Talk:Project for the New American Century/Survey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The dispute is over which of the following two versions is more appropriate for inclusion in this article:

Version 1:

A section of the document that has proved particularly controversial can be found in Section V, "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" (page 53):

"Further, the process of transformation...is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Critics of the PNAC have suggested that the September 11, 2001 attacks were just such an event, which were then cynically exploited by the Bush administration to enable it to aggressively pursue the PNAC's agenda. (Some conspiracy theorists see this passage as evidence of complicity in the attacks.)

Supporters of the PNAC say the quote is taken out of the context of a discussion specifically about military use of information technologies, and the report is simply guessing that full transformation to new technologies is likely to be a slow process unless some "catalyzing" event causes the military to upgrade more quickly.

The quote is a source of much spirited - and frequently extremely partisan and ill-informed - debate, and readers may find it more enlightening to examine the document directly than to rely on third party interpretations.

Version 2:

A line frequently quoted out of context from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). Conspiracy theorists argue this is suspiciously prescient of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with some going so far as to suggest complicity of the PNAC in the attacks. Many also incorrectly claim that this "new Pearl Harbor" is stated to be needed to justify war on Iraq. In fact, however, the quote is part of a discussion about military use of information technologies, where the report is simply guessing that full transformation to new technologies is likely to be a slow process unless some "catalyzing" event causes the military to upgrade more quickly. Despite the easy availability of the whole document, the quote provokes spirited - and often partisan and ill-informed - debate.

Please sign your name using three tildes (~~~) under the position you support, possibly adding brief comments afterwards. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".

Which version is NPOV?[edit]

Version 1 is NPOV. (15 votes)[edit]

  1. CheeseDreams 14:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
  3. Shorne 21:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) This survey is well done, given the almost impossible circumstances created by VeryVerily. I applaud the creator for his patience. 08:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes how much "patience" it must require to craft a dishonest survey while completely ignoring the complaints of the only sane user participating. VeryVerily 06:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. It's not perfect—the "critics" and "supporters" should be named—but it's better than #2. —No-One Jones (m) 15:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:22, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Gzornenplatz 20:10, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Delirium 20:28, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC) Better than Version 2, but could still stand some improvement IMO.
  9. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:08, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Rhobite 21:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC) Version 2 is vitriolic, negative, and argumentative. 1 is not perfect, but much better.
  11. Herschelkrustofsky See my reasons on the main talk page.
  12. AquaRichy 07:00, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC) it does better justice to my vision of history.
    • L33tminion Does better justice to your version? That seems to be a contradiction if you're claiming it's NPOV.
  13. L33tminion Actually, I feel both versions are NPOV, but this one is better, in my opinion. VeryVerily does raise a legitimate issue, however, and I don't think this survey is being conducted in the fairest possible manner.
  14. Gary D but only without the last sentence.
  15. llywrch 20:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) I feel this is the less worse of the two passages; neither really are NPOV. The link to the phrase "conspiracy theory" subtly makes this read as if only the "tin-foil hat" crowd would advocate this POV, an intent which is supported by the last half of the last sentence in this passage: "readers may find it more enlightening to examine the document directly than to rely on third party interpretations." On the other hand, the 2nd passage asserts this passage is quoted out of context, which is blatantly POV. Either would be much improved with the addition of a sample of what has been written on this controversial passage, with attributions.

Version 2 is NPOV. (1 vote)[edit]

  1. VeryVerily 03:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) This survey is an utter fraud, with misleading and loaded questions designed by partisans of this conflict to mislead and prejudice the casual reader. Version 1 is "NPOV" in the same way that adding to George W. Bush the paragraph "Some critics have suggested that Bush is a reptilian humanoid controlling Earth through a multidimensional vortex. Supporters of Bush say that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of such creatures. This topic has stirred much spirited debate." would be "NPOV".

