The revival of a Cold War elite committee says a lot about how far Washington's neocons are willing to go to keep Americans in a state of fear and perpetual war, writes Sam J Noumoff On 20 July, we were witness to a second resurrection of the "Committee on the Present Danger" (CPD), an organisation with two previous incarnations. Who are these people who seek a third life, and what are their objectives? The identity of the honorary co- chairs of CPD-III provides a clue as to its orientation: Senators Joseph Lieberman and Jon Kyl. Positioning one member of each of the two major political parties at the helm continues the tradition from earlier committees, CPD-I from 1950 and CPD-II from 1976. This bi-partisan alliance is yet another example which belies the two party system in US politics; there are minimal differences. What explains this Cold War relic surfacing again? Speculation runs the gamut from the need to find an institutional bastion for the so called "neocons", should George W Bush be defeated in the forthcoming election, to an anchor for the battle of the soul of the conservative movement between the ideologues of US pre-emptive hegemony, such as Norman Podhoretz, Kenneth Edelman and Max Kampelman, and the so- called traditional, pragmatic, less interventionist conservatives, represented by Colin Powell, Alexander Haig, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Gates. As CPD-III lays claim to the legacy of its predecessors, let us go back a bit and trace out that heritage. The common thread of CPD-I, II and III is the perception by elements of the US elite that major threats loom that the general population fails to fully comprehend. This has led, the theory runs, to a dangerous, potentially catastrophic lack of support for what they see as the necessary defensive response. CPD-I was led by Harvard University President James B Connant after his return from his European diplomatic assignment. Parenthetically, one of Connant's lieutenants while in Europe was the father of US presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. With the support of then Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Assistant Secretary of State Edward R Barnett said it would be necessary to initiate a "psychological scare campaign" directed at the American people. It has been suggested that CPD-I was initiated to preserve the good name of "anti- communism", which was being caricatured by the antics of Senator Joseph McCarthy. The fear was that if McCarthy maintained his dominance of the anti- communist movement it would result in a diminution of the Soviet threat in the eyes of the American people. CPD-I functioned on the basis of what was then called "ExSET" (Expanding Soviet Empire Theory). Policies flowing from this theory were designed to destabilise the USSR via a military build-up, economic isolation and peripheral insurgencies. It maintained vigorous opposition to any and all Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I and II) with the Soviet Union. It took any such talks as a sign of US weakness. Among early members was Jay Lovestone, former leader of the "City College faction" of the American Communist Party who was purged and subsequently became the backbone of anti-communism within the American trade union movement. CPD-II resurfaced formally in 1976, led by Eugene V Rostow and Paul Nitze, the latter having authored National Security Council document NSC-68, which called for a massive military build up against the Soviets and the maintenance of US global hegemony. The resurfacing evolved out of a group organised by George Bush Sr, who then headed the CIA, and was authorised by President Gerald Ford. This group was known as "Plan B". The group was led by Richard Pipes and Paul Nitze and included Paul Dundes Wolfowitz, four Generals and the Rand Corporation, among others. The political anchor of the group was The Coalition for a Democratic Majority, led by right wing hawks of the US Senate from the Democratic Party such as Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who believed that communism was the great evil and had to be obliterated and replaced by global "democracy", plus Secretary of State Dean Rusk. While the Democrats were in the majority they were joined by those of similar persuasion from the ranks of the Republican Party; the initial number totalling 193 members. To this list were added UN Ambassador Jeanne J Kirkpatrick and Ronald Reagan, who became a member of the Executive Committee in 1979. During the administration of President Jimmy Carter, CPD-II considered itself under siege as his foreign policy shifted away from US unilateralism towards what was then characterised as "trilateralism"; a movement originating with the Trilateral Commission of which Carter as governor of Georgia was a member, and where he encountered Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became his national security adviser. Trilateralism placed a renewed emphasis on strategic consultations between the US, Japan and Europe, and saw arms limitation agreements with the Soviet Union as being in American interests. Both aspects of this policy were seen as anathema by CPD-II. Founding member William R Van Cleave said "arms control had a depressant effect not only on our military programmes but also on our ability to deal with the Soviets. It has totally muddled our thinking." In other words, arms control suggests that we in the "democratic world" accept the existence of the USSR. The Carter policy was reversed under the first Reagan administration with the inclusion of 33 CPD- II members, with more than 20 of them strategically placed in the national security apparatus. Included in this group were Claire Booth Luce, former ambassador to Italy in the late 1940s and the architect of undermining the impending Communist Party electoral victory in that country. Others included Donald Rumsfeld, Richard V Allen, as national security adviser, and Ray Cline, deputy CIA director, with links to the World Anti-Communist League, and academics such as the University of Pennsylvania's Robert Strasz- Hupe. Added to this group, under the influence of Jay Lovestone were prominent members of the US trade union movement; the heads of the AFL-CIO, the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the Iron Workers International Union and the International Union of Operating Engineers. Other labour affiliated groups included the A Philip Randolph Institute, the Free Trade Union Institute, the