You can only arrive at that conclusion if you misread the letter....
First, the letter begins that containment of Iraq is failing...that is something that was readily accepted by everyone (including weapons inspectors), and even those "anti-war" Democrats of today.
You also need to look at the context of what is going on around this time. Iraq is almost daily attacking US and UK aircraft on patrol in the no-fly zones.
PNAC argues: "This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf."
If anything the letter is advocating that all options must be on the table, and that the United States cannot afford to look "weak" when dealing with dictators like Saddam. (Ironically, Saddam actually cited decades of US policy that made the nation look weak as why he continually ignored UNSC Resolutions etc).
Further, what are "military steps"? That hardly means invasion like you seem to automatically equate it with. It can mean something as simple as an air-strike against Iraqi air defense installations to protect pilots enforcing the no-fly zones..which is actually exactly what happened following the passing of the Iraq Liberation Act this same year which did exactly what this letter stated.
As noted in the letter, the "long term" goal needs to be the removal of Saddam. That in no way equates to immediate invasion to enact regime change, in fact is argues for the opposite.
"Ongoing missions in the Greater Middle East" somehow means that we are going to start invading everyone in the region? Hardly. It simply means that we have a major commitment of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan (especially in 2005 when that testimony occurred) and that to ensure civilian policy makers have the ability to respond globally to other threats while maintaining our commitment to the region we need to expand manpower.
Well, it certainly is not clear that we are talking about military intervention, which you somehow seem to automatically equate with that statement.
This is simply false...the PNAC favors maintaining a strong military so that we can combat threats to American interests. That hardly means we go around invading everyone, nor does it mean we don't pursue other avenues.
Well, their stated agenda is not what you are claiming it is...so yes, it appears we need to have this debate.
The problem here is that your underlying assumptions are flawed, and therefore even if you proceed logically from those assumptions, your conclusion is still wrong. PNAC's goals are what they have stated, and they have not stated that their goal is to invade country after country to impose "make the world America" as it were.
