Page 0
The Global Dominance Group: 9/11
Pre-Warnings & Election Irregularities in Context
By Peter Phillips, Bridget Thornton and Celeste Vogler
The leadership class in the US is now dominated by a neo-conservative
group of
people with the shared goal of asserting US military power worldwide.
This global
dominance group, in cooperation with major military contractors, has
become a powerful
force in world military unilateralism and US political processes. This
research study is an
attempt to identify the general parameters of those who are the key
actors supporting a
global dominance agenda and how collectively this group has benefited
from the events
of September 11, 2001 and irregularities in the 2004 presidential
election. This study
examines how interlocking public private partnerships, including the
corporate media,
public relations firms, military contractors, policy elites, and
government officials, jointly
support a US military global domination agenda. We ask the traditional
sociological
questions regarding who wins, who decides, and who facilitates action
inside the most
powerful military-industrial complex in the world.
A long thread of sociological research documents the existence of a
dominant
ruling class in the United States, which sets policy and determines
national political
priorities. The American ruling class is complex and inter-competitive,
maintaining itself
through interacting families of high social standing who have similar
life styles, corporate
affiliations and memberships in elite social clubs and private schools.
(1)
The American ruling class has long been determined to be mostly self-
perpetuating (2) maintaining its influence through policy-making
institutions such as the
National Manufacturing Association, National Chamber of Commerce,
Business Council,
Business Roundtable, Conference Board, American Enterprise Institute,
Council on
Foreign Relations and other business-centered policy groups.(3) These
associations have
long dominated policy decisions within the US government.
C. Wright Mills, in his 1956 book on the power elite, documents how
World War
II solidified a trinity of power in the US that comprised corporate,
military and
government elites in a centralized power structure motivated by class
interests and
working in unison through "higher circles" of contact and agreement.
Mills described
how the power elite were those “who decide whatever is decided” of
major
consequence. (4)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) G. William Domhoff, Who Rules
America? (New York:
McGraw Hill, 2006
[5th ed.] and Peter Phillips, A
Relative Advantage: Sociology of the San Francisco
Bohemian Club, 1994, (http://libweb.sonoma.edu/).
(2) Early studies by Charles Beard in the Economic Interpretations of the
Constitution of the United States (1929), established that
economic elites
formulated the US Constitution to serve their own special interests.
Henry Klien
(1933) in his book Dynastic America
claimed that wealth in America has power
never before known in the world and was centered in the top 2% of the
population
owning some 60% of the country. Ferdinard Lundberg (1937) wrote American's
Sixty Families documenting inter-marring self-perpetuating
families where wealth
is the "indispensable handmaiden of government. C.Wright Mills
determined in 1945
(American Business Elites, Journal
of Economic History, Dec. 1945) that nine out
of ten business elites from1750 to 1879 came from well to do families.
(3) See R. Brady, Business as a
System of Power, (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1943) and Val Burris, Elite Policy Planning Networks in the
United State,
American Sociological Association paper 1991.
(4) C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite, (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1956).
Page 1
These higher circle decision-makers tended to be more concerned with
inter-
organizational relationships and the functioning of the economy as a
whole rather than
advancing their particular corporate interests respectively. (5)
The higher circle policy elites (HCPE) are a segment of the American
upper class
and are the principal decision-makers in society. While having a sense
of "we-ness", they
tend to have continuing disagreements on specific policies and
necessary actions in
various socio-political circumstances. (6) These disagreements can
block aggressive
reactionary responses to social movements and civil unrest as in the
case of the Labor
Movement in the 1930s and the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s.
During these two
periods the more liberal elements of HCPE tended to dominate the
decision making
process and supported passing the National Labor Relations and Social
Security Acts in
1935, as well as the Civil Rights and Economic Opportunities Acts in
1964. These pieces
of national legislation were seen as concessions to the ongoing social
movements and
civil unrest and were implemented without instituting more repressive
policies.
However, during periods of external threats represented by US enemies
in World
War I and World War II, HCPE were more consolidated. It is in these
periods that more
conservative/reactionary elements of the HCPE where able to push their
agendas more
forcefully. During and after World War I the US instituted repressive
responses to social
movements through the Palmer Raids and the passage of the Espionage Act
of 1917 and
the Sedition Act of 1918. After World War II the McCarthy era attacks
on liberals and
radicals as well as the passage in 1947 of the National Security Act
and the anti-labor
Taft-Hartley Act were allowed and encouraged by HCPE.
The Cold War led to a continuing arms races and a further consolidation
of
military and corporate interests. President Eisenhower warned of this
increasing
concentration of power in his 1961 speech to the nation.
"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by
any of my
predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War
II or
Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no
armaments
industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as
required, make
swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of
national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million
men and
women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually
spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States
corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
industry is new in the American experience. The total influence —
economic,
political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse,
every office of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Michael Soref, Social Class and Division of Labor within the
Corporate Elite,
Sociological Quarterly 17 1976
and Michael Useem, The Social Organization of
the American Business Elite and Participation of Corporation Directors
in the
Governance of American Institutions, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 44,
(1979). Michael Useem, The Inner
Circle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).
(6) T Koenig and R. Gobel, Interlocking Corporate Directorships as a
Social network,
American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, Vol. #40, 1981, Peter Phillips, The
1934-35 Red Threat and The Passage of the National Labor Relations Act,
Critical
Sociology, Vol. 20 Number 2 (1994).
Page 2
the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this
development.
Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil,
resources and
livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military
industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power
exists and will
persist." (7)
The HCPE support for the continuation of military expansion after WWII
was
significantly different than after WWI. In the 1920s HCPE were
uncomfortable with war
profits and the power of the arms industry. After WWII with the cold
war, Korea and
later Vietnam HCPE supported continued unprecedented levels of military
spending. (8)
The top100 military contractors from WWII acquired over three billion
dollars in
new resources between 1939 and 1945 representing a 62% increase in
capital assets. Five
main interest groups: Morgan, Mellon, Rockefeller, Dupont and Cleveland
Steel,
controlled two-thirds of the WWII prime contractor firms and were key
elements of
HCPE seeking continued high-level military spending. (9)
Economic incentives, combined with Cold War fears, led the HCPE to
support an
unprecedented military readiness, which resulted in a permanent
military industrial
complex. From 1952 to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US
maintained defense
funding in the 25-40% range of total federal spending, with peaks
during Korea, Vietnam
and the Reagan presidency. (10)
The break-up of the Soviet Union undermined the rationale for continued
military
spending at high Cold War levels and some within the HCPE, while
celebrating their
victory over communism, saw the possibility of balanced budgets and
peace dividends in
the 1990s. In early 1992, Edward Kennedy called for the taking of $210
billion dollars
out of the defense budget over several years and spending $60 billion
on universal health
care, public housing, and improved transportation. (11) However,
by spring of 1992 it was
clear that strong resistance to major cuts in the military budgets had
widespread support
in Washington. That year the Senate, in a 50-48 vote, was unable to
close Republican and
conservative Democrat debates against a proposal to shift defense
spending to domestic
programs. (12) In 1995 Defense Secretary Les Aspin — who during his
tenure under Clinton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Public Papers of the Presidents, Military-Industrial Complex
Speech, Dwight D.
Eisenhower, 1961, p. 1035-1040
(8) For an understanding of the anti-military sentiment of the 1930s
see: Smedley D. Butler,
Major General U.S. Marines, War is a
Racket, (New York: Round Table Press, 1935)
and The Washington Arms Inquiry, Currrent
History, November (1934).
(9) Economic Concentration and World
War II, A report of the Smaller War Plants
Corporation to the Special Committee to Study Problems of American
Small Business,
US Senate, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1946.
(10) US Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States
Government,
Historical Tables, Fiscal Year 1995 (Washington Printing office, 1994).
Page 36-43, 82-87.
(11) Michael Putzel, “Battle Joined in Peace Dividend," The Boston Globe,
Jan.12, 1992, p. 1.
(12) Eric Pianin, “Peace Dividend Efforts Dealt Blow," Washington Post,
March 27, 1992, p. A4.
Page 3
made minor cuts to Pentagon budgets — argued that spending needed to
remain high
especially for intelligence on "targeting terrorism and narcotics" (13)
By 1999 editorials
bemoaning the loss of the peace dividend were all that was left of
major cuts to military
spending. (14)
At the same time as liberal elements of the HCPE were pushing for a
peace
dividend, a neo-conservative group was arguing for using the decline of
the Soviet Union
as an opportunity for US military world dominance.
