War Without End Forum Index War Without End
The global war against terror from a British perspective
 
 FAQ   Popular Topics   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
 UK and World News  Spam Audit  Ignore List 

US Air Force Lt. Colonel Speaks Out against Bush Neocons
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    War Without End Forum Index -> Articles
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Alpha
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 19777

PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:34 am    Post subject: US Air Force Lt. Colonel Speaks Out against Bush Neocons Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Subj: US Air Force Lt. Colonel Speaks Out against Bush/Cheney Neocon Cabal
Date: 11/17/2003 7:31:51 PM Pacific Standard Time


Karen Kwiatkowski (who was a Lt. Colonel working under JINSA Zionist extremist Douglas Feith at the Pentagon until she resigned from the US Air Force after learning that the Cheney Neocons are running the Bush foreign policy in the Middle East as you can read more via her articles at the following URL) will be on Don Bustany's "Middle East in Focus" radio program later today on Novermber 18th, 2003 (at 8 PM local time in Los Angeles as you can listen via www.kpfk.org):

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html


Please access the "Articles" message board via clicking on "War against Terror" after arriving at www.warwithoutend.co.uk

Subj: JINSA/PNAC Cheney on "Newsweek" Cover this Week

Date: 11/11/03 11:01:18 AM Pacific Standard Time

From: ******

To: michael isikoff

Dear Mr. Isikoff,

Thank you for your time on the telephone earlier today. Here is the email which I mentioned that I would send you with comment on your cover article for Newsweek this week: Cheney's Long Path to War (Cover Article in the November 17th, 2003 issue of "Newsweek" magazine):

The Hard Sell: He sifted intel. He brooded about threats. And he wanted Saddam gone. The inside story of how Vice President Cheney bought into shady assumptions and helped persuade a nation to invade Iraq:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/991209.asp?0cv=CB20


This "Newsweek" magazine article is about the Cheney Neoconservative cabal that pushed US to invade Iraq for Israel and oil (as Cheney was on the board of advisors for JINSA and was involved with PNAC as well-he was also the CEO for Halliburton). The "Newsweek" article still falls short though because it doesn't mention that Cheney, Feith, and Perle (who are all mentioned in the article as being part of the Neoconsevative cabal) are all associated with JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) which had wanted regime change in Iraq for years before the tragic 9/11 attack ... The article allowed Cheney to have a staff member get away (without being challenged about Cheney's JINSA/PNAC association) with conveying that Cheney wasn't for "regime change" in Iraq until the tragic 9/11 attack.. As JINSA had wanted regime change in Iraq for years before 9/11 (and Cheney had been associated with JINSA and PNAC), Cheney (via his staff member who commented for that "Newsweek" article) is lying. In addition, Cheney was associated with PNAC (Project for the New American Century) which had wanted regime change in Iraq well before 9/11 as well (see the Bob Barr article on PNAC which is included below as it also mentions Cheney). So of course Cheney was involved with distorting and "cooking" intelligence to suit his JINSA/PNAC agenda of wanting to invade and do regime change in Iraq as soon as possible. To read about Iraq and JINSA, type in "Iraq" at http://www.jinsa.org (if the "Iraq" material is still referenced there like it was before the Iraq invasion). In addition, Wolfowitz (whose mentor was JINSA/PNAC Zionist extremist Richard Perle) had put together that pre-emptive strike doctrine while Cheney was the Secretary of Defense under Bush Senior in the early 1990's, so Cheney was fully aware of it and wanted regime change in Iraq for years before the 9/11 attack.

Also, the writers of that "Newsweek" article didn't mention the Israeli spies at the Pentagon as you can read in the "Israeli Spies at the Pentagon" article from the UK Guardian newspaper which is linked under the photos of the Zion traitors (Israel Firsters) at http://www.nowarforisrael.com . In addition, the "Newsweek" writers did not mention that "A Clean Break" document which JINSA Zionist extremists Richard Perle and Douglas Feith wrote for Israeli Zionist extremist Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996 (as "A Clean Break" advised for Israel to do regime change in Iraq and in Syria as well as dissolve the Palestinian peace process). When Perle and Feith got into power/influential positions at the Pentagon in the current Bush regime, they had the US military do regime change in Iraq instead of Israel (with Syria to follow soon if they can get away with it). Zionist (Jew) extremist David Wurmser (who is also mentioned in the "Newsweek" article) was also involved with putting together that "A Clean Break" advisory paper (which you can read by clicking on the embedded link for "A Clean Break" at the following URL):

