Many people who oppose the current military operation in Iraq are concerned not only for the loss of life and the implications that a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign state might have for future conflicts, they are also concerned about the intentions and ambitions of the present Bush administration. While few people who oppose the war would disagree that Saddam Hussein is a brutal tyrant, the personalized language of a cruel murderer has a double function. It provides the simple vision of evil that secures the legitimacy of warfare, while also serving to portray dissent as the activities of idealistic "peaceniks" who no nothing of the real world. Against this, those who oppose the war have found it very difficult to change the agenda. Where dissent of the kind that is critical of the Bush administration has been heard it is often portrayed as speculation, or the expression of a marginal political ideology. However, we do not need to go very far to find the worldview that is causing consternation among many people who think the Blair government's blind support for US foreign policy is deeply problematic. From the literature produced by The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), it is clear that the current Bush administration sees its role in much more global terms than the isolated "liberation" of Iraq. It also becomes clear that Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a much broader vision. The members of the project are not some invisible group of agents, the likes of which inhabit so many conspiracy theories, they are men and women in senior public positions who have served under Reagan, Bush Sr. and are now at the heart of the administration of George W. Bush, and it is the worldview presented in the various statements, letters and reports currently publicly available on their website that needs consideration. While the personalized discourse concerning Saddam has its clear benefits with the regard to support for the military operation at home, it can only be a gross misjudgement on our part if we do not ask our politicians to respond directly to the PNAC vision, given that it sets out the future course and mission of the world's only superpower. The project began in the spring of 1998 in response to what various conservatives saw as the 'procurement holiday' that followed the Reagan administration and the perception of American foreign and defence policy being 'adrift'. This is evident from a letter dated prior to the founding of the Project, but which nevertheless gives a clear indication of its outlook. The letter addressed to President Clinton and dated 26 January 1998 argues for the removal of Saddam Hussein. It states: 'We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council'. The letter is signed, amongst others, by Donald Rumsfeld, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Kagan (who recently coined the phrase Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus). The rejuvenation of this belligerent spirit finally found its voice in the PNAC's 'Statement of Principles', dated 3 June 1998. The statement is a response to the 'drift' in foreign policy noted above and to the fact that the US is 'the world's preeminent power'. It states that the Project aims 'to make the case and rally support for American global leadership'. Its call is to ask whether or not America has 'the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?' This is echoed in the defence review commissioned two years later which states: 'At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position so far into the future as possible'. Immediately there are two issues here, the first is the conflation of global leadership with American interests. There is no indication that this might in any way be problematic. Again much of the bad feeling towards a certain aspect of American society is this bullish assumption that everyone wants, or at least ought to want, to be American. The second point is the defence review's use of the term 'extend', synonyms for which include enlarge, increase, make bigger, lengthen, broaden, and expand. Of course, it is easy to make a lot of one word, but I cannot do justice to the feeling of disquiet one gets when reading the review cover to cover. If this is a defence review, then it is following the very well known adage that the best form of defence is attack. The statement continues that the essential elements of success are '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'. These responsibilities are 'to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad'. Such responsibilities might seem at face value to be nothing more than the expression of the democratic spirit essential to American identity. But again some time needs to be taken to investigate what this might mean. Surely we cannot ignore the fact that there are still many questions surrounding the election of George W. Bush and the role played by his brother in securing the Republican vote in Florida. How can we trust a commitment to political freedom from an administration whose election, had it taken place in a Third World Country, would have been challenged if not outrightly condemned. And it almost doesn't need to be said how effective a foreign war is for burying domestic difficulties. So what of economic freedom? Full discussion requires a book length study, but for brevity's sake and with a view to how it might affect the Third World countries the Project has its eye on, what is the bottom line? With the signatories to the project being disciples of neoliberlaism, economic freedom means the liberalization of every state's economy and the privatization of their resources, services, or utilities, thus opening them up to appropriation by transnational corporations. Much of this, of course, takes place through non-democratically accountable agencies such as the WTO and the IMF and is something which must be considered if our own democratic institutions are not to become outdated. The Project declares that its actions must of course be prudent, but this reference to virtue is Machiavellian rather than Aristotelian. In their own words it requires 'a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity'. The signatures on this statement are again those of Rumsfeld, Abrams and Wolfowitz, but this time they are accompanied, amongst others, by Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush. The