Foundations of the Global Dominance
Group
Leo Strauss, Albert Wohlstetter and others at the University of Chicago
working
in the Committee on Social Thought have been widely credited for
promoting the neo-
conservative agenda through their students, Paul Wolfowitz, Allan Bloom
and Bloom's
student Richard Perle. Adbuster summed up neo-conservatism as:
"The belief that Democracy, however flawed, was best defended
by an ignorant public pumped on nationalism and religion. Only a
militantly nationalist state could deter human aggression …Such
nationalism requires an external threat and if one cannot be found it
must
be manufactured." (15)
The neo-conservative philosophy emerged from the 1960's era of social
revolutions and political correctness, as a counter force to expanding
liberalism and
cultural relativism. Numerous officials and associates in the Reagan
and George H.W.
Bush Presidencies were strongly influenced by the neo-conservative
philosophy
including: John Ashcroft, Charles Fairbanks, Dick Cheney, Kenneth
Adelman, Elliot
Abrams, William Kristol and Douglas Feith. (16)
Within the Ford administration there was a split between cold war
traditionalists
seeking to minimize confrontations through diplomacy and détente
and neo-conservatives
advocating stronger confrontations with the Soviet "Evil Empire." The
latter group
became more entrenched when George H.W. Bush became director of the
CIA. Bush
allowed the formation of "Team B" headed by Richard Pipes along with
Paul Wolfowitz,
Lewis Libby, Paul Nitxe and others, who formed the Committee on the
Present Danger to
raise awareness of the Soviet threat and the continuing need for a
strong aggressive
defense policy. Their efforts lead to strong anti-soviet positioning
during the Reagan
administraton. (17)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(13) Sam Meddis, “Peace Dividend is no Guarantee, Aspin Says," USA Today,
December 6, 1994.
(14) Margaret Tauxe, “About that Peace Dividend: The Berlin Wall Fell,
But a Wall
of Denial Stands," Pittsburgh Post
Gazette, November 12, 1999, p. A-27.
(15) Guy Caron, “Anatomy of a Neo-Conservative White House,” Canadian Dimension,
May 1, 2005.
(16) Alain Frachon and Daniel Vernet, “The Strategist and the
Philosopher: Leo Strauss
and Albert Wlhlestetter,” Le Monde,
April 16, 2003, English translation: Counterpunch
6/2/03.
(17) Anne Hessing Cahn, Team B; The Trillion-dollar Experiment, Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, April 1993,
Volume 49, No. 03
Page 4
Journalist John Pilger recalled how he interviewed neo-conservative
Richard
Perle during the Regain administration.
"I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he
spoke about 'total war,' I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently
used the term again in describing America's 'war on terror'. 'No
stages,' he
said. 'This is total war.' We are fighting a variety of enemies. There
are
lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do
Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way
to go
about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we
embrace it
entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just
wage
a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from
now." (18)
The election of George H.W. Bush to the Presidency and the appointment
of Dick
Cheney as Secretary of Defense expanded the presence of
neo-conservatives within the
government and after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 allowed for
the formal initiation
of a global dominance policy.
In 1992 Dick Cheney supported Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz in
producing
the “Defense Planning Guidance” report, which advocated US military
dominance
around the globe in a "new order." The report called for the United
States to grow in
military superiority and to prevent new rivals from rising up to
challenge us on the world
stage. Using words like "unilateral action" and military "forward
presence," the report
advocated that the US dominate friends and foes alike. It concluded
with the assertion
that the US can best attain this position by making itself “absolutely
powerful.” (19)
The Defense Policy Guidance report was leaked to the press and came
under
heavy criticism from many members of the HCPE. The New York Times
reported on
March 11, 1992 that,
"Senior White House and State Department officials have harshly
criticized a draft Pentagon policy statement that asserts that America's
mission in the post-cold-war era will be to prevent any collection of
friendly or unfriendly nations from competing with the United States for
superpower status.” (20)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(18) John Pilger, “The World Will Know The Truth,” New Statesman (London)
(December 16 2002).
(19) Peter Phillips, The
Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance, in Censored
2006, (New York: Seven Stories Press), (http://www.projectcensored.orgl).Excerpts
from the 1992 Draft “Defense Planning Guidance” can be accessed at
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html).
(20) Patrick E. Tyler, “Senior U.S. Officials Assail Lone-Superpower
Policy,"
New York Times, March 11, 1992P. A6.
Page 5
One Administration official, familiar with the reaction of senior staff
at the White
House and State Department, characterized the document as a "dumb
report" that "in no
way or shape represents US policy. Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of
West Virginia,
called the draft Pentagon document "myopic, shallow and disappointing."
(21) Many HCPE
were not yet ready for a unilateral global-dominance agenda. So with
Bill Clinton's
election to the White House in 1992 most neo-conservatives HCPE were
out of direct
power during the next eight years.
The HCPE within both major political parties tend to seek to maintain
US world
military power. Both political parties cooperate by encouraging
Congress to protect US
business interests abroad and corporate profits at home. To better
maintain defense
contractors’ profits, Clinton's Defense Science Board called for a
globalized defense
industry obtained through mergers of defense contractors with
transnational companies
that would became partners in the maintenance of US military readiness.
(22)
James Woolsey, Clinton's Director of the CIA from 1993 to 1995,
described as a
hard-liner on foreign policy, wanted to have a continued strong defense
policy. (23)
However the Clinton administration stayed away from promoting global
dominance as an
ideological justification for continuing high defense budgets. Instead,
to offset profit
declines for defense contractors after the fall of the Berlin Wall the
Clinton
administration aggressively promoted international arms sales raising
the US share of
arms exports from 16% in 1988 to 63% in 1997. (24)
Additionally under Clinton the US Space Command's 1996 report Vision
for 2020
called for “Full Spectrum Dominance” by linking land, sea and air
superiority to satellite
supremacy along with the weaponization of space. (25)
Outside the Clinton administration neo-conservative HCPE continued to
promote
a global dominance agenda. On June 4 1994, a neo-conservative 'Lakeside
Chat' was
given at the San Francisco Bohemian Club's summer encampment to some
2,000 regional
and national elites. The talk, entitled "Violent Weakness," was
presented by a political
science professor from U.C. Berkeley. The speaker focussed on how
increasing violence
in society was weakening our social institutions. Contributing to this
violence and decay
of our institutions is bi-sexualism, entertainment politics,
multi-culturalism, Afro-
Centrism and a loss of family boundaries. The professor claimed to
avert further
deterioration, we need to recognize that, "elites, based on merit and
skill, are important to
society and any elite that fails to define itself will fail to
survive... We need boundaries
and values set and clear! We need an American-centered foreign
policy... and a President
who understands foreign policy." He went on to conclude that we cannot
allow the
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(21) Ibid
(22) Anna Rich & Tamar Gabelnick, “Arms Company of the Future:
BoeingBAELockheedEADS, Inc,” Arms Sales Monitor, January 2000.
(23) Guy Caron, “Anatomy of a Neo-Conservative White House,“ Canadian
Dimension,
May 1, 2005.
(24) Martha Honey, “Guns 'R' Us,” In These Times, August 1997.
(25) See Carl Grossman, “US Violates World Law to Militarize Space,"
Earth Island
Journal, Winter 1999, and Bruce Gagnon, “Pyramids to the Heavens,”
Towards Freedom,
September 1999. The Original Document, Vision for 2020 can be read
at: (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/lrp/ch02.htm).
Page 6
"unqualified" masses to carry out policy, but that elites must set
values that can be
translated into "standards of authority." The speech was forcefully
given and was
received with an enthusiastic standing ovation by the members. (26)
During the Clinton administration neo-conservatives within the HCPE
were still
active in advocating for military global dominance. Many of the
Neo-conservatives and
their global dominance allies found various positions in conservative
think tanks and with
Department of Defense contractors. They continued close affiliations
with each other
through the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprises Institute, Hoover
Institute,
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Center for
Security Policy, and
several other conservative policy groups. Some became active with
right-wing
publications such as the National Review and the Weekly Standard. In
1997, they
received funding from conservative foundations to create the Project
for the New
American Century (PNAC).
HCPE advocates for a US led "New World Order," along with Reagan/Bush
hard-
liners, and other military expansionists, founded the PNAC in June of
1997. Their
Statement of Principles called for the need to guide principles for
American foreign
policy and the creation of a strategic vision for America's role in the
world. PNAC set
forth their aims with the following statement:
• 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." (27)
The statement was signed by Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J.
Bennett, Jeb
Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky,
Steve Forbes,
Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald
Kagan,
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter
W. Rodman,
Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George
Weigel, and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(26) Peter Phillips, A Relative
Advantage: Sociology of the San Francisco Bohemian Club,
1994,
(http://libweb.sonoma.edu/regional/faculty/phillips/bohemianindex.html),
p. 104, Note:
While I heard this speech myself, a pre-agreement with my host required
that the name of
the speakers and others participants be kept confidential.
