Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Making of the Cheney Regional Defense Strategy,1991-1992

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 07:01 AM
Original message
The Making of the Cheney Regional Defense Strategy,1991-1992
The Making of the Cheney Regional Defense Strategy,1991-1992
National Security Archive Update, February 29, 2008

Declassified Studies from Cheney Pentagon Show Push for U.S. Military
Predominance and a Strategy to "Prevent the Reemergence of a New Rival"

For more information contact:
William Burr - 202/994-7032
wburr@gwu.edu

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb245/index.htm

Washington D.C., February 29, 2008 - The United States should use its
power to "prevent the reemergence of a new rival" either on former
Soviet territory or elsewhere, declared a controversial February 18, 1992
draft of the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) prepared by then Secretary
of Defense Richard Cheney's Pentagon and leaked to The New York Times in
March 1992. Published in declassified form for the first time on the
National Security Archive Web site, this draft, along with related
working papers, shows how defense officials during the administration of
George H. W. Bush, and under the direction of Principle Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Resources I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby,
tried to develop a strategy for maintaining U.S. predominance in the new
post-Cold War, post-Soviet era.

Remarkably, these new releases censor a half dozen large sections of
text that The New York Times printed on March 8, 1992, as well as a
number of phrases that were officially published in January 1993 when Cheney
released the public version of the guidance. "On close inspection none
of those deleted passages actually meet the standards for
classification because embarrassment is not a legal basis for secrecy," remarked
Tom Blanton, director of the Archive. The language that the Times
publicized can be seen side-by-side with the relevant portions of the February
18, 1992 draft that was the subject of the leak.

Public debate over the leaked Guidance--Sen. Joseph Biden (D-De)
criticized it as "Pax Americana" thinking--led Libby and Undersecretary for
Policy Paul Wolfowitz to tone down the draft to avoid controversial
language. Nevertheless, the "Regional Defense Strategy" that was published
under Cheney's name in January 1993 used different wording to affirm
the same policies and the same purpose: to "preclude any hostile power
from dominating a region critical to our interests."

In response to the Archive's original mandatory review request, the
Department of Defense exempted from declassification all of the documents
on the grounds that they were "pre-decisional" in nature. On appeal of
the denials, the Archive sent copies of The New York Times coverage of
the leaked DPG, including the extensive excerpts from the February 18,
1992 draft. The appeal was successful because the Defense Department
released considerable material on the Guidance; nevertheless, Pentagon
officials blacked out much of the information that the Times had already
published. The documents are now before the Interagency Security
Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) for a final declassification review.

Visit the Web site of the National Security Archive for more
information about today's posting.

http://www.nsarchive.org

________________________________________________________

THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE is an independent non-governmental
research institute and library located at The George Washington University in
Washington, D.C. The Archive collects and publishes declassified
documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A
tax-exempt public charity, the Archive receives no U.S. government funding; its
budget is supported by publication royalties and donations from
foundations and individuals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. Lest we forget:
Colin Powell was at the table in 1992-3. He is often given a pass as not being a neo-con, but those comments would be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. And How Were We To Fight This New Rival???
Considering crashcart was the one who cut the size of the military...closed bases and then blamed it all on Clinton. But we all know why he did this....his Haliburton parachute was already deployed.

In the early 90s, I kept wondering how the GOOPers would survive without the "evil empire"...how the defense industry could adjust from making nukes and death to something productive. As we see, Ivan was morphed into Osama...it was just a new trick for an old dog.

Excelent article! Lest we forget...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. aside from subcontracting a good deal of the occupation to Haliburton..nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC