A war against Iraq may have been in the works before President George W. Bush took office. A report by the Project for the New American Century reveals a plan for U.S. global domination written for Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and other White House staffers.

The plan revealed Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region regardless of who was ruling Iraq.

“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein,” the report reads.

The report also notes U.S. dominance must be advanced “as far into the future as possible.”

While the Bush administration has been quiet on the report, others have not.

“This is garbage from right-wing think tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks–men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam War,” said Tam Dalyell, father of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, to the Sunday Herald.

“This is a blueprint for U.S. world domination–a new world order of their making.”

Rosemarie Carbino, a professor of social work at the University of Wisconsin, said the sudden spotlight on Iraq would do no good for anyone.

“Our sudden national response seems unjust, irrational and probably ineffective in establishing peace or safety for anyone,” Carbino said.

However, John M. Cooper Jr., a UW professor of history, said Iraq has been the Bush administration’s biggest foreign-policy change, and when Bush took office regime change was not his policy.

“The policy wasn’t his originally. It was only after 9/11 that he decided to [change his policy]. It was pretty much like Saddam Hussein was being treated like a regional nuisance. This single-minded pursuit of Saddam is a big change.”

Motivation behind a war on Iraq may come from an equally large foreign-policy change as preemptive attacks by the United States are gaining popularity as a means to prevent future attacks like 9/11.

“…Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today’s threats and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries’ choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first…” said the 2002 Bush administration National Security Strategy.

“To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”