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j100603.html

It is important to also know that Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and John Bolton (all mentioned below in the article from the "Forward" which is a respected Jewish publication out of New York) are JINSANs as well.. Perle is also associated with PNAC (which would like to have a confrontation with Russia and China sooner rather than later as you can access the JINSA web site at www.jinsa.org and PNAC's URL via www.newamericancentury.org). Robert Fisk (a respected journalist for the London Independent newspaper as you can read more via www.robert-fisk.com) wrote about JINSA (and Dick Cheney's association to JINSA as he is also associated with PNAC) in the following article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk0910.html

Fisk mentions this article ("Men from JINSA and CSP") from "The Nation" which is a must read as well:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020902&s=vest

March 24, 2003 issue

The American Conservative Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America¹s interest.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties

http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html

Counterpunch December 13, 2002


A Rose By Another Other Name The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties


Countdown to Armageddon?

Are the Israelis willing to start World War III?

Exclusive to American Free Press
By M. Raphael Johnson

http://www.americanfreepress.net/11_07_03/Countdown_to_Armageddon/countdown_to_armageddon.html


According to a recent article by veteran British military analyst Joseph Vialls, Russia has sent the most advanced and feared missile in the world, owned only by Russia and China, the P270 Moskit, also known as the "Sunburn," to Damascus and Tehran. This can only be understood as a counter to the Israeli threats to use nuclear weapons against their enemies.
The Sunburn flies at an altitude of 60 feet and is nearly impossible to defend against. A few fired at Israel could make that state "history."
Add to this a new Russian air force installation near the Kyrgystan/Russia border, coupled with a Chinese base just over their western border with Kyrgystan, and Armageddon may be on the horizon. All Russian jets at this new base just outside of Bishkek are equipped with Sunburn missiles.
Vialls writes:

The gloves are off, and with America and Israel still unable to steal any oil from Iraq because someone keeps blowing the pipelines, Russian and Chinese firepower buildup suddenly slammed the door firmly shut on Caspian oil reserves in the old Soviet republics. For more than a decade American oil multinationals have been conducting "joint ventures" in the former Soviet republics bordering the Caspian Sea, with the stated intent of pumping stolen crude oil out through Turkey, then on to western markets. Now this route has been blocked permanently, and America is in no position to do anything about it, because a large part of the U.S. conventional army is currently bogged down in Iraq, being shot at and killed on a daily basis.

