Dear Editor,

I have just completed reading a nine page article in the New Yorker magazine online by Nicholas Lemann entitled The Next World Order. I saw an interview of Mr. Lemann on the Charley Rose show on PBS covering the article. It is an inadvertent admission by the present administration that there has been an agenda or design for the restructuring of the Middle East for at least ten years by the U.S. federal government under both Bushs. I suggest that you read this article online at


The article is a description of the 10-year process of shaping the present strategy of intervention in the Middle East. It is also clear that this strategy could not have been executed without the events of 9/11. As far back as May 21, 1990, Cheney, Eric Edelman, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Haass, Lewis Libby and others were working on a post-Cold War strategy for "reshaping, rather than reacting to, the rest of the world, and of preventing the rise of other superpowers." In other words, a plan for invasion and conquest of other sovereign nations.

Unlike the documents of our forefathers that evidence a long design of tyranny against our lives, liberties and possessions, this article fails to mention one act that threatens our wellbeing by the nations listed for reshaping. The article mentions 9/11 over and over again but only in the context of its use as a tool to implement the long-standing U.S. federal design for reshaping the Middle East. So controversial was this material that "Cheney's people put an end to [it] with denials and the counter-leak of an edited, softer version of the same material."

When Clinton was elected a "bland, opaque document" was unclassified. Lemann says "A more forthright version of the same ideas can be found in a short book titled "From Containment to Global Leadership?," which Zalmay Khalilzad, who joined Cheney's team in 1991 and is now special envoy to Afghanistan, published a couple of years into the Clinton Administration, when he was out of government. It recommends that the United States "preclude the rise of another global rival for the indefinite future." Khalilzad writes, "It is a vital U.S. interest to preclude such a developmenti.e., to be willing to use force if necessary for the purpose."

Lemann reports that September 11th appears to have been "a transformative moment," that reduced the American public's usual resistance to American military involvement overseas, at least for a while."

It was evident from the article that an invasion of Iraq with some 300,000 U.S. troops is imminent and that the reshaping of the world would extend far beyond: "If the United States applies the doctrines of Cheney's old Pentagon team, "shaping" and expanding "the zone of democracy," the implications would extend far beyond that one operation."

In short, I don't like anything I am hearing about all this. Our representatives have abandoned us and allowed Bush to usurp our right and power to become a world dictator for a special interest group that is now easy to see.


Ronald F. Avery