Activity of the «Project for the New American Century» Think Tank in the Context of US Foreign Policy (1997-2006).

Tret'yakov Artemii Dmitrievich Postgraduate Student, Department of Modern and Contemporary History of European and American Countries, Lomonosov Moscow State University M.V. Lomonosov 121552, Russia, Moscow, Kolmogorova str., 1 tretyakov.10501@gmail.com Other publications by this author

The analytical center "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC) is one of the most famous and odious organizations, considered the mouthpiece of the neoconservative movement and the ideological pillar of the administration of the 43rd US President George W. Bush. Within the framework of the "Project", most of the foreign policy initiatives implemented by Washington in the first half of the 2000s of the XXI century were comprehended and formulated. Nevertheless, a number of researchers raise the question of the real relationship between PNAC and the administration of George W. Bush^[1]. As part of this work, the analysis of the organization's electronically available documents in the context of US foreign policy was carried out, the reaction of PNAC members to the practical steps of the American leadership was revealed.

The "Project for the New American Century" was created among the second-generation neoconservatives, which traditionally include U. Kristola , R. Kagana, M. Buta, R. Perla Z. Khalizada, P. Wolfowitz et al.^[2]. The second generation advocated a "neo-Reagan" foreign policy, the goal of which was to be "benevolent hegemony" or Pax Americana^[3][4]. In the late 1990s, the main foreign policy ideas of the future organization about the need for regime change and US dominance in the Middle East were already formulated in such documents as the Wolfowitz Doctrine^[5] and Clean Break: A New Strategy for Protecting the State (A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm // The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. 2009. Access mode: http://dougfeith.com/docs/Clean_Break.pdf /accessed: 12.02.2022). The ideas embedded in them did not come to life in the 1990s, but they received great support from neoconservative publicists^[6].

In 1997, U. Kristol and R. Kagan published a landmark article "Towards a Neo-Reagan Foreign Policy", which definitively defined the principles of second-generation neoconservatism. The main motive of the work is a challenge to public sentiment, ignoring foreign policy and fearing any expansion by analogy with the 1970s and the unsuccessful Vietnam War. Kristol and Kagan oppose the conservative isolationism of P. Buchanan^[7] and the inattention to the foreign policy problems of the Republican candidate of 1996, R. Dole, proclaiming the need to maintain US hegemony through active actions abroad. The article clearly expressed the idea of American global dominance, which became the main concept of the "Project for a New American Century": "Conservatives these days easily succumb to the charming old metaphor of the United States as a "city on a hill.".. What could have been wise advice in 1823, when America was a small, isolated country in the world of European giants, is no longer so relevant when America itself is a giant. Since the United States has the ability to contain or destroy the world's villains, most of whom can be found without a long search, and since the responsibility for the peace and security of the international order rests so heavily on America's shoulders, the policy of sitting on top of a hill and showing an example becomes in practice a policy of cowardice and dishonor" (Kagan R. Kristol W. Howard a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy // Foreign Affairs. 1996. July/August - pp. 18-32).

According to the neoconservatism researcher M. Ryan, the "Project for a New American Century" began to form in the spring of 1997 and was a relatively small organization, but the connections of R. Kagan and U. Kristol made it possible to attract influential representatives of the US foreign policy elite to work^[8]. American political scientist S. Elden also argues that when forming the "Project for the New American Century", the main resource was precisely the "neoconservative network" (a circle of like-minded people with influence in various American political institutions), and finance and personnel were given secondary importance^[9]. The project was carried out in five areas: US National Security, NATO in Europe, Iraq and the Middle East, East Asia and Balkan politics. U. Kristol became the chairman of the new organization, and R. Kagan was appointed co-founder.

On June 3, 1997, the first document of the new organization was released – the Declaration of Principles of the "Project for a New American Century". Largely repeating the theses of Kristol and Kagan's articles, the declaration puts forward the main principles: increasing defense spending, strengthening ties with US allies, opposing undemocratic regimes, expanding the international order that ensures US security. Among the 25 signatories of the declaration were representatives of the American political establishment: former Vice President D. Quayle, former Secretary of Defense D. Cheney, former Secretary of Defense D. Rumsfeld, former Deputy Secretary of Defense P. Wolfowitz, Senator G. Bauer, Governor of Florida D. Bush. As representatives of the defense industry and big business, it is necessary to mention entrepreneurs S. Forbes and V. Weber. Most of the signatories were neoconservative publicists and scientists – F. Fukuyama, Z. Khalizad, G.S. Rowan, N. Podhorets, F. Gafni (Statement of principles // Library of Congress Web Archives. 1997. Access mode: https://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20050713181416/http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm /accessed: 03.02.2022). 