Neither of the versions is NPOV. (2 votes)[edit]

  1. "spirited - and frequently extremely partisan and ill-informed" is a judgment, addressing the reader directly like "readers may find it more enlightening to examine the document directly" is not encyclopedia style, and analyzing a particular paragraph from a report in an article about an organization is not appropriate for an encyclopedia altogether. It is fully sufficient to mention that there is a disputer over whether the PNAC suggested something others may be able to specify better than I can about 9/11. Get-back-world-respect 23:00, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, neither version is perfect, but I believe version 1 is closer to NPOV. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:58, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • --Silverback 05:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) version 1 is better written, but I can see version 2s points, especially if the link conspiracy theory about Iraq can be documented
    • I think the questions were originally meant to be worded "more NPOV", but they can't be fixed now. There seems to be consenses in any case that the last line, which exists in both versions, needs to be changed to duller wording. I think that most people are viewing this as a separate issue and ignoring it for the sake of the comparative focus of the survey. Kevin Baas | talk 19:18, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
  2. ugen64 00:35, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • In reading through the document in question (but not studying it in detail) I find that the PNAC position is quite clearly stated: The US has attained a globally dominant military position; we must greatly increase military spending to keep it that way. PNAC is not making a secret of what it proposes. I would suggest that, for the purposes of the encyclopedia, a NPOV might be constructed simply by briefly abstracting the document. Why do we care what various political sectors think about it? That's another matter. The problem with focusing on what people think about it, rather than on what the document actually says, is that thoughtful people will undoubtedly think other things as time continues to move along. We will continue to evaluate the proposals in the document within the light of events yet to come. What people think about the document describes the zeitgeist. That has some interest in its own right, but is a degree removed from what the document itself actually says. A simple concise summary of the document will not offend anyone who is interested in the subject. The one will see a reasonable plan; the other will see a threat. Both will agree that they are seeing the essential document.--John Tinker 02:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph: (vote one)[edit]

  • An utterly meaningless question. In what context would it be mentioned? What is the putative relevance? VeryVerily 03:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

should mention Iraq. (5 votes)[edit]

  1. Shorne 21:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Rhobite 21:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  3. "Iraq" appears 25 times in the document. "Iraqi" appears 5 times. "Saddam" - 8 times.--John Tinker 02:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. L33tminion
  5. CheeseDreams 14:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

should not mention Iraq. (0 votes)[edit]

I am neutral on this matter. (5 votes)[edit]

  1. Kevin Baas | talk 21:56, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
  2. Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:23, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  4. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:19, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  5. --Silverback 02:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph: (vote one)[edit]

should not say that critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq. (2 votes)[edit]

  1. Kevin Baas | talk 21:56, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
  2. Shorne 21:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

should say that some critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq. (6 votes)[edit]

  1. It should name them. "Some" and "many" have to be the most-quoted people in Wikipedia. —No-One Jones (m) 15:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Quotes, quotes, quotes. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:23, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Leaning towards "not". [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:09, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Rhobite 21:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  5. --Silverback 05:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) There should be a quote, unless this line of argument is common knowledge. If it is, quotes from the document that support the position, or debunk it should be found. The quote is question does not support the position, so the position must be based on others, if it has a basis.
  6. CheeseDreams 14:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

should say that most critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq. (0 votes)[edit]

  • VeryVerily 03:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Not a vote.) This is a strawman they created to further the misleading impression that this is the view being expressed. In fact, no one ever suggested any such thing.

I am neutral on this matter. (0 votes)[edit]

Which, if any, of the following fragments are inherently POV in the context of the above paragraphs? (vote as many as you like)[edit]

  • "Cons

piracy theorists argue"

    1. Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
    2. Shorne 21:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) I'm astounded that there is even any controversy over the blatant POV nature of these statements, but I guess some go through life with blinders on. Shorne 21:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    3. Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    4. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:25, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    5. Rhobite 21:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    6. Get-back-world-respect 23:28, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    7. John Tinker 02:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • "Critics of the PNAC have suggested"
    1. --Silverback 04:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) "suggested" here may become POV when used as a euphemism for the more accurate "accused". "Suggested" makes it sound like they merely raised an interesting possibility.
    2. L33tminion Agreed within this context; "accused" is more accurate.
  • "Supporters of the PNAC say"
  • "has proved particularly controversial"
    1. --Silverback 04:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) I've reviewed the passage, it doesn't seem controversial at all, despite the fact that it has become the focus of opponents seeking to proof text out of context
  • none of the above

