impact on world oil markets. Over the longer term, U.S. dependence on access to these and other foreign oil sources will remain important as our reserves are depleted. That is one of many important reasons why the United States must continue to demonstrate commitment and resolve in the Persian Gulf.
Promoting Democracy
We encourage the spread of democratic values throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Southwest and South Asia and will pursue this objective aided by constructive dialogue with countries in the region. In Iran, for example, we hope the nation's leaders will carry out the people's mandate for a government that respects and protects the rule of law, both in its internal and external affairs. We will promote responsible indigenous moves toward increasing political participation and enhancing the quality of governance, and we will continue to challenge governments in the region to improve their human rights records. Respect for human rights also requires rejection of terrorism. If the nations in the region are to safeguard their own citizens from the threat of terror, they cannot tolerate acts of indiscriminate violence against civilians, nor can they offer refuge to those who commit such acts. Our policies are guided by our profound respect for Islam. The Muslim religion is the fastest-growing faith in the United States. We recognize and honor Islam's role as a source of inspiration, instruction and moral guidance for hundreds of millions of people around the world. U.S. policy in the region is directed at the actions of governments and terrorist groups, not peoples or faiths.
http://clinton6.nara.gov/2000/01/2000-01-05-national-security-strategy-for-new-century.html
http://clinton4.nara.gov/media/pdf/nssr-1299.pdf
The Middle East, Southwest and South Asia
The United States has enduring interests in pursuing a just, lasting and comprehensive Middle East peace, ensuring the security and well-being of Israel, helping our Arab friends provide for their security, and maintaining the free flow of oil at reasonable prices. Our strategy reflects those interests and the unique characteristics of the region as we work to extend the range of peace and stability…
Southwest Asia: In Southwest Asia, the United States remains focused on deterring threats to regional stability and protecting the security of our regional partners, particularly from Iraq and Iran. We will maintain our military presence using a combination of air, land and sea forces and the demonstrated ability to reinforce rapidly the region in time of crisis.
We would like to see Iraq's reintegration into the international community; however, we have made clear that Iraq must comply with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. We also remain committed to enforcing the no-fly zones through Operations NORTHERN WATCH and SOUTHERN WATCH. Our policy is directed not against the people of Iraq but against the aggressive behavior of the government. Until that behavior changes, our goal is containing the threat Saddam Hussein poses to Iraq's neighbors, its people, the free flow of Gulf oil and broader U.S. interests in the Middle East.
As for Iran, our policy is aimed at changing the behavior of the Iranian government in several key areas, including its efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction and missiles, its support for terrorism and groups that oppose the peace process, its attempts to undermine friendly governments in the region, and its development of offensive military capabilities which threaten our Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) partners and the flow of oil. Pending changes in Iran's behavior, our goal is to contain and reduce its ability to threaten our interests. We also seek to coordinate with key allies to maximize pressures on Iran to change its course.
A key objective of our policy in the Gulf is to reduce the chances that another aggressor will emerge who would threaten the independence of existing states. We will continue to encourage members of the Gulf Cooperation Council to work closely on collective defense and security arrangements, help individual GCC states meet their appropriate defense requirements and maintain our bilateral defense agreements.
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/Strategy/
How do we guard our military’s unparalleled fighting ability, when we call on it increasingly for operations other than war?
In addressing this question, let me briefly review how we approach the decision to commit our Armed Forces. Our nation uses force for one purpose alone: To protect and promote American interests. I believe these interests can be divided into three categories…
More and more often, however, we face situations that do not threaten our nation’s vital interests -- yet do still affect our interests and the character of the world in which we live. It might be a conflict, such as Bosnia, that produces terrible suffering and jeopardizes stability in a region of vital importance to our nation. Or it might be a brutal coup, like the one in Haiti, that endangers democracy in our hemisphere and prompts thousands of desperate refugees to seek sanctuary on our shores.
This second kind of case is more difficult to address, because our interests -- though important -- are less immediate, and the threats may be less clear. That is why, before we use force, we must make a careful assessment: Can the use of our military forces advance American interests? Do they have a reasonable chance of success? Are the interests at stake commensurate with the costs and risks? Have other means been tried and failed to achieve our objectives?...
None of this means America should become the world’s policeman. We cannot answer every 911 around the globe. But when we have weighed the risks and costs against our interests, and when we can make a difference, we have a responsibility to act.