As an analytical center, the Project for the New American Century did not produce a large number of open analytical materials. Short memoranda and open letters demonstrating the positions of the neoconservatives on the main issues on the project's agenda were mostly posted to the public. The first such document, published on January 26, 1998, was an "Open Letter to President Clinton" dedicated to the problem of Iraq. The main motive of the letter is the impossibility of further deterring Saddam Hussein's regime from producing weapons of mass destruction through UN inspections. The signatories called on the Clinton administration to respond diplomatically and militarily, without waiting for unanimous approval in the UN Security Council.  The letter was joined by prominent neoconservatives R. Pearl and J. Bolton (Open letter to the President Clinton // Library of Congress Web Archives. 1998. Access mode:https://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20050713182305/http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm /accessed: 03.02.2022).

Already on May 29, 1998, a new open letter was issued addressed to T. Lott, the leader of the majority in the Senate and N. Gingrich, the speaker of the House of Representatives. Declaring the Clinton administration's rejection of the policy of deterrence, the signatories called on congressional leaders to influence the US foreign policy, create and support a pro-American interim government of Iraq and be ready to use military force. On October 31, 1998, under pressure from Congress, Clinton signed the "Law on the Liberation of Iraq", declaring the need to change the political regime in the country and support the opposition to Saddam Hussein. On December 16, the President authorized Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign against Iraqi targets. On January 7, 1999, the Project for a New American Century issued a memorandum criticizing Operation Desert Fox as ineffective. The memo questioned the viability of the Iraqi democratic opposition, which the United States supported through the "Law on the Liberation of Iraq", and called any policy of containment an illusion (Letter to Gingrich and Lott on Iraq // Library of Congress Web Archives. 1998. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20030212225110/http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqjan0799.htm /accessed: 03.02.2022).

The Project for a New American Century actively advocated for the fourth expansion of NATO during the consideration of applications from Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. In support of this process, PNAC has issued four memoranda. These documents express as openly and directly as possible the position of the neoconservative elite of the United States on one of the most controversial and controversial foreign policy decisions of the late twentieth century. The manifesto of October 8, 1997, "Why NATO expansion meets the strategic interests of the United States," says: "As the experience of two world wars and one Cold War shows, the United States is vitally interested in deterring, and, if necessary, defeating any state that threatens its dominance on this continent (Europe – approx.)... By putting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic under the NATO security umbrella today, the alliance can deter any growing power from pursuing this goal in the future... The alternative is to leave the states of Central and Eastern Europe in a geopolitically no-man's land, forcing them to maneuver around the inevitably powerful attraction of a united Germany and a potentially resurgent Russia." (Why NATO's Enlightenment is in America's Strategic Interest // Library of Congress Web Archives. 1997. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20030222053012/http://www.newamericancentury.org/natooct0897.htm date of application: 03.02.2022). Within the framework of other memoranda authored by G. Schmitt, it is argued that although Russia does not pose a threat in the light of the First Chechen War and the disunity of Russian society against the background of military operations, the presence of NATO in Eastern Europe should permanently eliminate the mood of "Soviet revanchism" in Russia (Russia and NATO Enlightenment // Library of Congress Web Archives. 1997. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20030222052718/http://www.newamericancentury.org/natonov1397.htm /accessed: 03.02.2022).

On September 20, 1998, the Project for a New American Century published an open letter to B. Clinton with the title "Milosevic is a problem", where he called for regime change, condemnation of S. Milosevic as a war criminal and blamed Serbia for the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo (Mr. President Milosevic is the problem // Library of Congress Web Archives. 1997. Access mode: https://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20050713182045/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans_pdf_04.pdf /accessed: 02/04/2022).