For many who have been watching this region as a confrontation between the United States and Israel versus Russia largely over the control of the biggest gas and oil deposits in the world, a new front has been opened.
As a response to this checkmate, Sharon recently visited Putin on Nov. 3 to meet with him concerning the nuclear issue in Iran. Quickly, Sharon permitted Palestinians to return to their jobs and eased their travel restrictions.
Since the end of the Gorbachev era, the Russian oligarchs, nearly all Jewish by ethnicity (with the noticeable exception of Vladimir Potanin), have controlled nearly all key sectors of the Russian economy. This, of course, includes Russia's major ace-in-the-hole, oil and gas. The giant YUKOS conglomerate is presently one of the largest oil companies in the world, valued at about $40 billion.
YUKOS is the result of a "loans for shares" deal brokered through the semi-coherent Boris Yeltsin in 1995. Here, the liberal Russian government swapped loyalty from the oligarchs in exchange for privatization at prices far below that of the market. This $40 billion giant was bought for about $300 million, thus looting the entire Russian economy for the benefit of a handful of Israeli citizens living in Russia.
When YUKOS's chair, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was arrested at the end of last month, the American capitalist establishment went orbital. Forgetting the 1999 New York Times's expose on massive money laundering and fraud from YUKOS, the conservative establishment began to lionize oligarchy and, specifically, Khodorkovsky.
Recently, The Financial Times weighed in with a giggly piece from Chrystia Freeland, which referred to the oligarch as a "democratic activist." About a paragraph later, the writer said-without irony-that the oligarch's model for economics is the robber baron factories of the early American 20th century. Fox News, on Nov. 3, referred to YUKOS as the most progressive corporation in Russia.
According to a Nov. 3 Agence France-Presse story, Khodorkovsky made a deal with Jacob Rothschild this year that control of the YUKOS giant would pass to Rothschild in the event of Khodorkovsky's arrest. However, the Russian government has frozen all YUKOS assets for the time being.
It is significant that YUKOS's liberal pressure group, the Open Russia Foundation, is completely controlled by Rothschild now that its founder is in jail. As their official mission statement reads, "The motivation for the establishment of the Open Russia Foundation is the wish to foster enhanced openness, understanding and integration between the people of Russia and the rest of the world."
Their board of trustees includes Rothschild and Henry Kissinger. The Washington, D.C. launch of the organization included Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Librarian of Congress James Billington, one of the leading voices against Russian traditionalism in the academic establishment. Significantly, the Open Russia Foundation recently provided Yale University with substantial grants to study the Russian economy as well as providing the Carnegie Foundation with 3 percent of its entire operating budget.
It seems that the drive to control the globe's energy is progressing. The American empire's battles in Serbia, Central Asia, Iraq and Chechnya are one and the same war. Other than fighting Israel's enemies, these adventures are also wars to control Central Asian oil and natural gas (one of the main pipelines from the Caspian Sea went straight through Serbia). The control of this wealth by the United States and Israel necessitates bypassing Russian channels. This means that the Jewish oligarchy in Russia would become the central actor in world politics.
The Israeli/CIA complex was using Khodorkovsky to sell off the assets of YUKOS to Exxon/Mobil (as well as a smaller piece to Texaco), hence bringing Russia's pipelines into the hands of the western powers. The Nov. 5 New York Times also indicated that the Bush family's Carlyle Group was involved.
It was not long after Putin began threatening the YUKOS conglomerate that neo-conservative pundits such as William Kristol and Ariel Cohen began calling Putin a "communist," "another Stalin" and "tyrannical."
The basis of these wild accusations, of course, is the fact that Putin stands in the way of Zionist domination.
From this, the roles of several other variables and players develop clearly. The State Department/Harvard University alliance was meant to "deregulate," or "privatize" much of the Russian economy precisely to keep the Russian state out of the equation. Therefore, pro-Israel oligarchs (that is, Israeli citizens living in Russia) then benefited, placing most of the economy in their hands, and, by extension, Israel's.
Russia's response has been to clamp down on further foreign penetration into defense and other sensitive industries, and specifically, to target those believed to be working for both the CIA and Mossad and attempting to control Central Asian oil.
It needs to be reiterated that where the CIA goes, Mossad goes as well. Israeli and American interests have come together in the dominance of the Central Asian region and therefore, so have liberal ideology, the Beltway set, neo-conservatism, Ivy League eggheads, Christian Zionism, the Rothschilds and the American media. Afghanistan through the Caspian Sea through to Georgia, Azerbaijan and into the Balkans (not to mention pipelines leading to oil-hungry China), have become one single theater of war over trillions of dollars in oil and gas wealth, incorporating every single power center in global politics. The battle against the New World Order is being decided in Moscow.
Therefore, all anti-Russian alliances in the region, from Islamic fundamentalism to Slavic separatism to the George Soros "Open Society" Foundation, are in the interests of the CIA/Exxon/Ivy League/NWO complex.
In Azerbaijan, for example, American elites have pushed for a "democratic" state, that is, a state not under the control of pro-Moscow Heydar Aliev, thus leaving the country open to U.S. oil investment. Aliev, of course, is promoting Russian interests in the region, and thus, has become a "tyrant" in the Beltway mind.
The American response to this situation within this region is to create the GUAAM pact, including, Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Moldova.
Cohen gives us a clue as to why this entity was brokered under NATO auspices: "The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline will export up to 1 million barrels per year of high quality Caspian crude oil by 2005." In other words, billions of dollars of oil are slated to be pumped through this region very soon, and the economic/military alliance of GUAAM is the means to ensure American control over it. This connects the Serbian, Afghan and Iraqi wars.
Russia's response to Israel's terror threats against most of the Islamic world is fully understood as both a political and economic question. Further, increasing cooperation between Russia and India, as well as China, are clear markers that Putin, one of the few actually competent leaders in world politics, is building an anti-imperialist and anti-NATO alliance with the aim of countering American/Zionist moves for the world's oil and gas wealth.
The interests, however, go even further than Zionist control over American foreign policy decision-making. Vialls writes on another topic: that the existence of the American/Zionist empire is based on the victory of American forces over the Russian and Islamic. Of course, both in Bosnia and Chechnya, the Mossad/CIA operatives have not hesitated to assist fundamentalists in fighting Slavic nationalism, largely because Slavicism is a greater threat with Putin firmly in the saddle. Islam, divided and leaderless, with a history of centuries of defeat and colonialism behind it, is only a potential force in world politics.

