#PNAC #military #vs #diplomacy

Focus on military strategies, versus diplomatic strategies

PNAC fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht stated:

"We have no choice but to re-instill in our foes and friends the fear that attaches to any great power. ... Only a war against Saddam Hussein will decisively restore the awe that protects American interests abroad and citizens at home".

Professor Emeritus Jeffrey Record of the Strategic Studies Institute,[58] in his monograph, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism and William Rivers Pitt, in Truthout argued that PNAC's goals of military hegemony were overly ambitious given what the military can accomplish, that they failed to recognize "the limits of US power", and that favoring the pre-emptive exercise of military force instead of diplomacy could have "adverse side effects."[59][60][61] Paul Reynolds made similar observations.[40]

In 2006 former executive director of the PNAC Gary Schmitt said PNAC had never been intended to "go on forever," and had "already done its job," suggesting that "our view has been adopted."[62] In 2009 Robert Kagan and William Kristol created a new think tank, the Foreign Policy Initiative, which scholars Stephen M. Walt and Don Abelson have characterized as a successor to PNAC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century