(27) Project for a New American Century, Statement of Principles, June 3,
1997
(http://www.newamericancentury.org).
Page 7
Paul Wolfowitz. Of the twenty-five founders of PNAC twelve were later
appointed to
high level positions in the George W. Bush administration. (28)
Since its founding, the PNAC has attracted numerous others who have
signed
policy letters or participated in the group. Within the PNAC, eight
have been affiliated
with the number one defense contractor Lockheed-Martin, and seven were
associated
with the number three defense contractor Northrop Grumman. (29) PNAC is
one of several
institutions that connect global dominance HCPE and large US military
contractors. (30)
In September 2,000, PNAC produced a 76-page report entitled Rebuilding
America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.
(31)
The report was similar to the Defense Policy Guidance document written
by Lewis Libby and Paul
Wolfowitz in 1992. This is not surprising in that Libby and Wolfowitz
were participants
in the production of the 2000 PNAC report. Steven Cambone, Doc Zakheim,
Mark
Lagan, and David Epstein were also heavily involved. Each of these
individuals would go
on to hold high-level positions in the George W. Bush administration.
(32)
Rebuilding America's Defenses called for the protection of the American
Homeland, the ability to wage simultaneous theater wars, perform global
constabulary
roles, and the control of space and cyberspace. It claimed that the
1990s was a decade of
defense neglect and that the US must increase military spending to
preserve American
geopolitical leadership as the world's superpower. The report claimed
that in order to
maintain a Pax Americana, potential rivals — such as China, Iran, Iraq,
and North Korea
— needed to be held in check. The report also recognized that: "the
process of
transformation … is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic
and catalyzing
event such as a new Pearl Harbor." (33) The events of September 11,
2001 were exactly the
kind of catastrophe that the authors of Rebuilding America' Defenses
theorized was
needed to accelerate a global dominance agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(28) Positions held by PNAC founders in the George W. Bush
administration: Elliot Abrams,
National Security Council, Dick Cheney, Vice-President, Paula
Dobriansky, Dept. of State,
Under Sec. of Global Affairs, Aaron Friedberg, Vice President's Deputy
National Security
Advisor, Francis Fukuyama, Presidents Council on Bioethics, Zalmay
Khalilzad, US Ambassador
to Afghanistan, Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff for the Vice President,
Peter Rodman, DOD, Assist
Sec. Of Defense for International Security, Henry S. Rowen, Defense
Policy Board, Comm.
On Intelligence Capabilities of US regarding WMDs, Donald Rumsfled,
Secretary of Defense,
Vin Weber, National Commission Public Service, Paul Wolfowitz, Dep.
Sec. Of Defense,
Pres. World Bank.
(29) Ted Nace, Gangs of America,
(San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., 2003) P. 186.
(30) For a full review of the Global Dominance Group listing key
advocates for military expansion and
affiliates of the major defense contractors see appendix A.
(31) The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses,
Project for a New American Century:
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century,
September 2000 (www.newamericancentury.org).
(32) David Epstein, Office of Sec. Of Defense, Steve Cambone, NSA, Dov
Zakheim, CFO
Dept. of Defense, Mark Lagan, Dep. Assist. Sec. Of State.
(33) The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses:
Strategy, Forces and Resources
for a New Century, (www.newamericancentury.org).
Page 8
Before 9/11, the development of strategic global dominance policies
were likely
to be challenged by members of Congress and liberal HCPE, who continued
to hold a
détente foreign policy frame of understanding that had been
traditionally advocated by
the Council of Foreign Relations and the State Department. Liberal and
moderate HCPE
in various think tanks, policy councils, and universities still hoped
for a peace dividend
resulting in lower taxes and the stabilization of social programs, and
the maintenance of a
foreign policy based more on a balance of power instead of unilateral
US military global
domination. Additionally, many HCPE were worried that the costs of
rapidly expanding
the military would lead to deficit spending. These liberal/moderate
HCPE were so
shocked by 9/11 that they became immediately united in their fear of
terrorism and in full
support of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and legislation to
support military action
in Afghanistan and later Iraq. The resulting permanent war on terror
led to massive
government spending and the rapid acceleration of the neo-conservative
HCPE plans for
military control of the world. (34)
Understanding Global Dominance
Advocates within the HCPE
Benefiting significantly from expanded military spending after 9/11
were a group
of Department of Defense (DoD) and Homeland Security contractors. For
the purposes of
this study, we included the top seven military contractors who derive
at least one third of
their income for DoD contracts in our study group. Additionally, we
added in The Caryle
Group and Bechtel Group Inc. because of their high levels of political
influence and
revolving door personnel within the Reagan and Bush 1&2
administrations. (35) These
corporations have benefited significantly from post-9/11 policies. Our
goals are to
identify the primary advocates for a global dominance policy within the
HCPE and the
principle beneficiaries of this policy. We believe that by identifying
the most important
policy advocates and those corporate heads who have the most to gain
from a global
dominance policy that we can begin to establish the parameters of the
individuals
involved in the Global Dominance Group (GDG) among the HCPE. Knowing
the general
parameters of the GDG will provide an understanding of who had means,
opportunity and
motive to have initiated a post-9/11 acceleration of neo-conservative
military expansion
towards the goal of assuming full spectrum military dominance of the
world.
Understanding the parameters of the GDG will also allow researchers to
explore the
possibilities of insider pre-knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. These are
classic sociological
questions of who wins and who looses within class structures, policy
processes, and state
decision-making. In this study, we are not seeking to identify people
involved in specific
acts before or after 9/11. Rather we seek to understand the
sociological phenomena of
how as collective actors the GDG within the HCPE had the theoretical
circumstances of
motive, means and opportunity to gain from such events
.
To establish a GDG parameters list we included the boards of directors
of the nine
DoD contractors identified above as those corporations earning over
one-third of their
revenue from the government or having high levels of political
involvement. Additionally
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(34) William Rivers Pitt, The Root of the Bush National Security
Agenda: Global Domination
and the Pre- emptive Attack on Iraq First, www.Truthout.org, February 27, 2003.
(35) See Appendix A for listing of Top 20 DoD Contractors from 2004.
Page 9
we have included members of sixteen leading conservative
global-dominance-advocating
foundations and policy councils.
Connections and associations listed in our GDG are not always
simultaneous, but
rather reflect links extending close to two decades inside an
increasingly important group
within the HCPE of the US. The list includes 236 names of people who
have or recently
held high-level government positions in the George W. Bush
administration, sit on the
boards of directors of major DoD contracting corporations, and/or are
close associates of
the above serving as GDG advocates on policy councils or advocacy
foundations.
Deciding on whom to include in such a list and how far to extend the
links is difficult.
We believe however, that in looking for the core of the GDG in the
United States that the
people listed in Appendix B are many of the principle participants.
These people have
been the some of the strongest advocates for military global dominance
and/or are the
primary beneficiaries of such a policy within the US. They tend to know
each other
through long periods of active involvement in policy circles, boards of
directors,
consulting positions, government agencies, and project specific
activities.
Although far more research on the GDG needs to be done, we can begin to
have
an understanding of the parameters and operational methods involved by
showing major
defense contractor links with the GDG and the policy benefits to such
companies as
Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton, Carlyle, and Northrup Grumann
Who Profits from GDG Policies?
Lockheed Martin has benefited significantly from the post-9/11 military
expansion promoted by the GDG. The Pentagon's budget for buying new
weapons rose
from $61 billion in 2001 to over $80 billion in 2004. Lockheed Martin's
sales rose by
over 30% at the same time, with tens of billions of dollars on the
books for future
purchases. From 2000 to 2004, Lockheed Martins stock value rose 300%.
New York Times reporter Tim Weiner wrote in 2004: "No contractor is in
a better
position than Lockheed Martin to do business in Washington. Nearly 80%
of its revenue
comes from the US Government. Most of the rest comes from foreign
military sales,
many financed with tax dollars." (36)
As of August 2005 Lockheed Martin stockholders had made 18% on their
stock in
the prior twelve months. (37) Northrup-Grumann has seen similar growth
in the last three
years with DoD contracts rising from $3.2 billion in 2001 to $11.1
billion in 2004. (38)
Halliburton, with Vice-President Dick Cheney as former CEO, has seen
phenomenal growth since 2001. Halliburton had defense contracts
totaling $427 million
in 2001. By 2003, they had $4.3 billion in defense contracts, of which
approximately a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(36) Tim Weiner, “Lockheed and the Future of Warfare,” New York Times,
November 28, 2004, Sunday Business p. 1.