From 1997 to 1999, the Project was actively engaged in defense policy issues and published memoranda of the US military leadership for providing access to foreign laboratories to American supercomputers and for insufficient increase in the defense budget. A number of researchers point to the participation of the "Project for a New American Century" in the work of the "Rumsfeld Commission", whose task was to assess the potential of US defense against missile strikes ^[10]. D. Rumsfeld, one of the active supporters of PNAC, was given public information support in criticizing the defense strategy of B. Clinton (The Rumsfeld Commission and Ballistic Missile Defense // Library of Congress Web Archives. 1998. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20030707152315/http://newamericancentury.org/defjul1698.htm /accessed: 05.02.2022).

In July 1998, the commission's report was published, the main conclusions of which stated that Iran and North Korea could develop the ability to strike the United States within five years from the date of the decision to do so, and also that the United States defense system shortens the warning time about the deployment of enemy missile systems and in the future such a warning may to become impossible in principle (The Rumsfeld commission report // Congressional record. 1998 . Access mode: https://irp.fas.org/congress/1998_cr/s980731-rumsfeld.htm /accessed: 05.02.2022). The Missile Defense Act of 1999, passed by Congress, ordered the United States to deploy, as soon as possible, a missile defense system that can protect the homeland from the limited use of ballistic missiles — accidental, unauthorized or intentional (H.R.4 - National Missile Defense Act of 1999 // Congres.gov . 1999. Access mode: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-bill/4 /accessed: 06.02.2022)..

However, the most popular topic for the "Project" in the period from 1997 to 1999 was the problem of China. In three years, 38 memoranda and open letters on US-China relations have been published. The main motive of these documents was the thesis about the growing threat of American hegemony from China and the need to rally US allies in the Asia-Pacific region. The most significant was the open letter of August 20 , 1999 . "Taiwan Defense Statement", compiled jointly with the Heritage Foundation. It pointed out that the efforts of the Clinton administration to put pressure on Taipei to adopt Beijing's concept of "One China" are dangerous and directly contradict American strategic interests and democratic ideals. (East Asia 1999 // Library of Congress Web Archives. 1999. Access mode: hhttps://web.archive.org/web/20030629144512/http://newamericancentury.org/eastasia1999.htm /accessed: 02/04/2022). Based on the ideas of the "Project", the "Taiwan Security Enhancement Act" was developed and adopted in the House of Representatives on February 1, 2000, under which it was supposed to increase military support for Taiwan from the United States (H.R.1838 - Taiwan Security Enhancement Act // Congres.gov . 1999. Access mode: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-bill/1838 /date of appeal: 06.02.2022). B. Clinton did not sign this bill, which caused a wave of criticism from PNAC.

The political line of B. Clinton, initially focused on internal affairs and free trade, changed during the second presidential term^[11]. It can be concluded that already in the period from 1997 to 1999, the "Project for a New American Century" had a significant impact on US foreign policy through the activity of the neoconservative network, of which it was the mouthpiece.

In September 2000, during the US presidential election, the Project released one of its most famous reports, "Restoring America's Defense Capability: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century." The document summarizes in detail all the foreign policy ideas of PNAC. "Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: does the United States have a vision for the future to build on the achievements of the past decades? Does the United States have the determination to shape a new era favorable to American principles and interests? ...What we need is an armed force that is strong and ready to face both current and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and a national leadership that accepts the global responsibilities of the United States" (Rebuilding Americas Defenses // Library of Congress Web Archives. 1998. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20030625224429/http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf /accessed: 06.02.2022).

The report states that the United States should maintain sufficient armed forces for the rapid deployment of military operations and victory in several simultaneous large-scale wars. The Pentagon is also required to be ready for military and police operations. Such operations, according to the drafters of the document, should become the prerogative of the United States, not the United Nations, as evidenced by the failure of the UN mission in the Balkans and the relative success of NATO operations there: "The United States also cannot take a position of neutrality similar to the UN. The superiority of the United States is so great, and their global interests are so broad, that they cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political crises in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf, or even Africa." The necessity of a larger-scale US military presence in the Middle East and Southeast Asia is postulated.

The shift of US attention from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region should be ensured by the further expansion of NATO to include the Baltic countries: "The focus of the American security strategy for the coming century is likely to shift to East Asia. This reflects the success of American strategy in the twentieth century and, in particular, the success of the NATO alliance during the Cold War, which created what seems to be a generally stable and lasting peace in Europe." For the first time, the concept of the "Axis of Evil" is formulated: "The current American century will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue states with small inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, as well as 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 state itself." Once again, PNAC's commitment to regime change is reiterated: "American military superiority will continue to depend heavily on the ability to maintain sufficient ground forces to achieve political goals, such as eliminating a dangerous and hostile political regime."