African-American Labor Center, the Asian-American Free Labor Institute, the Bayard Rustin Fund, the League for Industrial Democracy, the Social Democrats of the USA, Freedom House, the International Rescue Committee and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. Not to be left out, the corporate sector was represented by Hewlett- Packard, the Potomac International Corporation, Concept Associates, Goldman-Sachs Investments, Gateway National Bank, Time Inc, Reader's Digest, Digital Recording, Prudential Insurance, Nichols Co, International Bank and Honeywell. Bringing up the rear, were the think tanks, including the Hudson Institute, the Rand Corporation, the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Middle East Institute of Columbia University. Initial funding came from David Packard of Hewlett-Packard, followed by grants from three foundations linked to Richard Mellon Scaife, of Gulf Oil, totalling $300,000 from 1973 to 1981, from 1984 a sustaining group of 1,100 contributors. If this is any consolation, individual contributions were limited to $10,000 per year. As can be seen, the skeleton group of the 1950s developed into a full-blown bi-partisan elite of the most bellicose elements within US political life. With the implosion of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s the driving force of many CPD-II members seemed to wane. That the US was elevated to the position of sole remaining superpower was self evident and its hegemony understood by all. NATO under American guidance had broken Yugoslavia, advanced to the borders of European Russia and established a military presence in Central Asia. Two phenomena combined have led to the third life of CPD. One was the emergence of an increasing divergence within Europe from the tactical and strategic goals of the US, under the slogan of "multi-polarity", joined by a preliminary realignment of China and Russia around the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. To this are added the so-called pariah states of Iran, Syria, Libya, the DPR of Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; a broad and tenuous alliance of states in one way or another hostile to the US. The sole commonality between them is a desire to inhibit US intervention in their domestic polities and dilute the power of its hegemony. This was an irritant to US policymakers, but not sufficient to regenerate the CPD. If we combine this with the totally unanticipated response to the invasion of Iraq, the chemistry seems right. What has terrified hawks who have morphed into "chicken- hawks" (defined as those prepared to sacrifice others when they themselves avoided military service) is the increasing alienation of the entire Muslim world in tandem with the acts of terrorism from an amorphous adversary under the misnomer "Al-Qaeda". While we have not yet reached the state where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", multiple groups have emerged which reinforce the challenge to US global domination. It is within this context that CPD-III surfaced. The primary fear of CPD-III's initiators is that a growing anti-war sentiment in the US will weaken America's historical resolve to undertake the arduous task of maintaining its global dominance. As the two honorary chairs of CPD- III, Senators Lieberman (Democrat) and Kyl (Republican) have argued, we must not permit a political undertow (read anti-war sentiment) in the US to "wash out the recent gains" of the invasion of Iraq. CPD-III's line continues: "too many people are insufficiently aware of our enemy's evil worldwide designs which include waging jihad against all Americans and re-establishing a totalitarian religious empire in the Middle East", and the war against it is the "test of our time". In their mission statement it is explicitly stated that reform must be supported "in regions threatening to export terror". It is important to note that regions which do not export terror are not worthy of mention. Consistent with previous CPDs, support for "decisive victory" must be built against what one of the 41 CPD-III adherents, Frank Gaffney, calls "islamofascism". This is not just a political creed; it has taken on a form of religious zealotry. Kenneth Edelman, another member of the 41-strong CPD-III has argued that it is our duty and destiny to eliminate totalitarian threats from radical Islam, while Midge Decter, a current and past member of CPD, has cautioned that it is time for Americans to understand that they have been chosen by providence. Until now I have scrupulously avoided mention of a lateral issue of significance -- the Israeli connection to CPD. Six of the 41 current members of CPD-III overlap in membership with the Likud- oriented Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Middle East Forum or the US Committee for a Free Lebanon. The linchpin in this relationship is Michael Ledeen, comrade-in- arms with Oliver North in the Iran-Contra affair, with David Kimche, in the release of US hostages from Lebanon, with Morris Amitay, of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Francesco Pazienza of the Italian secret police, SISMI. Ledeen, a founding member of JINSA who has recently argued for "regime change" in Iran, Syria and Lebanon, holds to the view that violence is the essence of history and boasts that "creative destruction is our [America's] middle name". Currently resident at the right wing think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute, he may be characterised as the theologian of the neocons. Parenthetically, he has also called for a purge of "environmental wackos and radical feminazos". It appears clear that the invasion of Iraq, the war on terror, proposed action against Lebanon, Syria and Iran are motivated in large part by the perverse view that Israel is best defended with these policies. In a recent article by Laura Rozen posted on Altnet, the funding sources for CPD-III are identified. They include Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress, Charles and Andrea Bronfman of Seagrams, Bernard Marcus of Home Depot, Leonard Ambramson of US Healthcare, the Judy and Michael Steinhardt Foundation, Dale Feith, father of Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, among others. There is an apparent link between these benefactors and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which was initiated to improve Israel's public relations in the US and gain support for the Israeli reaction to the Al-Aqsa Intifada .