JINSA/PNAC Neocons Push for Clash of Civilizations:

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/huntington.html

This article appears in the October 17, 2003 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Cheney Behind New
Mideast War Drive:
Return of `Clean Break'

by Jeffrey Steinberg

With very little fanfare, in September David Wurmser moved over from the State Department office of arms control chief and leading war-party agitator John Bolton, to the Old Executive Office Building, working directly under Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Wurmser's move was highly significant, given that the former American Enterprise Institute and Washington Institute for Near East Policy neo-conservatives was one of the primary authors of the now-infamous 1996 "A Clean Break" document, which spelled out the current joint Mideast war strategy of the Ariel Sharon government in Israel and the Cheney cabal inside the Bush Administration in the United States.

Just days after Wurmser joined the Vice President's "shadow national security council," the Bush Administration—at Cheney's urging—made an abrupt shift in policy towards Syria, a shift that has now brought the entire Mideast region to the brink of war and chaos—worse, even, than the fiasco of the American occupation of Iraq, which military experts are increasingly describing as "our new Vietnam" (see page 60).

At an American Enterprise Institute event on Oct. 7, Leo Strauss acolyte William Kristol, the publisher and editor of the Weekly Standard, candidly admitted that he was miffed that the United States had not already moved beyond the Iraq war to the "next regime change" of "the next horrible" Middle East Arab "dictator"—Syrian President Bashar Assad.

`A Clean Break' Revisited

Turn the clock back seven years. On July 8, 1996, Richard Perle, currently a member, and formerly the head of the Defense Policy Board in the Don Rumsfeld Pentagon, delivered a document to the new Israeli Prime Minister, Jabotinskyite Benjamin Netanyahu. Perle, and a team of American neo-cons, had been tasked by Netanyahu—through the Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS)—to draft a strategy for abrogating the Oslo Accords and overturning the entire concept of "comprehensive land for peace," in favor of a jackboot policy of U.S.-Israeli-Turkish raw military conquest and occupation.

The short policy memo, which Netanyahu, and his successor-Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, totally adopted as the core strategy of their administrations, spelled out a four-pronged attack on the peace process and the entire Arab world. It has become a self-evident truth that, since the Bush "43" and Sharon governments came into power simultaneously in early 2001, "A Clean Break" has been the guiding strategic doctrine of both—particularly following the irregular warfare attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.

The Perle-Wurmser policy document demanded: 1) Destroy Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, blaming them for every act of Palestinian terrorism, including the attacks from Hamas, an organization which Sharon had helped launch during his early 1980s tenure as Minister of Defense. 2) Induce the United States to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. 3) Launch war against Syria after Saddam's regime is disposed of, including striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and targets in Syria proper. 4) Parlay the overthrow of the Ba'athist regimes in Baghdad and Damascus into the "democratization" of the entire Arab world, including through further military actions against Iran, Saudi Arabia, and "the ultimate prize," Egypt (see Documentation following for the "Clean Break" report).

On Oct. 5, for the first time in 30 years, Israel launched bombing raids against Syria, targetting a purported "Palestinian terrorist camp" inside Syrian territory. The bombing immediately raised fears that Sharon is preparing a nuclear strike, most likely against Iran. A senior Israeli intelligence source told EIR that Sharon's action was clearly backed by the "pro-Sharon" crowd in Washington, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "They continue to be committed to their basic plan: Destroy Iran and Syria, and make Israel the dominant power in the region, and drive the Palestinians across the Jordan River." The source added that there "is obviously an agreement in Washington to do nothing." In a press conference a day after the Israel attack on Syria, President George W. Bush said Sharon had the right to "defend his own people," and then added, "We would be doing the same thing."

'Clean Break' Who's Who

In addition to arch-chicken-hawk Richard Perle, the other participants in the "Clean Break" exercise now constitute the hard core of the neo-con apparatus poisoning the Bush Administration.