Is it important to have the title of the section from which the quote is from; is the section title indicative of the context, and thus informative? (vote one)[edit]

Yes. (6 votes)[edit]

  1. Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
  2. Shorne 21:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. —No-One Jones (m) 15:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  6. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:11, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

No. (0 votes)[edit]

Indifferent. (2 votes)[edit]

  1. --Silverback 05:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) but I can see VVs point, if the rest of the paragraph clears things up better, I'm not too concerned.
  2. L33tminion

Is it important to quote the full sentence, rather than only part of it? (vote one)[edit]

  • That depends on what information one is attempting to convey. But Kb's reason for wanting the whole sense is to spin a deceptive theory as to what the "transformation" refers to, but the part I quoted was the part most frequently quoted. This is another trick. VeryVerily 03:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. (5 votes)[edit]

  1. Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
  2. Shorne 21:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  4. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:13, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  5. L33tminion 02:02, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

No. (0 votes)[edit]

Indifferent. (3 votes)[edit]

  1. —No-One Jones (m) 15:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. --Silverback 05:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) Only a short clause is saved by the ..., so I wonder why it was chose, but it doesn't bias a POV, and maybe it'll arouse some minor curiousity about what was left out.
    • I really don't mind the ... either, it's the difference between the quote in v.1 and v.2 that i'm concerned about. Kevin Baas | talk 19:07, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Which, if any, of the following statements are reasonable? (vote as many as you like)[edit]

  1. the sept-11 attacks can be thought of as a "New Pearl Harbor" in the sense described in the document
    1. Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
    2. Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    3. Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    4. —No-One Jones (m) 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    5. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    6. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:15, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    7. --Silverback 05:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    8. CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


  1. the sept-11 attacks enable an administration to accelerate the "process of transformation" suggested by the document, if the administration acting at the time is so motivated, as the document so states.
    1. Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
    2. Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    3. Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    4. —No-One Jones (m) 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    5. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    6. CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. the "process of transformation" described in the document includes america becoming more militant and unilateral
    1. Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
    2. Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. since the sept-11 attacks, the adminstration has become significantly more militant and unilateral.
    1. Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
    2. Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) Could anyone deny it?
    3. Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    4. —No-One Jones (m) 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    5. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    6. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:15, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    7. CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. prominent members of the acting adminstration helped write the document
    1. Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
    2. Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    3. Paul Wolfowitz did. —No-One Jones (m) 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    4. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    5. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:15, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    6. CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. what is written in the document reflects the beliefs of those who wrote it
    1. Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
    2. Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) So it seems.
    3. —No-One Jones (m) 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    4. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    5. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:15, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    6. CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. it is reasonable to think that the people in the acting administration are acting according to their beliefs
    1. Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
    2. Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    3. Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    4. —No-One Jones (m) 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    5. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    6. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:15, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    7. CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. the above statements, taken together, constitute a "reasonable" criticism
    1. Kevin Baas | talk 21:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
    2. Shorne 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    3. Bryan 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    4. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    5. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:21, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    6. CheeseDreams 14:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. none of the above statements are reasonable

Discussion of ongoing survey[edit]

Oh, after all that I neglected to suggest a closing date for the poll. Shall we say ten days? October 22. Bryan 16:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  1. Shorne 21:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Kevin Baas | talk 21:55, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:33, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Bryan 21:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) I proposed it, but I guess I should also register my support for it. :)
  5. I just saw this linked on Wikipedia:Community Portal. I hope my comment isn't re-opening a resolved matter. (Although I suspect the wording of this & other articles will be debated for months to come.) -- llywrch 21:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Old discussion relating to the wording and structure of this survey has been /Archived.