(37) Jerry Knight, “Lockheed Rules Roost on Electronic Surveillance,” The Washington Post,
August 29, 2005, p. D-1.
(38) See: The Center for Public Integrity, “Pentagon Contractors: Top
Contractors by Dollar,"
(www.publicintegrity.org)
Page 10
third were sole source agreements. (39) Cheney, not incidentally,
continues to receive a
deferred salary from Halliburton. According to financial disclosure
forms, he was paid
$205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in
2004 and his
433,333 Halliburton stock options rose in value from $241,498 in 2004
to $8 million in
2005. (40)
The Carlyle Group, established in 1987, is a private global investment
firm that
manages some $30 billion in assets. Numerous high-level members of the
GDG have
been involved in The Carlyle Group including: Frank Carlucci, George H.
W. Bush,
James Baker III, William Kennard and Richard Darman. The Carlyle Group
purchased
United Defense in 1997. They sold their shares in the company after
9/11, making a $1
billion dollar profit. (41) Carlyle continues to invest in defense
contractors and is moving
into the homeland security industry. (42)
GDG advocacy continues into the present. Tom Donnelly — a PNAC
participant,
American Enterprise Institute resident scholar, and former director of
communications
for Lockheed-Martin — published a book in May of 2005 advocating
increasing the DoD
budget by a third to $600 billion and adding 150,000 active duty
military personnel.
Donnelly calls for the continuation of today's "Pax Americana," a GDG
euphemism for
US global military domination of the world." (43)
Public-Private Partnerships
While it is important not to underestimate the profit motive within the
top military
defense contractors, the promotion of a global dominance agenda
includes both neo-
conservative ideological beliefs, and the formation of extremely
powerful permanent
public-private partnerships at the highest levels of government to
create interlocking
networks of global control. The continuing privatization of military
services is but one
example of this trend. (44)
Another example is the recent appointment of Paul Wolfowitz, formerly
Deputy
Secretary of Defense, to head the World Bank. His appointment gives the
GDG strong
control of another major institutional asset in the drive for full
global dominance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(39) Ibid.
(40) Raw Story, “Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% last
year, senator finds,
" October 11, 2005 (www.rawstory.com).
(41) M. Asif Ismail, “Investing in War: The Carlyle Group profits from
government and
conflict," November 18, 2004 (www.publicintegrity.org).
(42) M. Asif Ismail, The Sincerest Form of Flattery: Private Equity
Firms Follow in Carlyle's
Footsteps, November 18, 2004 (www.publicintegrity.org).
(43) Matrin Walker, Walker's World: Neo-con
Wants More Troops, UPI, May 31, 2005.
(44) Greg Guma, Privatizing War, July 8, 2004, United Press
International, Pentagon
Increases Private Military Contracts, Josh Sisco, In Censored 2004,
Peter Phillips,
(New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003) p.98.
Page 11
A global dominance agenda also includes penetration into the boardrooms
of the
corporate media in the US. A research team at Sonoma State University
recently finished
conducting a network analysis of the boards of directors of the ten big
media
organizations in the US. The team determined that only 118 people
comprise the
membership on the boards of director of the ten big media giants. These
118 individuals
in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international
corporations. Four of
the top 10 media corporations in the US have GDG-DoD contractors on
their boards of
directors including:: (45)
William Kennard: New York Times, Carlyle Group
Douglas Warner III, GE (NBC), Bechtel
John Bryson: Disney (ABC), Boeing
Alwyn Lewis: Disney (ABC), Halliburton
Douglas McCorkindale: Gannett, Lockheed-Martin.
Given an interlocked media network, it is safe to say that big media in
the United
States effectively represent the interests of corporate America. The
media elite, a key
component of the HCPE in the US, are the watchdogs of acceptable
ideological
messages, the controllers of news and information content, and the
decision makers
regarding media resources. Corporate media elites are subject to the
same pressures as the
higher circle policy makers in the US and therefore equally susceptible
to reactionary
response to our most recent Pearl Harbor.
An important case of Pentagon influence over the corporate media is
CNN's
retraction of the story about US Military use of sarin (a nerve gas) in
1970 in Laos during
the Vietnam War. CNN producers April Oliver and Jack Smith, after an
eight-month
investigation, reported on CNN June 7 1998 and later in Time magazine
that sarin gas
was used in Operation Tailwind in Laos and that American defectors were
targeted. The
story was based on eyewitness accounts and high military command
collaboration. Under
tremendous pressure from the Pentagon, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell,
and Richard
Helms, CNN and Time retracted the story by saying, “The allegations
about the use of
nerve gas and the killing of defectors are not supported by the
evidence.” Oliver and
Smith were both fired by CNN later that summer. They have steadfastly
stood by their
original story as accurate and substantiated. CNN and Time, under
intense Pentagon
pressure, quickly reversed their position after having fully approved
the release of the
story only weeks earlier. April Oliver feels that CNN and Time
capitulated to the
Pentagon’s threat to lock them out of future military stories. (46)
Public Relations Companies and the GDG
A popular and arguably effective means of controlling public support
for global
dominance initiatives exists in the use of public relations firms. In
recent years, PR
corporations increased their profits through U.S and foreign contracts.
While direct
propaganda campaigns are generally illegal in the United States,
governments and PR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(45) Peter Phillips, Censored 2006,
(New York: Seven Stories Press, 2005) p. 248.
(46) Peter Phillips, “The Censored Side of CNN Firings over Tailwing,
April Oliver,"
In Censored 1999, (New York:
Seven Stories Press, 1999) p. 158.
Page 12
firms creatively shape public opinion domestically by planting news in
foreign papers
that will instantly reach American readers. (47) While the government
relies on these firms
to generate a specific, ideological response from the masses, the PR
firms focus on
profits. The concentration of power and capital at the top is not
unique to the military
defense contractors or to the government. It is also evident in the
power public relations
and crisis management agencies hold over public opinion.
The images that have shaped support for a permanent war on terror
include the
toppling of the statue of Saddam, Private Jessica Lynch’s heroic rescue
and dramatic tales
of weapons of mass destruction. (48) During the first Gulf War, the
world witnessed
testimony to Congress about babies taken from incubators and left on
cold hospital floors
and the heartfelt plea by the Kuwaitis to help liberate them from a
ruthless Iraqi dictator.
In truth, the CIA, using taxpayer money funded these images, which were
fabricated and
disseminated by The Rendon Group, Hill and Knowlton and other private
public relations
and crisis management companies. (49)
The corporations responsible for disseminating and shaping information
are so
interconnected that most public relations firms in the United States
and Europe fall under
the umbrella of three huge corporations. The big three, WPP, Omnicom
Group and
Interpublic, have board members who also sit on the boards of the major
media
conglomerates, military contracting companies and government
commissions, including
direct relationships in the executive and legislative branches of
government. (50)
The public relations company Rendon Group is one of the firms hired for
the PR
management of America's pre-emptive wars. In the 1980’s, The Rendon
Group helped
form American sentiment regarding the ousting of President Manuel
Noriega in
Panama. (51) They shaped international support for the first Gulf War,
and in the 1990s
created the Iraqi National Congress from image, to marketing, to the
handpicking Ahmed
Chalabi.. (52)
Rendon and similar firms follow the money, shaping public opinion to
meet the
needs of their clients. The conglomeration and corporatization of the
PR industry, in
service to the GDG, hinders public discourse and allows those with the
most money to
dominate news and information in the US and increasingly the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(47) Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and
General Government
Appropriations Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-58 § 632, 113 Stat.
430, 473 (1999)
("General Government Appropriations Act of 2000"), which prohibits the
use of appropriated
funds for "publicity or propaganda purposes."
(48) Jack Shafer, “The Times Scoops That Melted, Cataloging the
wretched reporting of
Judith Miller," Slate Magazine, July 25, 2003.
(49) Ian Urbina, “A Grad Student Mimicked Saddam Over the Airwaves
Broadcast Ruse,"
Village Voice, November 13 -
19, 2002.
(50) Bill Berkowitz, “Tapping Karen Hughes," Working for Change, April 18, 2005.
(51) James Bamford, “The Man Who Sold the War Meet John Rendon, Bush's
general
in the propaganda war," Rolling Stone,
December, 2005.
(52) “India/Iraq: Worldspace Bids for Contract to Rebuild Iraqi Media
Network," Global
News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire BBC Monitoring International
Reports,
December 17, 2003.