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/speeches/lakendu.html
Attempts to disrupt the Middle East peace process through terrorism by groups opposed to peace have threatened and continue to threaten vital interests of the United States, thus constituting an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.
http://clinton6.nara.gov/1995/01/1995-01-24-letter-to-congress-on-executive-order-on-terrorism.html
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that, although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/12/1998-12-16-president-statement-on-iraq-air-strike.html
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
The Project for the New American Century PNAC is a “think tank” based in Washington DC that influences and makes recommendations to politicians based on, “a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle,” using, “issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.”
The PNAC is significant in this discussion because of the direct and indirect roles that the PNAC has played in the Bush administration especially regarding, “foreign and defense policy.”
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
The following are members of the PNAC who are members of the Bush administration or have close ties to it:
· Elliot Abrams – (National Security Council)
· Kenneth Adelman (Pentagon's Defense Policy Board)
· Richard V. Allen – (Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and the National Security Advisory Group)
· John R. Bolton – (Bush's nominee as ambassador to the United Nations)
· Stephen Cambone - (Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence)
· Dick Cheney – (Vice President)
· Seth Cropsey – (Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau)
· Devon Gaffney Cross – (Defense Policy Board and Donors Forum on International Affairs)
· Paula Dobriansky – (Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs)
· Aaron Friedberg – (Vice President's Deputy National Security Advisor and the Vice President's Director of Policy Planning)
· Francis Fukuyama – (Cloning Panel, President's Council on Bioethics)
· Daniel Goure (2001 DoD Transition Team)
· Fred C. Ikle - (Defense Policy Board)
· Zalmay Khalilzad - (President's "special envoy and ambassador at large for free Iraqis." According to the White House announcement, Khalilzad would "serve as the focal point for contacts and coordination among free Iraqis for the U.S. government and for preparations for a post-Saddam Iraq." Khalilzad's qualifications include not only advocating Saddam's ouster since the 1980s, but also his proven prowess in orchestrating the installation of the Hamid Karzai regime in Afghanistan after being appointed special U.S. envoy to Afghanistan in December 2001. He is an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles.
· Jeane J. Kirkpatrick – (U.S. Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Commission)
· John F. Lehman – (National Commission to Investigate Attacks on the U.S. (9-11 Commission))
· I. Lewis Scooter Libby – (Chief of Staff and the Vice President's Assistant for National Security Affairs to Dick Cheney)
· Richard N. Perle – (chairman of the 30-member Defense Policy Board in July 2001, which meets regularly with Rumsfeld. The board's meetings are classified and members are allowed access to top-secret intelligence reports. He resigned in early 2003 upon allegations that he was essentially profiting from insider trading with classified defense intelligence.
· J. Danforth Quayle - (Defense Policy Board)
· Peter W. Rodman – (Asst. Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs)
· Henry S. Rowen – (Defense Policy Board)
· Donald Rumsfeld – (US Secretary of Defense)
· William Schneider, Jr. – (Chairman of the Defense Science Board)
· Abram Shulsky – (Director of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans)
· Chris Williams – (Defense Policy Board and Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, as well as Special Assistant to Rumsfeld on Policy, 2001)
· Paul Dundes Wolfowitz – (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
· R. James Woolsey, Jr. – (director of Central Intelligence for the CIA from 1993-95, and was ambassador to the negotiation on conventional armed forces in Europe from 1989-91. Woolsey went to Geneva as delegate at large to the U.S.-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction Talks and Nuclear and Space Arms Talks from 1983-86. He was also Under Secretary of the Navy and advised the U.S. delegation to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. Woolsey, one of the most high-profile hawks in the war against Iraq and a key member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, is a director of the Washington-based private equity firm Paladin Capital. The company was set up three months after the terrorist attacks on New York and sees the events and aftermath of September 11, 2001 as a business opportunity which 'offer[s] substantial promise for homeland security investment'. He is not an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles, but has signed at least seven of its position papers sent as letters to presidents and members of congress advocating military aggression abroad. According to RightWeb, Woolsey is a member of the Defense Policy Board, the Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, and a special envoy of Rumsfeld to investigate the Czech-al Qaeda connection (?).[1]
· Dov S. Zakheim – (DoD Comptroller)
· Robert Bruce Zoellick – (United States Trade Representative)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration:_Project_for_the_New_American_Century
In a letter to Bill Clinton in January 1998, the PNAC wrote that the president should use the state of the union address as an opportunity to enunciate a new stragedy in Iraq that, “should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power…” and that, “That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.” The PNAC then identified what the motive was when they said, “We believe 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.” Among the signers of the letter were Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfawitz and many others who were or are part of the Bush administration. In a follow-up letter to the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader the PNAC identified another objective for Iraq and the Middle East. “We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.”