Another idea outlined in the document, which will be subsequently implemented by the administration of George W. Bush. – Withdrawal from the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 The report also proposed numerous military reforms, ensuring the superiority of the United States in space, cyberspace, the nuclear sphere, expanding the system of naval bases, etc. Many ideas will later be embodied in the National Security Strategy of 2002.. In general, this document formulated the provisions of US foreign policy for the next 8 years.

However, at the time of the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush did not look like an ideal candidate for the participants of the "Project for a New American Century". In 2003, U. Kristol stated that he and other PNAC participants did not have much hope for Bush, "as a candidate with a weak foreign policy." In the primaries, the majority of neoconservatives supported the much more radical Senator J. McCain. The concern was caused by the participation in the team of the future president of the dean of Stanford University K. Rice, whom Kristol considered a "cautious realist."

Nevertheless, the Bush administration after the presidential election included such supporters of PNAC as Vice President D. Cheney, Secretary of Defense D. Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense P. Wolfowitz; member of the National Security Council E. Abrams; Deputy Minister for Arms Control and International Security J. Bolton; former Chairman of the Defense Policy Council R. Pearl, Special Assistant to the President of the United States Z. Khalizad. Also a member of PNAC was the Governor of Florida, D. Bush. Such a concentration of neoconservatives could not but have a decisive influence on the new president, who has practically no experience in foreign policy. Already at the end of the election race, PNAC welcomes the words of the future president, and then Governor Bush: "Russia should never have the right to veto the expansion of NATO," and also warns against the initiative of K. Rice on the withdrawal of American troops from the Balkans (PNAC memorial // Library of Congress Web Archives. 2000. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20030222052152/http://www.newamericancentury.org/natonov0100.htm /accessed: 07.02.2022).

On March 8, 2001, R. M. Gerecht, a PNAC employee and former Middle East specialist at the CIA, publishes a memorandum "Choosing a side in Afghanistan", calling for the invasion of this country and the destruction of O. Bin Laden with the words: "Play realpolitik the old-fashioned way." The memorandum mentions the bombing of the American destroyer "Cole" and the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues as aggressive actions of the Taliban movement. On July 6, a memorandum is published with an appeal to President J. Bush Jr. and D. Rumsfeld will not depart from their program and implement a ground operation in Iraq. After the events of September 11, 2001, the Project publishes an "Open Letter to President J. Bush dated September 20, 2001", which states: "Even if the evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aimed at rooting out terrorism and its sponsors must include resolute efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such efforts will represent an early and complete surrender in the war against international terrorism" (PNAC memorial // Library of Congress Web Archives. 2001. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20030620155545/http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-iraq-070601.htm /accessed: 07.02.2022).

On December 13, 2001, after the US withdrawal from the 1972 Anti–Ballistic Missile Treaty^[12], a memorandum was published supporting this political step and responding to the critics of the withdrawal - Senators T. Dashlu and J. Biden. Pointing to the cautious reaction of Russia, the author of the memorandum refers to the conclusions of the "Rumsfeld Commission" of 1998 and states: "In the absence of effective missile defense at home and abroad, uncertainty will increase about America's readiness to act in the face of adversaries armed with ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Missile defense will actually strengthen our alliances, which, at their core, depend on the military dominance of the United States" (PNAC memorial // Library of Congress Web Archives. 2001. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20030710052915/http://newamericancentury.org/abm-121301.htm /accessed: 08.02.2022). 

In his address to Congress on January 29, 2002, President J. Bush publicly formulates the concept of the "Axis of Evil", outlined earlier in the PNAC report "Restoring America's Defense Capability". The PNAC leadership reacted to Bush's speech about the "Axis of Evil"^[13] with a memorandum summarizing Clinton's foreign policy: "The Clinton administration adopted internationalism rhetorically, but was timid, indecisive and naive in its execution. At times, it has placed too much trust in international institutions and arms control regimes as a substitute for American leadership. With a few exceptions, such as the expansion of NATO and the end of the genocide in the Balkans, it has often failed to deploy American power on behalf of its proclaimed internationalist principles. Despite all its political successes in the 1990s, the Democratic Party remained haunted and haunted by the ghosts of Vietnam" (Commit for the Long Run // Library of Congress Web Archives. 2001. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20030402040504/http://www.newamericancentury.org/kagan-012902.htm /accessed: 08.02.2022).

