Jay Bookman, deputy editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution lays out Bush's real goal in Iraq and it's not what we've been told.

"This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were."

"Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled? Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran. "

He bases his conclusion on a report downloadable here called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," September 2000 by a group called The Project for the New American Century. Twenty-seven people are listed in the report as having contributed to its preparation. "Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy."

Bookman finds further support for his theory in the President's National Security Strategy, available here. This is a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration released its plan on September 20. Bookman says,

"In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence."

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

Bookman says it was not September 11 that inspired the change of course. Bush's plan appears to be "a blueprint" of the 2000 Report by the Project for the New Century, "a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire."

In turn, the 2000 report acknowledges a debt to a 1992 report by the Defense Department that "also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush."

At the time the report was drafted, Richard Cheney was the Secretary of Defense and the primary author was Paul Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy. He is now deputy defense secretary.

"Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come. "

"Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?"

Bookman's point seems to be that Bush's plan to invade Iraq has less to do with fighting terrorism than with the view of his father's (and now his) advisors that America has to militarily and economically dominate the world through a global military presence. In other words, we have to become the World Policeman. As one drafter of the 2000 report said, we need to be the equivalent of Gary Cooper in High Noon.

Bookman makes a good point in reminding us that this was not one of the platforms Bush II ran on or that the people were either informed about or voted on. "The American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome."

Hopefully Bookman's theory will be raised in the Senate and vigorously debated.

(Thanks to Vodkapundit for leading us to Bookman's article).