In a report released in 2000 entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses, the PNAC outlines their proposal to preserve America as the sole world superpower. They suggested that the next president (who would be George W. Bush), “must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership,” and that if he failed to do so he would be, “pull[ing] back from the security commitments that are the measure of America's position as the world's sole superpower.” In other words, they were pointing out that we could not continue to fulfill our international commitments throughout the world without a bigger military. Among other things, the PNAC spoke of a need to establish and/or uphold substantial permanent military presences in Europe, Eastern Asia and the Middle East.
Regarding the Middle East, they said:
"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
In other words, the PNAC was claiming that at the time (2000) we had justification to take action in Iraq, in order to set up a substantial American force in the Gulf, there needed to be an issue bigger than just Saddam Hussein, which is where terrorism comes into play. Terror has allowed us to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, and potentially Iran, Syria and other places. Otherwise, they say, we would have only been justified in taking out Saddam’s regime and then would have had to leave.
They also pointed out the benefits of bases in Saudi Arabia but that those bases would not last permanently. Even if Saddam was removed and our relationship with Iran improved, they said that the value of permanent bases in Saudi Arabia would endure. Why? oil:
"Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."
They sum it all up better than I can:
"In short, the value of land power continues to appeal to a global superpower, whose security interests rest upon maintaining and expanding a world-wide system of alliances as well as on the ability to win wars. While maintaining its combat role, the U.S. Army has acquired new missions in the past decade – most immediately, missions associated with completing the task of creating a Europe "whole and free" and defending American interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle East…
In Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia, enduring U.S. security interests argue forcefully for an enduring American military presence…
Under the heading “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force”, the PNAC indicates that, “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.” One year later to the month, they got exactly what they needed. A new pearl harber – 9/11 – and an issue that transcended Saddam’s regime and allowed for the establishment of a permanent military presence in the Middle East – The War on Terror.
George W. Bush
I want to spend a few minutes speaking with you today about an issue that is clearly vital to our time -- promoting peace and progress and change in the Middle East…
The world has a vital interest in seeing these efforts succeed, and a responsibility to help. As President Bush said, stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder, they encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. Of course, reform takes time, and it is often difficult. There is no one-size-fits-all model of democracy. New liberties can find an honored place among treasured traditions…
Terror grows in the absence of progress and development. It thrives in the airless space where new ideas, new hopes and new aspirations are forbidden. Terror lives where freedom dies.
That is why fighting the common enemies of man is not only the right thing to do, it is the clear, vital interest of the world to do so.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030612-12.html
(Think of the PNAC report when you read this next one)
August 16, 2004
The Bush Administration is working to transform our forces to more effectively confront the dangers of the 21 st century and better protect America and our vital interests. Early in 2001, the Bush Administration adopted a new defense strategy that recognized the changing nature of warfare and the need for the Department of Defense to transform its institutions, its way of doing business, and its structures, both within the United States and abroad, in order to meet the challenges of the new era.
The 9/11 attacks magnified the new era of uncertainty that the Administration had previously recognized and had begun to prepare for in the 2001 defense strategy. Operations in Afghanistan -- and the global war on terror more broadly -- brought to the forefront the need to conduct a strategy-based review of our global defense posture. That review, conducted in close consultation with Congress and our allies , has served as the cornerstone of the President's defense transformation agenda.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/defense/
November 30, 2005
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
VICTORY IN IRAQ IS A VITAL U.S. INTEREST…
THE BENEFITS OF VICTORY IN IRAQ
Helping the people of Iraq is the morally right thing to do -- America does not abandon its friends in the face of adversity. Helping the people of Iraq, however, is also in our own national interest.
If we and our Iraqi partners prevail in Iraq, we will have made America:
Safer...
by removing Saddam Hussein, a destabilizing force in a vital region, a ruthless dictator who had a history of pursuing and even using weapons of mass destruction, was a state sponsor of terror, had invaded his neighbors, and who was violently opposed to America;
by depriving terrorists of a safe haven from which they could plan and launch attacks against the United States and American interests;
by delivering a strategic setback to the terrorists and keeping them on the run;
by delivering a decisive blow to the ideology that fuels international terrorism, proving that the power of freedom is stronger than a perverse vision of violence, hatred, and oppression
Stronger...
by demonstrating to our friends and enemies the reliability of U.S. power, the strength of our commitment to our friends, and the tenacity of our resolve against our enemies;
by securing a new friend and partner in the fight against terrorism in the heart of the Middle East.