The paragraph: (vote one)[edit]

  • An utterly meaningless question. In what context would it be mentioned? What is the putative relevance? VeryVerily 03:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Funny, I understood it perfectly. Shorne 04:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

should say that most critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq.[edit]

  • VeryVerily 03:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Not a vote.) This is a strawman they created to further the misleading impression that this is the view being expressed. In fact, no one ever suggested any such thing.
So don't vote for this one. This is how polls work, you don't have to agree with everything in it. Bryan 03:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How does not voting for it address the misleading impression that this is the view being expressed? You unilaterally deleted all of my loaded/strawman questions. VeryVerily 04:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I unilaterally second the deletion of VeryVerily's loaded/straw-man questions. Shorne 04:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it important to quote the full sentence, rather than only part of it? (vote one)[edit]

  • That depends on what information one is attempting to convey. But Kb's reason for wanting the whole sense is to spin a deceptive theory as to what the "transformation" refers to, but the part I quoted was the part most frequently quoted. This is another trick. VeryVerily 03:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I was considering voting "indifferent" because I don't actually know what the full quote is, and decided that the best way to convey that was to just not vote on this particular issue. Bryan 03:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I do. And this is a trick. VeryVerily 04:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I vote in favour of quoting the full sentence. Shorne 04:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The best way to resolve ambiguity and remove partiality, is to add information. Removing information makes the picture less complete, while adding information makes it more complete. One cannot "spin" via faithfull reproduction. That's an oxymoron, and, as such, is, dare i say, ridiculous.
Let me note, beyond this particular circumstance, that I often notice a general trend in some sociological manifestations: there are some who try to arrive at "the truth" by adding knowledge, while others try to arrive at it by subtracting. I think it is important to consider which of the two practices is more deceptive. Kevin Baas | talk 19:27, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

The paragraph should say that: (choose one)[edit]

you have stopped beating your wife.[edit]

you have not stopped beating your wife.[edit]

Moved from the first question:

  1. Shorne 21:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) This survey is well done, given the almost impossible circumstances created by VeryVerily. I applaud the creator for his patience.
    • Yes how much "patience" it must require to craft a dishonest survey while completely ignoring the complaints of the only sane user participating. VeryVerily 06:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Uh-huh. And I bet you're Napoleon, too, aren't you? Shorne

Moved from the sentence fragment question:

  • none of the above
    • What a joke! The only way of giving a dissenting voice other than silence is that "none" are inherently POV? VeryVerily 06:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Back in the /archived discussion three days ago when I first proposed a "none of the above" option, your only response was "It's hard for me not to laugh." Perhaps you should have provided a more substansive criticism at that point? Bryan 14:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is because you are operating in such obviously bad faith. VeryVerily 00:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which, if any, of the following statements are reasonable? (vote as many as you like)[edit]

    • More comedy! The only way of giving a dissenting voice other than silence is to say that "none" are reasonable? VeryVerily 06:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      A lack of a consenting vote is considered a dissenting vote. The "none" are reasonable is simply for redundancy; it is a confirmation that you have voted in the section, and that you are giving a dissenting vote to all questions. (without this check, your lack of any vote could be interpreted as you haven't voted yet or are abstaining.) Each question is considered according to the ratio of explicit consenting to implicit dissenting votes. That is, if there are five voters and two vote a statement reasonable, then a majority dissent. It saves space and time from a yes-no-indifferent for each question.
      The wording of the questions, in concerns the particular issue, is only valid if it is in the positive sense, because if the criticism can be demonstrated to be reasonable, then any argument that does not throw into question this demonstration is irrelevant. If two and two apples make four, then the question of how rotten the apples are or the bias of the mathemetician or what have you, is irrelevant: 2 and 2 still make four.
      Another way to say this is that criticism should be applied constructively via logic. When there is doubt, either soundness or validity should be examined, rather than adding new axioms. Adding new axioms is a means to construct, rather than to destruct. However, if too many axioms are added, the system may become inconsistent, at which point the soundness of the axioms, or the validity of their application that led to the apparent inconsistency, should be tested.
      I think I just gave a spontaneous lecture on critical thinking. Forgive me if it's patronizing. I'm trying to respond to your complaint, but the premises of it are unstated, so I can only infer. Kevin Baas | talk 19:18, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
      Kb is giving me a lecture on critical thinking. How absurd. This is not an axiom system, you know. VeryVerily 00:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      Any premise to an argument is an axiom. Kevin Baas | talk 19:21, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

FWIW, I thank Bryan for moving my discussion out of the survey section. I think it is a good idea to keep the survey clean. Thanks, Bryan. Kevin Baas | talk 20:52, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

the Iraq issue[edit]

If there is a legitimate body of critics that are directly or through innuendo are accusing the document of advocating or planning an invasion, then it probably deserves to be mentioned and responded to. I think some passages in the document make it clear that while frustrated by the way Saddam was pulling our chain and concerned about the degradation of our air force readiness due to enforcing the no fly zone, they were actually recommending a long term redeployment which accepted the likely continuation of these realities. On page 17:

"With the rationalization of ground-based U.S. air forces in the region, the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed."

