First, the left. Whatever you think of its message, this short video is ingeniously, almost frighteningly watchable (via Andrew Sullivan, of all people):
It was created in 2004 by Simon Robson, working with left-wing writer Barry McNamara. To my way of thinking, Barry the narrator hyperventilates a few times. It doesn’t make sense to call the 9/11 attack a reaction to U.S. global dominance, except in the sense that it was motivated in some part by the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi Arabian soil. And even if it was a reaction to American global dominance, it was a mass murder explicitly intended to help realize the far-off goal of Islamic fundamentalist global dominance. If that ever came about, even Barry McNamara would pine for the good old days of American global dominance. Also, I don’t think the U.S. is going to be invading Britain or France anytime soon. And, finally, a group cannot be a "manifesto."
However, the writings of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in fact do deserve close scrutiny, which brings us to the right wing. Many leading members of PNAC went on to occupy high positions in the Bush Administration. Several members — including our good friend Charles "Dolchstoss" Krauthammer — remain dismayingly influential U.S. opinion leaders. Major aspects of the PNAC’s philosophy were carried one-to-one into American foreign policy, with the results we’re all familiar with.
Many readers of this blog happen to be citizens of various nations not fortunate enough to be the world’s only remaining superpower. You’ll be reassured to know that the Project for a New American Century has no imminent plans to harm you, so long as you don’t interfere with America’s exercise of "global dominance." Some excerpts from the group’s 2000 report, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century:
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. (p.17)
And here’s one of the "three missions" they propose for U.S. armed forces (p.51):
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.