Page 13
The ease with which the American population accepted the invasion of
Iraq was
the outcome of a concerted effort involving the government, DoD
contractors, public
relations firms, and the corporate media. These institutions are the
instigators and main
beneficiaries of a permanent war on terror. The importance of these
connections lies in
the fact that powerful segments of the GDG have the money and resources
to articulate
their propaganda repeatedly to the American people until those messages
become self-
evident truths and conventional wisdom.
Election Irregularities
In the fall of 2001, after an eight-month review of 175,000 Florida
ballots never
counted in the 2000 election, an analysis by the National Opinion
Research Center
confirmed that Al Gore actually won Florida and should have been
President. However,
coverage of this report was only a small blip in the corporate media as
a much bigger
story dominated the news after September 11, 2001. (53)
The 2004 election was even more fraudulent. The official vote count in
2004 showed
that George W. Bush won by three million votes. But exit polls
projected a victory
margin of five million votes for John Kerry. This eight-million-vote
discrepancy is much
greater than any possible margin of error. The overall margin of error
should statistically
have been under one percent. But the official result deviated from the
poll projections by
more than five percent—a statistical impossibility. (54)
Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International were the two companies
hired to
do the polling for the Nation Election Pool (a consortium of the
nation’s five major
broadcasters and the Associated Press). They refused to release their
polling data until
after the inauguration.
Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Diebold, and Sequoia are
the companies
primarily involved in implementing the new electronic voting stations
throughout the
country. All three have strong ties to the Bush Administration. The
largest investors in
ES&S, Sequoia, and Diebold are government defense contractors
Northrup-Grumman,
Lockheed-Martin, Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and Accenture. Diebold
hired
Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of San Diego
to develop the
software security in their voting machines. Many of the officials on
SAIC's board
(identified in our GDG data) are former members of either the Pentagon
or the CIA. They
include: Army General Wayne Downing, formerly on the National Security
Council,
Bobby Ray Inman, former CIA Director, Retired Admiral William Owens,
former vice
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Robert Gates, another former
director of the
CIA. (55)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(53) The National Opinion Research Center (NORC), University of Chicago,
“The Florida Ballot Project: Frequently Asked Questions”
(http://www.norc.uchicago.edu).
(54) Peter Phillips, “Another Year of Distorted Election Coverage, and
Dennis Loo’s
chapter in the same book “No Paper Trail Left Behind," In Censored
2006, (New York:
Seven Stories Press, 2005) p. 48 & p. 185.
(55) Peter Phillips, “The Sale of Electoral Politics," Censored 2005,
(New York: Seven stories Press, 2004) p. 57.
Page 14
Black Box Voting has reported repeatedly that the voting machines used
by over
30 million voters were easily hacked by relatively unsophisticated
programs and that
post-election audits of the computers would not show evidence of
tampering.
Irregularities in the vote counts indicate that something beyond chance
happened in 2004. (56)
Conspiracy theories abound in America and are directly related to the
lack of
investigative reporting by the corporate media. Corporate media are
principally in the
entertainment business, therefore the public knows more about the 2004
murder case of
California wife-killer Scott Peterson than possibilities of national
voter fraud.
GDG and 9/11
A significant portion of the GDG had every opportunity to know in
advance that
the 9/11 attacks were imminent. Many countries warned the US of
imminent terrorist
attacks: Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt,
France, Germany,
Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, and Russia. Warnings from within the
United States
intelligence community included communications intercepts regarding
al-Qaeda's
specific plans. Some of the 9/11 pre-warnings include:
— 1993: An expert panel commissioned by the Pentagon raised the
concern that an
airplane could be used to bomb national landmarks. [Washington Post,
10/2/01]
— 1996-2001: Federal authorities knew that suspected terrorists
with ties to bin Laden
received flight training at schools in the US and abroad. An Oklahoma
City FBI agent
sent a memo warning that "large numbers of Middle Eastern males" were
getting flight
training and could have been planning terrorist attacks. [CBS, 5/30/02]
One convicted
terrorist confessed that his planned role in a terror attack was to
crash a plane into CIA
headquarters. [Washington
Post, 9/23/01]
— Dec. 1998: A Time magazine cover story entitled "The Hunt for
Osama," reported that
bin Laden may be planning his boldest move yet — a strike on Washington
or possibly
New York City. [Time, 12/21/98]
— June of 2001: German intelligence warned the CIA, Britain's
intelligence agency, and
Israel's Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack
commercial aircraft
and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which
stand out.”
[Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01; Washington
Post, 9/14/01; Fox News,
5/17/02]
— June 28, 2001: George Tenet wrote an intelligence summary to
Condoleezza Rice
stating, “It is highly likely that a significant al-Qaeda attack is in
the near future, within
several weeks.” [Washington Post, 2/17/02]
— June-July 2001: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and
national security aides
were given briefs with headlines such as “Bin Laden Threats Are Real”
and “Bin Laden
Planning High Profile Attacks.” The exact contents of these briefings
remain classified,
but according to the 9/11 Commission, they consistently predicted
upcoming attacks that
would occur “on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause
the world to be in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(56) www.blackboxvoting.org. For
recent updates on voting machine hacking see:
12-13-05: Devastating hack proven,
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-
auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html
Page 15
turmoil, consisting of possible multiple—but not necessarily
simultaneous—attacks.”
[9/11
Commission Report, 4/13/04 (B)]
— July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying
commercial airlines due to a
threat assessment. [CBS, 7/26/01] The report of this warning was
omitted from the 9/11
Commission Report [Griffin 5/22/05]
— Aug 6, 2001: President Bush received a classified intelligence
briefing at his Crawford,
Texas ranch, warning that bin Laden might be planning to hijack
commercial airliners.
The memo was titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” The entire
memo focused
on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US and specifically
mentioned the World
Trade Center. [Newsweek,
5/27/02; New York
Times, 5/15/02, Washington
Post, 4/11/04,
White
House, 4/11/04, Intelligence
Briefing, 8/6/01]
— August, 2001: Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the US
that suicide pilots were
training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News,
5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence
also later stated, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions,
but they “did not
pay the necessary attention.” [Agence
France-Presse, 9/16/01]
— September 10, 2001: a group of top Pentagon officials received
an urgent warning that
prompted them to cancel their flight plans for the following morning.
[Newsweek,
9/17/01] The 9/11 Commission Report omitted this report. [Griffin,
5/22/05] (57)
Foreknowledge of 9/11 enabled the GDG to act quickly to accelerate
their global
dominance agenda. People in the GDG wanted an Invasion of Afghanistan
long before 9-
11. The US government Sub-committee on Asia and the Pacific of the
International
Relations Committee of the House of Representatives met in February of
1998 to discuss
removing the government of Afghanistan from power. The U.S government
told India in
June of 2001 that a planned invasion of Afghanistan was set for October
and Janes
Defense News reported in March of 2001 that the US planned to invade
Afghanistan later
that year. BBC reported that the U.S told the Pakistani Foreign
Secretary prior to 9/11 of
a planned invasion of Afghanistan in October. (58)
At the beginning of 2006 the Global Dominance Group's agenda is well
established within higher circle policy councils and cunningly
operationalized inside the
US Government. They work hand in hand with defense contractors promoting
deployment of US forces in over 700 bases worldwide.
There is an important difference between self-defense from external
threats, and
the belief in the total military control of the world. Many people in
the US are having
serious doubts about the moral and practical acceptability of financing
world domination,
and the dangers to personal freedoms permanent war implies.
Ken Cunningham from Penn State University writes, "…current
War-on-Terror
levels [of expenditures] surpass the Cold War averages by 18% …9/11 and
the War on
Terror have enabled the assertion of an aggressive, preemptive,
militarist bloc within the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(57) See Jessica Froiland’s, 9/11 Pre-warnings in Censored 2006, Peter
Phillips, (New York:
Seven Stories Press, 2005) p. 205.
(58) Indiareacts.com, India in Anti-Taliban Military Plan, 6/26/01, BBC
News, 9/18/01,
by George Arney. Janes Defense News, 3/15/01, India Joins Anti-Taliban
Coalition, by Rahul Bedi.
Page 16
government and the National Security State…The gravity of the current
militarism is the
nebulous, potentially limitless (permanent war)." (59)
Resistance to the GDG within HCPE
An important question remains. Can we see any evidence of moderates or
liberals
within the HCPE asserting resistance the GDG agenda? Certainly the
indictments of key
neo-cons within the Bush administration is a hopeful sign. But there is
little evidence that
the higher circle policy elites have any interest in addressing
questions regarding 9/11
pre-warnings or national voter fraud.
