[Lerkfish]

We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.
_
As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny, despair and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends. To cut through the barriers of hateful propaganda, the Voice of America and other broadcast services are expanding their programming in Arabic and Persian — and soon, a new television service will begin providing reliable news and information across the region. I will send you a proposal to double the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy, and to focus its new work on the development of free elections, free markets, free press and free labor unions in the Middle East. And above all, we will finish the historic work of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, so those nations can light the way for others, and help transform a troubled part of the world.
_
America is a nation with a mission — and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace — a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great Republic will lead the cause of freedom.

--- President Bush, 2004 SOTU speech.

he·gem·o·ny __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(h-jm-n, hj-mn)
n. pl. he·gem·o·nies
The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

Although many here bristle at the term "hegemony", its clear that no matter what term you apply to it, the Bush mandate is to reshape the middle east as a God-directed mission. He is outlining his intent to continue to regime change the middle east. Its not a hidden agenda, it IS an agenda to break the present makeup of the middle east and replace it with a form that is more molded to american ideals, if not direct control.

Is this a wise policy? why or why not? What will be the end result of such a policy?

why do people keep denying this policy is in effect when Bush keeps announcing it?

[Face Ache]

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's 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 achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: 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 or 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 this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.


Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Statement of Principles,
Project for the New American Century.
June 3, 1997

Isn't that what Bush said?

It looks like we're in for another four years of Bush anyway (see here).

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Isn't that what Bush said?

It looks like we're in for another four years of Bush anyway (see here).

right. and when I suggest there is a neocon influence, people think I'm crazy, but the goals are exactly the same.

[zigzag]

I think people dislike the word hegemony because (a) it's kinda hard to pronounce, and (b) it has sinister, imperialist connotations. If all it means is "maintaining a sphere of influence," I have no problem with it. I think the real debate is whether the influence is benign or not.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I think the real debate is whether the influence is benign or not.

Spot on. This is the crux of the matter.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I think people dislike the word hegemony because (a) it's kinda hard to pronounce, and (b) it has sinister, imperialist connotations. If all it means is "maintaining a sphere of influence," I have no problem with it. I think the real debate is whether the influence is benign or not.

I, personally, think that it is presently self-interested, in the short term. The increasingly short term. Literally, I think that it's timed to the presidential election cycle.

This is nothing new, of course, but a mix of Bush's personality and what he's been able to do with 9/11 have exacerbated this to the point where it's more than noticeable, it's prominent.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that our long run interests are far better served by building allies up. Dictators should be dealt with gradually - full advantage should be taken of their finite lifetime and democratic reforms should be encouraged/rewarded with economic engagement.

Yeah, I know, I live in a dream world. The U.S. won't do things that way, because it isn't very good at thinking out past the current four year presidential term.

BlackGriffen

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
...and what he's been able to do with 9/11...

You mean how he's used terrorism to further his agenda?

[quandarry]

this is from the guy [bush] who said a cupla years back that this was the new crusade....ouch!

[Lerkfish]

I took the liberty of a side by side comparison of the neocon manifesto and the 2004 SOTU speech.

this pdf highlights some very interesting similarities.

I only took the rhetorical portions of the speech relating to foreign policy and america's mission, so the speech is truncated, but the manifesto is presented in its full form.

enjoy