Also documented in the document is the clear concern with WMD in general, not just a focus on Iraq, although throughout the document the lessons of Gulf War I and the demands of the no fly zone and the need for stability in the middle east are prominent. Although on page 57, it states:

"The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself."

the main argument of the document appears to be for a more rational deployment of our forces. It is no wonder that the administration seized upon it as a fortuitiously available coherant policy in the wake of the urgency thrust upon us by 9/11, so early in the administration. Besides all the obvious moral reasons for selecting Iraq as the a target, one thing the document makes clear is that the no fly zone was not a painless exercise, but was tying down our forces and reducing our flexibility more than the general public probably appreciated. Combine that with the UN cooperating in undermining US and UN credibility by repeatedly delaying a meaningful response to Saddams repeated breaking of the truce (the sanctions and the kicking out of inspectors), made Iraq the logical next target.

There is plenty of fodder for the Kerry campaign in the document as well, given that the document recognized the need for larger armed forces because of "constabulary" needs.--Silverback 05:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The document should also be reassuring to the very Europeans, whose fears are being aroused by the rhetoric. The concerns it raises about the then ill-thought-out deployment of US forces and the tying down of US forces in Iraq and the balkans and the limitations of US capability given these commitments, would seem to be evidence that the US is a paper tiger of a superpower. Yes, US power is to be feared since it can be projected from a great distance, but like a bully, there is little to fear once it is challenged. If a little ole no-fly zone can strain US forces, imagine what an occupation like Iraq can do. The Iraq war may have successfully freed up, some American air power, but at an unsustainable strain on the land forces. Either the total size of US land forces must be increased or the Iraqi-ization of the occupation must succeed. Superpower? Poppy-cock! Only in the current power vacuum. If some other threat arose, the US had better hope they are impressed by "Shock and Awe", except perhaps in the case of Iran, since the US forces could easily maneuver to counter any threat there.--Silverback 23:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

it is reasonable to think that the people in the acting administration are acting according to their beliefs[edit]

This is not reasonable, executive branch decisions are often compromises, and multiple positions are considered. Even the PNAC people in the administration, while unlikely changed in their core values, may be quite changed in what the view as the policy implications of those values. Although they have been accused of anticipating 9/11, they may well have been transformed by it in unanticipated ways. --Silverback 09:07, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You've talked about how their beliefs are formed, but not how their beliefs relate to their actions. Kevin Baas | talk 14:50, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Like loyal soldiers, unless it violates their conscience, their actions reflect the beliefs of the president than their own. It is their recommendations/advice that may follow their beliefs.--Silverback
In any case, they are following their beliefs, whether they believe that they should take orders or give them. As when people go to church, donate, and assimilate their beliefs to those of the church, in acting according to their belief in a diety, so does one act when taking orders. As Voltaire said, "One cannot 'go against' a will - it is always a stronger will overcoming a weaker one." - in this case it is a stronger belief overcoming a weaker one.
And I don't think the black-and-white master-slave dichotomy that you draw is really representative. Control is a matter of relative information rate. The sociology of the White House is not as you would have me believe. The flows of ideas and beliefs are much more chaotic. Kevin Baas | talk 19:39, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Survey is closed[edit]

The closing date for this survey was October 22. I would like to thank everyone who participated in a mature manner and, in particular, the people who took such pains to devise a fair and reasonable poll in the face of a certain party's unspeakable juvenility. Shorne 19:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Summary of results[edit]

18 people voted.

