Reply #25: Yes. PNAC... [View All]

[regnaD kciN]

This may be, at first glance, a combination of several issues: Iraq, the I/P conflict, blood-for-oil, etc. But it all comes down to an endorsement or repudiation of the PNAC assumptions that a) we are doomed to be engaged in a "clash of civilizations" with those big, bad Moooooooslems, b) that the only way we can win this "clash" is to remake the entire Middle East according to our designs and for our benefit, and c) that any means, including military action, are justified to carry out this goal.

Hence, it isn't just Iraq. Lots of Democratic candidates initially supported the Iraq War; few will admit to supporting it today. But, even if they've "seen the light" on Iraq, do their other positions reflect the PNAC agenda? Do they speak expectantly of bringing about "regime change" in those countries who aren't our best buddies (and, in fact, some of those who are, such as Egypt)? Do they balk at attempts to bring about an equitable and secure peace between Israel and its neighbors, instead subscribing to an "us versus them" approach which leaves no room for negotiation or mutual compromise? Do they speak of our "energy needs" as if all the oil in the region rightfully belongs to us, and those Arab and/or Muslim nations who happen to exist above it are somehow trespassing on our property?

It's a matrix of issues, and yet the answers any candidate may give will reveal a clear idea of whether or not they subscribe to the PNAC dream of, essentially, the U.S. owning whichever parts of the world we choose -- an attitude that is not only unjust in and of itself, but which is almost guaranteed to eventually bring about "blowback" on a level that would make 9/11 look like a minor accident.