Rove and Wolfowitz's role

[Timothy Francis-Wright]

Michael Pollak wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Chris Burford posted a Guardian article by Ed
> Vulliamy that said in part:
> 
<snip>
> 
> > In a document two years ago, the Project pondered that what was needed
> > to assure US global power was 'some catastrophic and catalysing event,
> > like a new Pearl Harbor'. The document had noted that 'while the
> > unresolved conflict with Iraq provides immediate justification' for
> > intervention, 'the need for a substantial American force presence in
> > the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein'.
> 
> <snip> But does anyone know
> anything about the second document?  I hate it when the Guardian hangs
> such an arresting point on such an absurdly blank cite.
> 
> Mainly what I'd like to know is whether this was a passing speculation 
> in a document mainly about something else, or whether, as suggested 
> here, it formed part of a document specifically addressing scenarios 
> under which the 1992 "Defense Planning Guidance" strategy could be 
> successfully introduced.

The document in question is available in pdf format on the website
of the Project for a New American Century:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Early on [page ii], the paper makes clear that it is a reformulation
and extension of that 1992 DPG.  On page 4, we see perhaps the 
earliest conception of the "axis of evil," although not in so many 
words.  The two quotes in the Guardian article are at Page 51
(where the authors muse that transformation will likely be gradual
absent a new Pearl Harbor) and page 14 (the first page of "III:
Repositioning Today's Force").

The participants (on the last page) include some the usual suspects--
William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert and Donald Kagan.
The latter is a professor of classical history at Yale:
tantae molis erat Americanam condere gentem!