Neocon group calls for increase in military action against Qaddafi
Image: Wikimedia Commons
The chicken hawk neoconservatives that make up the Project For A New American Century cabal have written on open letter to House Republicans warning them not to reduce or cut funding for U.S. involvement in the military aggression against Libya or face becoming an ” irresolute” nation.
The group, now re-named The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), also claims that though it shares with Congress “concerns” over the conduct and justification of the military mission, “The problem is not that the President has done too much… but that he has done too little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power.”
Last week, the House voted to prohibit the use of funds for American military operations in Libya, following an amendment, introduced by Democratic representative Brad Sherman from California, invoking the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law that limits presidential powers on sending troops abroad into combat zones without the consent of Congress.
The amendment was part of a military appropriations bill that is still to be approved as a whole. The measure is also still to be approved by the Senate.
“The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies. We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N. Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies.”
In what is clearly a veiled threat, the group called on the United States to “see this effort in Libya through to its conclusion,” adding: ” For the United States and NATO to be defeated by Muammar al-Qaddafi would suggest that American leadership and resolution were now gravely in doubt—a conclusion that would undermine American influence and embolden our nation’s enemies.”
They urged Members of Congress to fully support U.S. military involvement in Libya and exhibit “moral leadership despite political pressures to do otherwise.”
The full text of the letter and list of signatories appears at the foot of this article.
Almost all signatories of the PNAC letter are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, still effectively the steering committee on U.S. foreign policy.
PNAC/FPI has been pushing for regime change in Libya since the beginning, before military operations even started. The group wrote a similar letter to the president in late February, calling for immediate military action to help bring down the Libyan government.
Bill Kristol said at the time that he wished the U.S. would send in ground troops “sooner rather than later.” adding, “we cannot leave Gaddafi in power, and we won’t leave Gaddafi in power.”
As we have recently documented, Infowars has received alarming reports from within the ranks of military stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas confirming plans to initiate a full-scale U.S.-led ground invasion in Libya and deploy troops by October.
In pursuing a continued military assault on Libya, Obama is following orders just like Bush did before him from the same neocons that called for domination of the Middle East and North Africa on the back of “a new Pearl Harbor,” just one year before 9/11.
Everything that has transpired since 9/11 has been an ongoing fulfillment of the PNAC Statement of Principles.
An Open Letter to House Republicans
We thank you for your leadership as Congress exercises its Constitutional responsibilities on the issue of America’s military actions in Libya. We are gravely concerned, however, by news reports that Congress may consider reducing or cutting funding for U.S. involvement in the NATO-led military operations against the oppressive regime of Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi. Such a decision would be an abdication of our responsibilities as an ally and as the leader of the Western alliance. It would result in the perpetuation in power of a ruthless dictator who has ordered terrorist attacks on the United States in the past, has pursued nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and who can be expected to return to these activities should he survive. To cut off funding for current efforts would, in short, be profoundly contrary to American interests.
We share the concerns of many in Congress about the way in which the Obama administration has conducted and justified this operation. The problem is not that the President has done too much, however, but that he has done too little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power. The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies. We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N. Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies.
What would be even worse, however, would be for the United States to become one of those irresolute allies. The United States must see this effort in Libya through to its conclusion. Success is profoundly in our interests and in keeping with our principles as a nation. The success of NATO’s operations will influence how other Middle Eastern regimes respond to the demands of their people for more political rights and freedoms. For the United States and NATO to be defeated by Muammar al-Qaddafi would suggest that American leadership and resolution were now gravely in doubt—a conclusion that would undermine American influence and embolden our nation’s enemies.
In Speaker Boehner’s June 14, 2011, letter to President Obama, he wrote that he believes “in the moral leadership our country can and should exhibit, especially during such a transformational time in the Middle East.” We share that belief, and feel that now is the time for Congress to exhibit that moral leadership despite political pressures to do otherwise.
Elliott Abrams Bruce Pitcairn Jackson Danielle Pletka
Gary Bauer Ash Jain John Podhoretz
Max Boot Frederick Kagan Stephen G. Rademaker
Ellen Bork Robert Kagan Karl Rove
Scott Carpenter Lawrence Kaplan Randy Scheunemann
Liz Cheney William Kristol Gary Schmitt
Seth Cropsey Robert Lieber Dan Senor
Thomas Donnelly Tod Lindberg Michael Singh
Eric Edelman Michael Makovsky Henry D. Sokolski
Jamie Fly Ann Marlowe Marc Thiessen
Reuel Marc Gerecht Clifford D. May Kenneth Weinstein
John Hannah Joshua Muravchik Paul Wolfowitz
William Inboden Martin Peretz R. James Woolsey
by Steve Watson