The document also points out the need not to stop at eliminating the terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks: "When Osama bin Laden is in his grave, we will still have a duty to ourselves and to the world to use our power to spread democratic principles, deter and destroy the enemies of our civilization. This is not a crusade. This is the foreign policy of enlightened selfishness. Just as the Korean War, Pearl Harbor, and the sinking of the Lusitania taught us that we cannot insulate ourselves from world problems, September 11 should prompt us to begin a new era of American internationalism. Let's not miss this opportunity."

The ideas of the "Project for a New American Century" formed the basis of the "US National Security Strategy" of 2002. This state document reflects the idea of a "preventive" war against competitors of the American "benevolent hegemony". The potential of international treaties and organizations is sceptically assessed. The need to expand the system of naval bases with priority for the Asia-Pacific region was stated. PNAC met this realization of its ideas with a memorandum entitled "The Bush Doctrine", within which three components of this doctrine are identified: Active American global leadership, the concept of regime change and the promotion of liberal democratic principles (The Bush Doctrine // Library of Congress Web Archives. 2002. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20030618015854/http://newamericancentury.org/bushdoctrine-013002.htm /accessed: 08.02.2022).

The authors of the memorandum noted: "The Bush doctrine is also notable for what it is not. This is not Clinton's multilateralism; the president did not appeal to the UN, did not profess faith in arms control and did not pin hopes on any "peace process". And this is not the realism of the balance of power that his father preferred. Rather, it is a confirmation that lasting peace and security must be won and preserved by asserting both the military might of the United States and American political principles." In an open letter dated January 23, 2003, regarding the adoption of a new National Security Strategy, PNAC employees proposed a significant increase in the military budget in view of the upcoming necessary Iraq campaign: "American strength is the key to building the new world that you imagined. The victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan was an important first step in stabilizing this chaotic country and destroying the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. The international community and the overwhelming military coalition are now ready to put an end to the threat of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq" (Open letter to the President George W. Bush Bush // Library of Congress Web Archives. 2003. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20030629225317/http://newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-012303.htm /accessed: 08.02.2022).

During this period, numerous critical materials about PNAC began to appear, accusing him of being completely subordinate to the Bush administration. D. Kagan's memorandum of October 6, 2002, "Reaction to Bush's 'Real Goal in Iraq', was supposed to answer them. As part of the memorandum, Kagan responds to the article by J. Bookman's "The president's Real Goal in Iraq": "A remarkable discovery was made in an article last Sunday: a report entitled "Restoring America's Defense," written for a Project for the New American Century, "seems to have become Bush's foreign and defense policy plan." I was the co-chair of this effort, and I wish I had known in September 2000, when the report was published, that our work would be so influential, because until now I had no idea that it had any effect at all... I believe that the events that have taken place since then have fully justified the concerns we expressed in our report and have made the need to implement our recommendations more urgent than ever. I regret that the Bush administration did not take them more seriously before the attacks, and I hope that they will have some impact now" (Reaction to 'Bush's Real Goal in Iraq // Library of Congress Web Archives. 2003. Access mode: hhttps://web.archive.org/web/20030618063816/http://newamericancentury.org/defense-100602.htm /accessed: 09.02.2022).

In the fall of 2002, US political leaders began talking on TV about the need to launch a campaign. Secretary of Defense D. Rumsfeld spoke on CBS, Secretary of State K. Powell — on Fox, Vice President of the United States D. Cheney - on NBC, National Security Adviser K. Rice is on CNN. On September 8 , on the morning show , Rice stated: "We don't want the irrefutable proof of guilt ("smoking gun") to turn into a nuclear mushroom." The beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 20, 2003 was a period of worldwide fame for PNAC as the main analytical center of the Bush administration and the organization that planned the Iraq War^[14]. Although Operation Shock and Awe, which became the prototype of "Iraqi Freedom", was designed by people unrelated to the "Project for the New American Century", it was to the authorship of PNAC that all further foreign policy of George Bush was attributed within the framework of the first and even the second term.