Greg Palast reported on the split between the neo-cons in the Pentagon
and the
State Department and oil companies over the privatization of the oil
fields in Iraq. The
GDG neo-cons were pushing for the US oil companies to purchase Iraq's
oil fields
outright and the oil companies balked, preferring to simply buy the oil
from a stable pro-
American Iraqi regime. (60)
Anther sign of resistance was a full-page ad in the New York Times
November 10,
2005 placed by a new policy advocacy group called the Partnership for a
Secure
America. The ad openly challenged the US policy of torture and was
signed by numerous
HCPE including Lee Hamilton, Warren Christopher, Gary Hart, and Richard
Holbrooke.
Still another sign of resistance is the fact that traditionally
powerful long-term
lobbying groups such as US Chamber of Commerce, the National
Associations of
Manufacturers, and the National Association of Realtors have become
concerned about
the confidentiality of private files that "could too easily be
reviewed" under the Patriot
Act. (61)
These oppositional responses to GDG from higher circle policy elites
are hopeful
but hardly significant in light of the extent of the global dominance
agenda. Many in the
HCPE are still fearful of terrorist attacks — a fear the corporate
media constantly
reinforces.
Many in the HCPE believe in holding the course in Iraq out of concern
for greater
unrest in the region should we pull out. Without broad social movements
and citizen
unrest that threatens the stability of HCPE's socio-economic agendas
and corporate
profits there will be little if any serious challenge to the GDG.
Should the 2006 election
bring Democratic control to the House or Senate, we would likely see
only a slight
slowing of the GDG agenda, but certainly not a reversal.
The events over the past couple of decades and especially the first
five years of
this century suggest that something some would call fascism has taken
root in the US and
there is little indication that a reversal is evident.
Vice President Wallace wrote in The New York Times on April 9,
1944, “The really dangerous American fascist,… is the man who wants to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(59) Ken Cunningham, Permanent War? The Domestic Hegemony of the New
American Militarism,
New Political Science, Volume
26, Number 2, December 2004.
(60) Greg Palast, “OPEC and the Economic Conquest of Iraq," Harpers, October, 2005.
(61) “Business groups want to limit Patriot Act," San Francisco Indy
Media, October 17, 2005
(www.sf.indymedia.org).
Page 17
do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in
a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence.
His
method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist
the
problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how
best to
use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group
more money or more power.”
Wallace then added,
“They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every
liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but
are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final
objective
toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power
so
that, using the power of the state and the power of the market
simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
(62)
We are past the brink of totalitarian facist-corporatism. Challenging
the Neo-cons
and the GDG agenda is only the beginning of reversing the long-term
conservative
reactions to the gains of the 1960s. Re-addressing poverty, the UN
Declaration of Human
Rights and our own weapons of mass destruction is a long-term agenda
for progressive
scholars and citizen democrats.
Peter Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University
and director of
Project Censored, a media research organization. Bridget Thornton and
Celeste Vogler
are senior level research assistants at Sonoma State University with
majors in History and
Political Science, respectively.
Appendix A
Defense
Contracts
% from
Company:
2004
Total Revenue 2004
DOD
Lockheed Martin
Corporation
$20,690,912,117
$35,526,000,000
58%
General Dynamics
Corporation
$9,563,280,236
$19,178,000,000
50%
Raytheon
Company
$8,472,818,938
$20,245,000,000
42%
Northrop Grumman
Corporation
$11,894,090,277
$29,853,000,000
40%
Halliburton
Company
$7,996,793,706
$20,464,000,000
39%
Science Applications
International
$2,450,781,108
$7,187,000,000
34%
The Boeing
Company
$17,066,412,718
$52,457,000,000
33%
The Carlyle
Group
$1,442,680,446
N/A N/A
Bell Boeing Joint
Program
$1,539,815,440
(Boeing)
N/A
Note: Figures in Appendix A courtesy of Mergent Online Database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(62) Cited from Davidson Loehr “Living Under Fascism Unitarian
Universalist Church, November 7, 2004
(http://www.uua.org/news/2004/voting/sermon_loehr.html).
Page 18
Appendix B
GLOBAL DOMINANCE GROUP ADVOCACY
ORGANIZATIONS
PNAC Project For New American Century
HO Hoover Institute
AEI American Enterprise Institute
HU Hudson Institute
NSC National Security Council
HF Heritage Foundation
DPB Defense Policy Board
CPD Committee on Present Danger
JINSA Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs
MI Manhattan Institute
CLI Committee for the Liberation of Iraq
CSP Center for Security Policy: Institute for
Strategic Studies
CSIS Center for Strategic and Int’l Studies
NIPP National Institute for Public Policy
AIPAC American Israel Public Affairs Committee
Team B Presidents Foreign Advisory Board
Important Agencies and Other Organizations
CIA Central Intelligence
Agency
DoD
Department of Defense
DoS Department of
State
CFR Council on Foreign
Relations
DoJ
Department of Justice
DoC
Department of Commerce
WHOMB White House Office of Management and Budget
DoE
Department of Energy
DPB
Defense Policy Board
DoT
Department of Transportation
NSA
National Security Agency
Note: In selecting the sixteen important neo-conservative GPG advocacy
organizations we relied
mostly on the International Relations Center website: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/
, The Center for Public Integrity at: www.publicintegrity.org
and other sources cited in this paper.
1. Abramowitz Morton I.; PNAC, NSC, Asst. Sec. of State,
Amb. to Turkey, Amb. To
Thailand, CISS, Carlyle
2. Abrams, Elliott; PNAC, Heritage, DoS, HU, Special Asst.
to President Bush, NSC
3. Adelman, Ken; PNAC, CPD, DoD, DPB, Fox News, CPD,
Affairs, Commander in Chief
Strategic Air Command, Northrop Grumman, Arms Control Disarmament Agency
4. Aldrige, E.C. Jr.; CFR, PNAC, NSA, HU, HF, Sec. of the
Air Force, Asst. Sec. of State,
Douglas Aircraft, DoD, LTV Aerospace, WHOMB, Strategic Systems Group,
Aerospace Corp.
Page 19
5 Allen, Richard V.; PNAC, HF, HO, CFR, CPD, DPB,
CNN, US Congress, CIA
Analyst,CSIS, NSC
6. Amitay, Morris J.; JINSA, AIPAC
7. Andrews, D.P.; SAIC
8. Andrews, Michael; L-3 Communications Holdings, Deputy
Asst. Sec. of Research and
Technology, Chief Scientist for the US Army
9. Archibald, Nolan D.; Lockheed Martin
10. Baker, James, III, Caryle, Sec. of State (Bush), Sec. of
Tres. (Reagan)
11. Barr, William P.; HF, HO, PNAC, CFR, NSA, US Congress, Asst.
to the President
(Reagan), Carlyle,
12. Barram, David J.; Computer Sciences Corporation, US DoC
13. Barrett, Barbara; Raytheon
14. Bauer, Gary; PNAC, Under Sec. of Ed.
15. Bechtel, Riley; Bechtel
16. Bechtel, Steve; Bechtel
17. Bell, Jeffrey; PNAC, MI
18. Bennett, Marcus C.; Lockheed Martin
19. Bennett, William J.; PNAC, NSA, HU, Sec. of Education
20. Bergner, Jeffrey; PNAC, HU, Boeing
21. Berns, Walter; AEI, CPD
22. Biggs, John H.; Boeing, CFR
23. Blechman, Barry; DoD, CPD
24. Bolton, John; JINSA, PNAC, AEI, DoS, DoJ, Amb. to UN, WH
Legis. Counsil, Agency
Int’l Devel, Under Sec. State Arms Control-Int’l Security
25. Boot, Max; PNAC, CFR
26. Bremer, L. Paul; HF, CFR, Administrator of Iraq
27. Brock, William; CPD, Senator, Sec. of Labor
28. Brooks, Peter; DoD, Heritage, CPD
29. Bryen, Stephen; JINSA, AEI, DoD, L-3 Network Security, Edison
Int’l, Disney
30. Bryson, John E.; Boeing
31. Bush, Jeb; PNAC, Governor of Florida
32. Bush, Geroge H. W., President, Carlyle, CIA Dir.
33. Bush, Wes; Northrop Grumman
34. Cambone, Stephen; PNAC, NSA, DoD, Los Alamos (specialized in
theater nuclear
weapons issues), Ofc. Sec. Defense: Dir. Strategic Def., CSIS, CSP
35. Chabraja, Nicholas D.; General Dynamics
36. Chain, John T. Jr. Northrup Grumman, Sec. of the Air Force,
Dir. of Politico-
MilitaryAffairs, DoS, Chief of Staff for Supreme Headquarters Allied
Powers Europe,
Commander in Chief Strategic Air Command
37. Chao, Elaine; HF, Sec. of Labor, Gulf Oil, US DoT, CFR
38. Chavez, Linda; PNAC, MI, CFR
39. Cheney, Lynne; AEI, Lockheed Martin
40. Cheney, Richard; JINSA, PNAC, JINSA, AEI, HU, Halliburton,
Sec. of Defense, VP of
US
41. Cohen Eliot A.; PNAC, AEI, DPB, DoD, CLI, CPD
42. Coleman, Lewis W.; Northrop Grumman
43. Colloredo-Manfeld, Ferdinand; Raytheon
44. Cook, Linda Z.; Boeing
45. Cooper, Dr. Robert S.; BAE Systems, Asst. Sec. of Defense
46. Cooper, Henry; CPD, DoD, Heritage, Depty Asst. Sec. Air
Force, US Arms Control
Disarm. Strategic Def. Initiative, Applied Research Assoc, NIPP
Page 20
47. Cox, Christopher; CSP, Senior Associate Counsel to the
President, Chairman: SEC.
