Since publishing my recent critique Russia Did It!, with all of Europe now backing the new 'dodgy dossier' episode, and Russia's ambassadors and foreign minister unable to to even have a reasonable dialog, I observe that the possibility of war between the West and Russia sadly continues to increase.
As in 1911, there are a lot of inexplicably dumb reasons for all of this, so let's pick them apart one by one.
This first one is the longest and most important.
If you haven’t read The Project For a New American Century manifesto, you really should. It’s literally been the blueprint for the past 18 years. I’m a big believer in the idea that if someone says they are going to do something, and then that thing happens, those are connected events.
From their statement of principles they told us:
“As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
What we require is a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.”
Deeper down, we find that they felt stymied back there in 2000 unable to figure out how to rotate everyone to their militaristic vision of the future “absent a new Pearl Harbor” which, quite luckily came along soon after on 9-11-2001
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
by cmartenson 
