Is the US Really Seeking Domination in the Middle East?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tsu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Head
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the United States' foreign policy intentions in the Middle East, particularly regarding oil access and military presence. It references the 1992 Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance, which explicitly states the goal of maintaining U.S. dominance in the region. The conversation highlights contradictions between public statements by President George W. Bush and the strategic objectives outlined in documents like the Project for the New American Century. The timing of military actions prior to the September 11 attacks is also scrutinized, suggesting premeditated motives behind the "war on terror."

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of U.S. foreign policy history
  • Familiarity with the Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance
  • Knowledge of the Project for the New American Century
  • Awareness of the geopolitical significance of Middle Eastern oil
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance on U.S. military strategy
  • Examine the historical context of the Project for the New American Century
  • Investigate the role of oil in U.S. foreign policy decisions
  • Analyze the timeline of U.S. military actions leading up to and following September 11, 2001
USEFUL FOR

Political analysts, historians, students of international relations, and anyone interested in understanding U.S. foreign policy motivations in the Middle East.

Tsu
Gold Member
Messages
462
Reaction score
62
"Kerry Hits Nail on Head"

Gosh! I'm just finding interesting stuff all OVER the place! :biggrin:

We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire.
-George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 20, 2004

Under the direction of Paul Wolfowitz, a 1992 draft of the Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance on post-Cold War Strategy explained, "We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." The draft went on, "Our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in [the Middle East and Southwest Asia] to preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil." The neocons reiterated this policy in the September 2000 document of the Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.

Bush and his minions began plotting how to remove Saddam Hussein from power as soon as Bush removed his hand from the Bible after Chief William Rehnquist swore him in as President, according to both former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and former Anti-Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke. This was 8 months before the September 11 attacks - the date the "war on terror" officially began.

Kerry Hits Nail on Head
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 04 October 2004

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100404A.shtml
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The article is rambling and rhetorical, but the gist of it is a misuse of the word "empire." The US still has 70,000 troops in Germany as a result of WWII->Cold War. Germany is certainly not a territory (what the word "empire" really means), and isn't even a "puppet state," which is the new definition being implied here and elsewhere.
 



I completely agree with Kerry's statement that the US has no desire to dominate or have ambitions of empire. It's clear that the Bush administration's actions, as outlined in the Defense Planning Guidance and Rebuilding America's Defenses, contradict this claim and show a clear desire for US dominance in the Middle East and access to oil. The fact that these plans were in motion before the September 11 attacks also raises questions about the true motives behind the "war on terror." Kerry is absolutely right in pointing out this discrepancy and it's important for us to acknowledge and address these issues in order to move towards a more just and peaceful foreign policy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
13K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K