48. Crandall, Robert L.; Halliburton, FAA Man. Advisor Bd.
49. Cropsey, Seth; PNAC, AEI, HF, HU, DoD, Under-Sec. Navy
50. Cross, Devon Gaffney; PNAC, DPB, HF, CPD, HO
51. Crouch, J.D.; CSP, Depty. National Security Advisor, DoD,
Amb. to Romania
52. Crown, James S.; General Dynamics, Henry Crown and Co.
53. Crown, Lester; General Dynamics, Henry Crown and Co.
54. Dachs, Alan; Bechtel, CFR
55. Dahlburg, Ken; SAIC, DoC, Asst. to Reagan, WHOMB
56. Darman, Richard G.; Carlyle, Dir. of the US Office of
Management and Budget,
President Bush's Cabinet, Asst. to the President of the US, Deputy Sec.
of the US
Treasury, Asst. US Sec. of Commerce
57. Dawson, Peter; Bechtel
58. Decter, Midge; HF, HO, PNAC, CPD
59. Demmish, W.H.; SAIC
60. DeMuth, Christopher; AEI, US Office of Management and Budget,
Asst. to Pres. (Nixon)
61. Derr, Kenneth T.; Halliburton
62. Deutch, John; Dir. CIA, Deputy Sec. of Defense, Raytheon
63. Dine, Thomas; CLI, US Senate (Church, Ed. Kennedy), AIPAC, US
Agency Int’l
Development, Free Radio Europe/Radio Liberty, Prague, Czech Rep., CFR
64. Dobriansky, Paula; PNAC, HU, AEI, CPB, DoS, Army, NSC
European/Soviet Affairs,
USIA, ISS
65. Donnelly, Thomas; AEI, PNAC, Lockheed Martin
66. Downing, Wayne, Ret. Gen. US Army, NSA, CLI, SAIC
67. Drummond, J.A.; SAIC
68. Duberstein, Kenneth M.; Boeing, WH Chief of Staff
69. Dudley, Bill; Bechtel
70. Eberstadt, Nicholas; AEI, CPD, PNAC, DoS (consultant)
71. Ebner, Stanley; Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop Grumman,
CSP
72. Ellis, James O. Jr.; Lockheed Martin, Retired Navy Admiral
and Commander US
Strategic Command
73. Epstein David, PNAC, Office of Sec. Defense
74. Everhart, Thomas; Raytheon
75. Falcoff, Mark; AEI, CFR
76. Fautua, David; PNAC, Lt. Col. US Army
77. Fazio, Vic; Northrup Grumman, Congressman (CA)
78. Feith, Douglas; JINSA, DoD, L-3 Communications, Northrup
Grumman, NSC, CFR,
CPS
79. Feulner, Edwin J. Jr.; HF, HO, Sec. HUD, Inst. European Def.
& Strategy Studies, CSIS
80. Foley, D.H.; SAIC
81. Fradkin, Hillel; PNAC, AEI,
82. Frank, Stephen E.; Northrop Grumman
83. Fricks, William P.; General Dynamics
84. Friedberg, Aaron; PNAC, CFR, NSA, DoD, CIA consultant
85. Frost, Phillip (M.D.); Northrop Grumman
86. Fukuyama, Francis; PNAC, CFR, HU
87. Gates, Robert, CIA-dir. NSA, SAIC
88. Gaffney, Frank; CPD, PNAC, Washington Times, DoD
89. Gaut, C. Christopher; Halliburton
90. Gedmin, Jeffrey; AEI, PNAC, CPD
91. Gerecht, Reuel Marc; PNAC, AEI, CIA, CBS
Page 21
92. Gillis, S. Malcom; Halliburton, Electronic Data Systems Corp
93. Gingrich, Newt; AEI, CFR, HO, DPB, U.S House of Reps., CLI,
CPD
94. Goodman, Charles H.; General Dynamics
95. Gorelick, Jamie S. United Technologies Corporation, Deputy
attorney general, DoD,
Asst. to the Sec. of Energy, National Com. Terrorist Threats Upon the
US, DoJ, Nat’l
Security Adv., CIA, CFR
96. Gouré, Daniel; DoD, SAIC, DoE, DoS (consultant), CSP
97. Haas, Lawrence J.; Communications WHOMB, CPD
98. Hadley, Stephen; NSA advisor to Bush, Lockheed Martin
99. Hamre, John J. ITT Industries, SAIC, U. S. Dep. Sec. of
Defense, Under Sec. of Defense,
Senate Armed Services Committee
100. Hash, Tom; Bechtel
101. Haynes, Bill; Bechtel
102. Hoeber, Amoretta; CSP, Defense Industry consultant, CPD,
CFR, DoD
103. Horner, Charles; HU, CSP, DoS, Staff member of Sen. Daniel
Patrick Moyihan
104. Howell, W.R.; Halliburton, Dir. Deutsche Bank
105. Hunt, Ray L.; Halliburton, Electronic Data Systems Corp,
President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board
106. Inman, Bobby Ray; Ret. Adm. US Navy, CIA-Dir, CFR, NSA, SAIC
107. Ikle, Fred; AEI, PNAC, CPD, HU, DPB, Under Sec. DoD, Def.
Policy Board
108. Iorizzo, Robert P.; Northrop Grumman
109. Jackson, Bruce; PNAC, NSA, AEI, CFR, Office of Sec. of Def.,
US Army Military
Intelligence, Lockheed Martin, Martin Marietta, CLI, CPD
110. Jennings, Sir John, Bechtel
111. Johnson, Jay L.;General Dynamics, Retired Admiral, US Navy
112. Jones, A.K.; SAIC, DoD
113. Joseph, Robert; Under Sec. of State for Arms Control and
Int’l Security Affairs, DoD,
CSP, NIPP
114. Joulwan, George A.; General Dynamics, Retired General, US
Army
115. Kagan, Frederick PNAC, West Point Military Academy
116. Kagan, Robert; PNAC, CFR, DoS (Deputy for Policy),
Washington Post, CLI, editor
Weekly Standard
117. Kaminski, Paul G. General Dynamics, Under Sec. of US
Department of Defense
118. Kaminsky, Phyllis ; JINSA, CSP, NSC, Int’l Pub. Rel. Society,
119. Kampelman, Max M.; PNAC, JINSA, CPD, Sec. Housing and Urban
Development, CPD
120. Keane, John M. General Dynamics, Retired General, US Army,
Vice Chief of Staff of the
Army, DoD Policy Board
121. Kennard, William, Carlyle, NY Times, FCC
122. Kemble, Penn; PNAC, DoS, USIA
123. Kemp, Jack; JINSA, HF, Sec. of HUD, US House of Reps., CPD
124. Keyworth, George; CSP, HU, Los Alamos, General Atomics, NSC
125. Khalilzad, Zalmay; PNAC, Amb. to Iraq
126. King, Gwendolyn S.; Lockheed Martin
127. Kirkpatrick, Jeane; AEI, JINSA, CFR, CPD, NSA, Sec. of
Defense Commission, US
Rep. to UN, CLI, CPD, Carlyle
128. Kramer, H.M.J., Jr.; SAIC
129. Kristol, Irving; CFR, AEI, DoD, Wall Street Journal Board of
Contributors
130. Kristol, William; PNAC, AEI, MI, VP Chief of Staff ‘89, CLI,
Domes. Policy Adv. To
VP, ‘89
131. Kupperman, Charles; CPD, Boeing, NIPP
Page 22
132. Lagon, Mark; PNAC, CFR, AEI, DoS
133. Lane, Andrew; Halliburton
134. Larson, Charles R.; Retired Admiral of the US Navy, Northrop
Grumman
135. Laspa Jude; Bechtel
136. Ledeen, Michael; AEI, JINSA, DoS (consultant), DoD
137. Lehman, John; PNAC, NSA, DoD, Sec. of Navy
138. Lehrman, Lewis E.; AEI, MI, HF, G.W. Bush Oil Co. partner
139. Lesar, Dave; Halliburton
140. Libby, I. Lewis; PNAC, Chief of Staff to Dick Cheney, DoS,
Northrup Grumman,