obvious omission here is the name of George W., but one would imagine they had plans for him and did not wish to compromise his future role. From Gary Schmitt's memo on the International Criminal Court (ICC), dated 2 January 2001 we can see how the ICC would have been a burden and a limit to 'the exercise of American leadership' on which 'a decent world order depends'. America has always maintained, and reasonably one might add, that US troops given their extensive use as peacekeepers would be more open to prosecution than any other force. We can be generous here and say we understand the concerns, but the ICC in particular would get in the way of a different kind of activity, an activity clearly set out in the defence review. One of the four key missions of the US military, alongside homeland security; transforming US forces in line with technological progress; and fighting and decisively winning 'multiple simultaneous major theatre wars', is what they call "constabulary activities". Such activities, the report claims, are likely to generate 'more violence' than the traditional "peacekeeping" missions and therefore 'demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations'. What is more the United States 'cannot assume a UN-like stance of neutrality; the preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome'. This is of particular importance with regard to the current operation in Iraq given the presentation of Saddam Hussein as the head of an outlaw regime. Of course, one must ask who will be the object of the next constabulary activity? Will it be North Korea, Iran, or even Syria? This kind of language, as well as the activities on the ground, has given reason for some people to tentatively suggest that the US is becoming a 'rogue superpower'. If the term 'rogue state' is used to signal indifference to International Law, then perhaps there is a case. Against this, of course, we have the image of the Bush administration, guided by Tony Blair, pursuing a multilateral approach and demonstrating respect for the opinion of the International community. But how does the Project define multilateralism? Robert Kagan in the Washington Post, 13 September 2002, writes 'Most Europeans believe in what might be called principled multilateralism. In this view, gaining U.N. Security Council approval is not a means to an end but an end in itself […]. Even if the United States were absolutely right about Iraq, even if the dangers were exactly as the Bush administration presents them, Europeans believe the United States would be wrong to invade without formal approval. If the Security Council says no, the answer is no. Not many Americans would agree. Most Americans are not principled multilateralists. They are instrumental multilateralists. Yes, they want to win international support. They like allies, and they like approval for their actions. But the core of the American multilateralist argument is pragmatic'. Multilateralism, then, 'is a cost-benefit analysis, not a principled commitment to multilateral action'. It is 'the unilateralist iron fist inside the multilateralist velvet glove'. It is 'multilateralism, American style'. Since the commencement of the military operation the televisual media have been eager to pronounce the anti-war movement dead in the water. However, in response to the cynicism towards dissent propagated by those in favour of war and those who remain apathetic in the face of a national government and global superpower indifferent to popular expression, it is important to remember that the way the military operation is being prosecuted and the interest in how Iraq will be reconstructed is largely down to the many million dissenting voices across the world. One concession to this dissent is the announcement of a 'road map' for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is good news, but again we must pursue these developments vigorously given that the default position of the Bush administration does not exactly lend itself to a positive outcome. Again the Project gives us some idea of what this default position is and how much pressure the world will need to exert to bring about change. In a letter to President Bush, dated 3 April 2002 members of PNAC write: [W]e want to commend you for your strong stance in support of the Israeli government as it engages in the present campaign to fight terrorism. As a liberal democracy under repeated attack by murderers who target civilians, Israel now needs and deserves steadfast support. This support, moreover, is essential to Israel's continued survival as a free and democratic nation, for only the United States has the power and influence to provide meaningful assistance to our besieged ally. […] We are both targets of what you have correctly called an "Axis of Evil." Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles -- American principles -- in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred'. Is this an example of the kind of political freedom they wish to export? We can only hope not. However, with the whole world watching, the most recent letter on the PNAC website (www.newamericancentury.org) strikes a different note. With a view to post-war Iraq the Project argues that America 'must help build an Iraq that is governed by a pluralistic system representative of all Iraqis and that is fully committed to upholding the rule of law, the rights of all its citizens, and the betterment of all its people'. But we are now at a watershed. I can only imagine that Tony Blair's silence about the rightwing hawks he is currently in bed with is part of a longer game. Perhaps he is using them simply to get rid of Saddam Hussein who he may genuinely believe is the greatest threat in the world today. Perhaps when the Bush administration starts to make noises about the next country it wishes to invade, he will stand up, like so many others and resist. Unfortunately I doubt that he will. But without questions being raised about the intentions of the corporate- military faction that recently took the Whitehouse, the kind of democratic institutions the Project is planning for Iraq will be purely formal. As will all democratic institutions worldwide. For we will truly have entered a New World Order in which our current political procedures of checks and balances, representation and accountability are hopelessly inadequate. * Neal Curtis. Department of Communication Studies APU, Cambridge