  • Which version is NPOV? (v.1-v.2-neither) 13-1-2
  • Should the para mention Iraq? (yes-no-indifferent) 4-0-5
  • Should the paragraph say critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq? (no-some-most-indifferent) 2-5-0-0
  • What fragments are pov in their present context? (pov-npov)
    • "frequently quoted out of context" 7-3
    • "conspiracy theorists argue" 7-3
    • "going so far as to" 6-4
    • "incorrectly claim" 9-1
    • "Critics of the PNAC have suggested" 2-8
    • "Supporters of the PNAC say" 0-10
    • "has proved particularly controversial" 1-9
  • Should the title of the section be mentioned? (yes-no-indifferent) 6-0-2
  • Should the sentence be quoted in full? (yes-no-indifferent) 5-0-3
  • What statements are reasonable? (reasonable-not reasonable)
    • 9/11=new pearl harbor 7-0
    • enabled "process of transformation" 5-2
    • "process of transformation": militant, unilateral 2-5
    • 9/11: militant, unilateral 6-1
    • bush adminstration, co-authored document 5-2
    • people wrote what they believed 5-2
    • people act according to their beliefs 6-1
    • together they make a reasonable criticism 5-2

I simplified the sentences for conciseness, they meanings might have thereby been slightly altered. outcomes representing a >2/3 majority are italicized. Kevin Baas | talk 21:21, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Strange, five people think that the para should say some critics think that the paper was proposing the invasion of Iraq, but only four people think that the para should mention Iraq. How is this logically possible? Kevin Baas | talk 21:32, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

There were a bunch of "indifferent" voters on the question of whether Iraq should be mentioned, perhaps one of them didn't care much whether it was mentioned but felt that if it was mentioned it should be in the "some critics" context? Bryan 04:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I thought not voting was going to be counted as a no or a dissent, but a lot of the votes don't add up to 18?--Silverback 06:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think there were too many complicated questions to assume that. I can easily imagine people looking at the survey and having an opinion but not being interested enough to go to the trouble of picking through the minutiae, so they only vote on the more general questions. There were explicit "no" positions for most of the questions anyway so we don't need to. Bryan 14:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed User_talk:Kevin_baas discussion above which begins "A lack of a consenting vote is considered a dissenting vote". That discussion may have been relied upon. While that would make a difference in a lot of the votes, I think the sense of the discussions is that neither version was satisfactory. Hopefully, we are better positioned to work towards a compromise.--Silverback 15:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I was refering exclusively to the 'what statements are reasonable?' and 'what statements are pov?'. I thought that was apparent in the context. (see the question by VV above it.) For the other questions, in which people may explicitly dissent, as well as state their indifference, a lack of a vote is an abstain. In the two questions w/out dissent votes, a lack of vote for any of the choices is an abstain, while a vote for none of the above is a dissent for all sub-questions. That is, in any case, failure to vote for the question is an abstain. 16 people voted on the first question, 2 people did not vote on the first question. All question have 18 votes+abstains. Kevin Baas | talk 22:19, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Yes, that was the understanding, the reasonable and pov, was where the tallies should total 18, with the currently uncounted votes in the dissent column. --Silverback 22:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You seem to have trouble comprehending what I mean. The currently uncounted votes belong in abstain. Then me put it in explicit propositional logic, so that my meaning will not be misconstrued again. The following refers to any given multiple-vote question:
  • if a person votes for none, then that person abstains from all sub-questions.
  • (else) if a person votes for some but not all then that person dissents for all that they did not vote for.
  • (else) if a person votes "none of the above" and none other, then that person dissents for all (except "none of the above").
  • (else) if a person votes for "none of the above" and at least one other, then that person abstains from all sub-questions. (their vote is self-contradicting and thus void)
Kevin Baas | talk 02:58, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
Your meaning was not clear, because you mentioned that the "none" option was "redundant", which has a possible meaning of unnecessary, that the vote would be interpretted as a dissent even without selecting "none", although, strangely, later on you say it "could be" interpretted as an abstention. Apparently this is what was done later one. I guess I should have asked for clarification, I did not analyze much beyond the "redundant".--Silverback 04:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century/Survey&oldid=1136375113"