RAND, DoD, House of Rep., Team B
141. Livingston, Robert; House of Rep., CSP, DoJ
142. Loy, James M., Lockheed Martin, Retired US Navy Admiral
143. Malone, C.B.; SAIC, Martin Marietta, DynCorp, Titan Corp.,
CLI, CPD
144. Martin, J. Landis; Halliburton
145. McCorkindale, Douglas H.; Lockheed Martin
146. McDonnell, John F.; Boeing
147. McFarlane, Robert; National Security Advisor (Reagan), CPD,
Bush's
Transition Advisory Committee on Trade
148. McNerney, James W.; Boeing, 3M, GE
149. Meese, Edwin; HF, HO, US Attorney General, Bechtel, CPD
150. Merrill, Philip; CSP, DoD, Import-Export Bank of US
151. Minihan, Kenneth A.; Ret. General US Air Force, BAE Systems,
DoD, Defense
Intelligence Agency
152. Moore, Frank W.; Northrop Grumman
153. Moore, Nick; Bechtel
154. Moorman, Thomas S.; CSP, Aerospace Corporation, Rumsfeld
Space
Commission, US Air Force: Former vice chief of staff
155. Mundy, Carl E. Jr.; General Dynamics, Retired General, US
Marine Corps Commandant
156. Muravchik, Joshua; AEI, JINSA, PNAC, CLI, CPD
157. Murphy, Eugene F.; Lockheed Martin, GE
158. Nanula, Richard; Boeing
159. Novak, Michael; AEI, CPD
160. Nunn, Sam; GE, US Senator, Chairman Senate Armed Services
Committee
161. O'Brien, Rosanne; Northrop Grumman, Carlyle
162. Odeen, Philip A.; Defense and Arms Control Staff for Henry
Kissinger, TRW, Northrop
Grumman
163. Ogilvie, Scott; Bechtel
164. Owens, William, Ret. Adm. US Navy, DPB, Joint Chiefs of
Staff, SAIC
165. Perle, Richard; AEI, PNAC, CPD, CFR, NSA, JINSA, HU, DoD,
DPD, CLI, Carlyle
166. Peters, Aulana L.; Northrop Grumman, SEC
167. Pipes, Daniel; PNAC, CPD, Team B
168. Podhoretz, Norman; PNAC, CPD, HU, CFR
169. Poses, Frederic; Raytheon
170. Precourt, Jay A.; Halliburton
171. Quayle, Dan; PNAC, VP US
172. Ralston, Joseph W.; Lockheed Martin, Retired Air Force Gen.,
Vice Chairman of Joint
Chiefs of Staff
173. Reed, Deborah L.; Halliburton, Pres. Southern CA. Gas &
Elec
174. Ridgeway, Rozanne; Boeing, Asst. Sec. of State- Europe and
Canada, Amb. German
Democratic Republic, Finland, DoD
175. Riscassi, Robert; L-3 Communications Holdings, UN
Command/Korea, Army vice chief
Page 23
of staff; Joint Chiefs of Staff
176. Roche, James; Sec. of the Air Force, CSP, Boeing, Northrop
Grumman, DoS
177. Rodman, Peter W.; PNAC, NSA, Asst. Sec. of Defense for Int’l
Security Affairs, DoS,
178. Rowen, Henry S.; PNAC, HO, CFR, DPB, DoD
179. Rubenstein, David M.; Carlysle, Deputy Asst. to the
President for Domestic Policy
(Carter)
180. Rubin, Michael; AEI, CFR, Office of Sec. of Defense
181. Rudman, Warren; US Senator, Raytheon
182. Ruettgers, Michael; Raytheon
183. Rumsfeld, Donald; PNAC, HO, Sec. of Defense, Bechtel,
Tribune Co.
184. Sanderson, E.J.; SAIC
185. Savage, Frank; Lockheed Martin
186. Scaife, Richard Mellon; HO, HF, CPD, Tribune Review
Publishing Co.
187. Scheunemann, Randy; PNAC, Office of Sec. of Defense
(consultant), Lockheed Martin,
CLI Founder /Dir., CPD
188. Schlesinger, James ; DoE, Atomic Energy Commission, Dir.
CIA, CSP
189. Schmitt, Gary; PNAC, CLI, DoD (consultant), CLI
190. Schneider, William, Jr.; BAE Systems, PNAC, DoS, House of
Rep./Senate staffer,
WHOMB, CSP, NIPP
191. Schultz, George; HO, AEI, CPD, CFR, PNAC, Sec. of State,
Sec. of Treasury, Bechtel,
CLI, CPD
192. Shalikashvili, John M.; Boeing, Retired Chairman of Joint
Chiefs of Staff, DoD, Ret.
Gen. US Army, CFR
193. Sharer, Kevin; Northrup Grumman, US Naval Academy, Ret. Lt.
Com. US Navy
194. Sheehan, Jack, Bechtel, DPB
195. Shelman, Thomas W.; Northrup Grumman, DoD
196. Shulsky, Abram; PNAC, DoD
197. Skates, Ronald L.; Raytheon
198. Slaughter, John Brooks; Northrop Grumman
199. Sokolski, Henry; PNAC, HF, HO, CIA, DoD
200. Solarz, Stephen; PNAC, HU, DoS, CPD, Carlyle
201. Spivey, William; Raytheon
202. Statton, Tim; Bechtel
203. Stevens, Anne; Lockheed Martin
204. Stevens, Robert J.; Lockheed Martin
205. Stuntz, Linda; Raytheon, US DoE
206. Sugar, Ronald D.; Northrup Grumman, Association of the US
Army
207. Swanson, William; Raytheon, Lockheed Martin
208. Tkacik, John; PNAC, HF, US Senate
209. Turner, Michael J.; BAE Systems
210. Ukropina, James R., Lockheed Martin
211. Van Cleave, William R.; Team B, HO, CSP, CPD, DoD, NIPP
212. Waldron, Arthur; CSP, AEI, PNAC, CFR
213. Walkush, J.P.; SAIC
214. Wallop, Malcolm; Heritage, HU, CSP, PNAC, Senate
215. Walmsley, Robert; General Dynamics, Retired Vice-Admiral,
Royal Navy, Chief of
Defene Procurement for the UK Ministry of Defense
216. Warner, John Hillard; SAIC, US Army/Airforce Assn.
217. Watts, Barry; PNAC Northrop Grumman
218. Weber, John Vincent (Vin); PNAC, George W. Bush Campaign
Advisor, NPR
219. Wedgewood, Ruth; CLI, DoD, DoJ, DoS, CFR
Page 24
220. Weldon, Curt; House of Rep, CSP
221. Weyrich, Paul; HF, PNAC, US Senate
222. White, John P.; L-3 Communications, Chair of the Com. on
Roles and Missions of the
Armed Forces, DoD
223. Wieseltier, Leon; PNAC, CLI
224. Williams, Christopher A.; PNAC, DPB, Under Sec. for Defense,
Boeing (lobbyist),
Northrop Grumman (lobbyist), CLI
225. Winter, Donald C; Northrop Grumman
226. Wolfowitz, Paul; PNAC, HF, HU, Team B, Under-Sec. Defense,
World Bank, Northrop
Grumman, DoS
227. Wollen, Foster; Bectel
228. Woolsey R. James; PNAC, JINSA, CLI, DPB, CIA (Dir.), Under
Sec. of Navy, NIPP
229. Wurmser, David; AEI, Office of VP Middle East Adviser, DoS
230. Yearly, Douglas C.; Lockheed Martin
231. Young, A.T.; SAIC
232. Zaccaria, Adrian; Bechtel
233. Zafirovski, Michael S.; Boeing
234. Zakheim, Dov S.; PNAC, HF, CFR, DoD, Northrup Grumman,
McDonnell Douglas,
CPD
235. Zinni, Anthony C.; Retired General US Marines, BAE Systems,
Commander in Chief
US Central Command
236. Zoellick, Robert; PNAC, US Trade Representative, DoS, CSIS,
CFR, DOJ
End HTML version created/extracted 10-09-2006 mpg