In 1997, a group of Washington conservatives drafted a statement of principles designed to ensure that the United States would maintain its position as the world's preeminent military and economic power.
The document recognized that the United States has a vital role to play in advancing the cause of peace and prosperity by advocating the development of democratic governments with market-based economies around the world.
The goal was to make the United States as great a power in the 21st century as it had been in the 20th century.
The document became known as the Project for the New American Century, and the founding advocates of the organization -- including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, among others -- became known as
the "neocons."
These men championed the principles that eventually led to President Bush's failed policies in Iraq.
On the surface, the project's objectives were something that most ordinary U.S. citizens could support. It seemed more than reasonable that a superpower that had done a creditable job as leader of the free world for the past 50 years should be expected to continue to provide leadership in a globalized world.
But the weak spot was not so much in the idea itself, but in the way it was executed.
The plan was devised to be put into action with the primary source of power being the military.
Under the guise of regime change and the democratization of target countries such as Iraq, the plan relied mainly on "hard power" -- military muscle -- rather than the "soft power" of diplomacy and economic development.
However badly applied in the case of Iraq, the original goals of the project still have merit. As professor Michael Mandelbaum of Johns Hopkins University points out, democracy seems to be the political system of choice. A century ago there were only 10 countries that were deemed to be democracies, while today Mandelbaum counts 119.
Meanwhile, a survey by the nonpartisan International Institute for Strategic Studies reports that the United States has suffered a significant loss of power and prestige around the world, limiting its ability to influence international crises. The survey goes on to say that the fading of U.S. prestige began largely because of the Iraq situation.
So what could be done to reassert the leadership role of the United States as the democratic model for the 21st century? A few suggestions:
•Rebuild and maintain the strongest military force in the world. It would be foolish to think that there will not be many struggles ahead that will pit the U.S. and its allies against those who seek to rule by terror.
•Develop a new diplomatic approach that takes into account the principle of "soft power."
•Develop a trade and economic development policy that recognizes that the successful transition of a country from autocracy to a potential democracy has been by helping them to transition into a market economy (a major failing in Iraq).
•The U.S. business community should coordinate its global expansion where possible to complement the foreign policy of the U.S. government. There is no reason business should not be expected to be a part of the longer-range plans to bring security and prosperity to those areas of the world threatened by violence and totalitarian governments. Germany's business community cooperated in postwar Germany to help the United States rebuild the German economy, as did Japan.
•The U.S. government and business community could create a "business economic corps" to help the world's poorest countries build their economies by using the U.S. expertise, technology and leadership.
It is this combination of the United States as protector, economic enabler and democratic model that will make the the country the global leader of the 21st century.