More Certain of its Future ...
politically, by bolstering democratic reformers -- and the prospects for peaceful, democratic governments -- in a region that for decades has been a source of instability and stagnation;
economically, by facilitating progressive reform in the region and depriving terrorists control over a hub of the world's economy.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE
If we and our Iraqi partners fail in Iraq, Iraq will become:
A safe haven for terrorists as Afghanistan once was, only this time in some of the world's most strategic territory, with vast natural resources to exploit and to use to fund future attacks.
A country where oppression -- and the brutal imposition of inhumane practices, such as those of the Taliban in Afghanistan -- is pervasive.
A failed state and source of instability for the entire Middle East, with all the attendant risks and incalculable costs for American security and prosperity.
Furthermore, if we and our Iraqi partners fail in Iraq, the terrorists will have:
Won a decisive victory over the United States, vindicating their tactics of beheadings, suicide bombings, and ruthless intimidation of civilians, inviting more deadly attacks against Americans and other free people across the globe.
Placed the American people in greater danger by destabilizing a vital region, weakening our friends, and clearing the way for terrorist attacks here at home. The terrorists will be emboldened in their belief that America cannot stand and fight, but will cut and run in the face of adversity.
Called into question American credibility and commitment in the region and the world. Our friends and foes alike would doubt our staying power, and this would damage our efforts to counter other security threats and to advance other economic and political interests worldwide.
Since 1998, Al Qaida has repeatedly cited Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia, as examples to encourage more attacks against America and our interests overseas.
Weakened the growing democratic impulses in the region. Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and pluralism in the region -- a historic opportunity, central to America's long-term security, forever lost.
If we retreat from Iraq, the terrorists will pursue us and our allies, expanding the fight to the rest of the region and to our own shores.
Furthermore, if we and our Iraqi partners fail in Iraq, the terrorists will have:
Won a decisive victory over the United States, vindicating their tactics of beheadings, suicide bombings, and ruthless intimidation of civilians, inviting more deadly attacks against Americans and other free people across the globe.
Placed the American people in greater danger by destabilizing a vital region, weakening our friends, and clearing the way for terrorist attacks here at home. The terrorists will be emboldened in their belief that America cannot stand and fight, but will cut and run in the face of adversity…
THE ECONOMIC TRACK IN DETAIL
Strategic Summary: Restore, Reform, Build
The economic track is based on six core assumptions:
First, Iraq has the potential to be not just viable, but prosperous and self-sustaining.
Second, a free and prosperous Iraq is in the economic interest of everybody, including Iraq's neighbors and the greater Middle East. A flourishing Iraq can spur economic activity and reform in one of the world's most vital regions
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html#part1
December 14, 2005
Our tactics continue to change, but our goal in Iraq has not changed: a free and democratic Iraq. I strongly believe a democratic Iraq is a crucial part of our strategy to defeat the terrorists, because only democracy can bring freedom and reconciliation to Iraq, and peace to this troubled part of the world. Our efforts to advance freedom in Iraq are driven by our vital interests and our deepest beliefs. America was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and we believe that the people of the Middle East desire freedom as much as we do. History has shown that free nations are peaceful nations. And as Iraqi democracy takes hold, Iraqi citizens will have a stake in a common and peaceful future…
We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom. Most of the focus now is on this week's elections -- and rightly so. Iraqis will go to the polls to choose a government that will be the only constitutional democracy in the Arab world. Yet we need to remember that these elections are also a vital part of a broader strategy for protecting the American people against the threat of terrorism…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051214-1.html
State of the Union
January 2008
By contrast, a failed Iraq would embolden the extremists, strengthen Iran, and give terrorists a base from which to launch new attacks on our friends, our allies, and our homeland. The enemy has made its intentions clear. At a time when the momentum seemed to favor them, al Qaida's top commander in Iraq declared that they will not rest until they have attacked us here in Washington. My fellow Americans: We will not rest either. We will not rest until this enemy has been defeated. (Applause.) We must do the difficult work today, so that years from now people will look back and say that this generation rose to the moment, prevailed in a tough fight, and left behind a more hopeful region and a safer America. (Applause.)…
We're also standing against the forces of extremism embodied by the regime in Tehran. Iran's rulers oppress a good and talented people. And wherever freedom advances in the Middle East, it seems the Iranian regime is there to oppose it. Iran is funding and training militia groups in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and backing Hamas' efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land. Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles of increasing range, and continues to develop its capability to enrich uranium, which could be used to create a nuclear weapon.
Our message to the people of Iran is clear: We have no quarrel with you. We respect your traditions and your history. We look forward to the day when you have your freedom. Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear: Verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment, so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home, cease your support for terror abroad. But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops. We will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf. (Applause.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080128-13.html