However, since the beginning of the Iraq War, a number of representatives of the Project for a New American Century have claimed that their organization was excluded from the decision-making process even during the election campaign. "Usually a presidential candidate — it doesn't matter if he is a Republican or a Democrat — has a narrow group of advisers and a whole bunch of people from centers and universities who write various memoranda and memos… It was different with Bush. He had a narrow group of advisers, and he didn't care about everyone else. Bush and about eight decision-makers simply ignored the whole broad decision-making process… They thought they could do everything themselves, and, as we can see now, they could not," writes PNAC participant G. Schmit. R. Pearl and K. Adelman criticized the Bush administration. In 2004, W. Kristol, one of the founders of PNAC, stated that Secretary of Defense D. Rumsfeld was not "the Secretary of Defense that Bush would like to have until the end of his second term." The PNAC pointed to the insufficient number of troops sent by the American Defense Minister to Iraq, and urged the American administration to choose other strategies for the post-war structure of the country.

In 2004-2006, the "Project for a New American Century" continues its activities on a much smaller scale. In these years, the main topics for him are criticism of the leadership of the Russian Federation, even against the background of the terrorist act in Beslan, formulated on September 28, 2004 in "Letter 100 on Democracy in Russia" (An Open Letter to the Heads of State and Government of the European Union and NATO // Library of Congress Web Archives. 2004. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20071113200708/http://www.newamericancentury.org/russia-20040928.htm /accessed: 12.02.2022). PNAC employees support Hong Kong and criticize Chinese foreign policy (Statement in Support of the People of Hong Kong // Library of Congress Web Archives. 2004. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20071113200646/http://www.newamericancentury.org/hongkong-20040629.htm /accessed: 12.02.2022). One of the last important documents is a Letter to Congress on Increasing the land forces, published on January 28, 2005 (Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces // Library of Congress Web Archives. 2005. Access mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20071113200551/http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm /accessed: 12.02.2022). However, during this period, the initiatives of the "Project" no longer find support in the Bush administration, concerned about the likely defeat in the next midterm elections and the unpopularity of the Iraq campaign ^[15][16].

In 2006, the "Project for a New American Century" was dissolved. G. Schmitt, a former PNAC employee, said: "When the project started, it wasn't meant to last forever. That's why we're closing it. We would have to spend too much time raising money for him, and he has already done his job, that is, "resurrected Reagan's policy" for the United States" (Reynolds, P. End of the Neo-Con Dream // BBC News. 2006. Access mode: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6189793.stm /accessed: 12.02.2022). 

The "Project for the New American Century" cannot be considered an analytical center created specifically for the ideological support of the Bush administration, as stated by Western researchers - R. Reynolds, V. Weiss and domestic ones - T.A. Shakleina ^[17]. The project management supported the candidacy of J. McCain in the primaries, criticized the administration of J. Bush even before the Iraqi campaign for the withdrawal of troops from Bosnia. Also, the administration itself has repeatedly appealed to other think tanks - the Heritage Foundation and the Council on International Affairs^[18]. However, it is impossible to agree with the statements of U. Kristol and G. Schmitt that PNAC had no influence, and his ideas were ignored. This can be interpreted as an attempt to rehabilitate the ideas of the "Project", abstracting from the unpopular Iraq War in the United States. It can be observed that almost all the ideas formulated by PNAC members in the 1990s were put into practice during the presidency of B. Clinton and J. Bush^[19][20].

Regime change in Iraq, outlined in the "Wolfowitz doctrine", pressure on Syria, outlined in the "Clean Breakthrough" report, the fourth expansion of NATO, withdrawal from the Anti-Missile Defense Treaty, the perception of China as a likely enemy, the shift of American attention to Southeast Asia, the idea of the priority of American leadership over the UN, critical perception of Russia as threats to American hegemony - all these theses and projects have found their real embodiment in US foreign policy.

In the period from 1997 to 2006, an extensive network of former and current top-level officials, intelligence officers, analysts and journalists formed around PNAC, who promoted the neoconservative agenda and in many ways really shaped the vision of the future of the George W. Bush administration. The innovation of PNAC was that the model of aggressive American domination, the Project participants set out openly, causing a negative reaction of American society against the background of the unpopular Iraqi campaign. The ideas of US hegemony were accepted by the political elites, but the attempt to make them the ideology of the masses failed. Nevertheless, the concept of the "American Century" has not become part of history and still defines the worldview of a certain part of the US establishment. Even at the moment, despite the crisis period of American global leadership, the legacy of the "Project for a New American Century" continues to influence international politics.