The principal author of "Clean Break" and a series of follow-on IASPS strategy papers elaborating the new balance of power schema for the Middle East, was David Wurmser, now in the Office of Vice President Cheney. Wurmser's wife, Meyrav Wurmser, another of the "Clean Break" authors, is the head of Middle East policy at the Hudson Institute, a neo-con hotbed, heavily financed by Lord Conrad Black, owner of the Hollinger Corporation and sugar-daddy to Richard Perle, who was installed by Black on the Hudson Institute board as soon as the London-based publisher poured a pile of cash into the think tank at the start of the Bush "43" Presidency. Meyrav Wurmser received her doctorate at George Washington University, by researching the life and works of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism and a self-professed fascist. Before coming to Hudson, she headed the Washington office of the Middle East Research and Investigation Project (MERIP), of Col. Yigal Carmon, a retired Israeli Army Intelligence careerist, who is hard-wired into the U.S.A. neo-con gang.

Meyrav Wurmser has taken the point in promoting the overthrow of the House of Saud and the American military occupation of the Saudi Arabian oil fields, through a string of Hudson Institute policy papers, commentaries, and seminars.

Hudson has also played a pivotal role in the drive for war against Syria and Lebanon, as spelled out in "Clean Break." On March 7, 2003, Hudson sponsored a forum addressed by Gen. Michel Aoun, who was Prime Minister of Lebanon from 1988-1990, and who is pushing a military action against Syria, right out of the pages of "Clean Break."

Other authors of the 1996 war scheme were: Douglas Feith, now Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the overseer of the Office of Special Plans "information warfare" unit, which was instrumental in the black propaganda campaign to sell President Bush and the U.S. Congress on the Iraq war; and Charles Fairbanks, Jr., a longtime friend and disciple of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, dating back to their graduate studies under Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. Fairbanks is now at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

From Words to Warfare

On Sept. 16, just as David Wurmser was going to Cheney's office to replace Eric Edelman, a longtime Wolfowitz protégé now tapped to be the new U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, the Syria war drive was seriously launched. Chief arms control provocateur John Bolton was given the green light to testify before a House International Relations subcommittee hearing on Syria and Lebanon. That testimony had been held up for several months, as the result of a direct intervention by the Central Intelligence Agency, which issued a highly unusual white paper challenging many of Bolton's planned allegations of Syrian current involvement in terrorist operations and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

The fact that Bolton was given the go-ahead to Capitol Hill signalled that Cheney had scored a tactical victory over those in the Bush Administration who were promoting a dialogue with Damascus. In fact, Bolton's provocative testimony undercut quiet efforts, then under way, to establish fresh channels of cooperation between the United States and the Assad government.

The day after Bolton's appearance, the same House subcommittee continued the anti-Damascus rant, by hosting General Aoun and rabid chicken-hawk Daniel Pipes, who demanded an immediate confrontation with Syria.

This public display of venom in Washington was all the signal that Ariel Sharon needed. On Oct. 5, Israeli Air Force jets bombed a Palestinian camp deep inside Syrian territory, ostensibly in retaliation for an Islamic Jihad suicide bombing in Haifa the day before. However, the Sharon war cabinet had approved a Syrian bombing six weeks earlier. The Bolton appearance and the promotion of Wurmser into Cheney's inner sanctum just served as the green light.

To make the linkage between the Israeli actions and the Cheney-led Bush Administration tilt even even more transparent, on Oct. 8 the White House announced that it would no longer oppose Congressional passage of the Syrian Accountability and Restoration of Lebanese Sovereignty Act, the equivalent to the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act which set in motion the drive towards war against Saddam Hussein.

This time, Sharon and Cheney do not intend to wait five years to get their war. Unless they are stopped, their timetable is to have Israel launch war on Syria by November 2003. And heaven help the American GIs in Iraq if Sharon and Cheney get their way. As Lyndon LaRouche has demanded, "Beast-man" Cheney needs to be dumped from power within the next 30 days; and, along with him, the entire neo-con cabal. As Bush "41" and Karl Rove must understand by now, Cheney and his gang of "Clean Break" fanatics are the albatross around George W. Bush's neck, and time is running out.

JINSA Zionist Extremist Bolton After Iran (but Unhappy about this UN Report):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3266927.stm

UN stands by Iran nuclear report



The IAEA sees no sign of a nuclear weapons programme so far


The UN's nuclear watchdog has rejected sharp US criticism over a report that it has found no evidence Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. America's top arms control official, John Bolton, said the International Atomic Energy Agency's widely leaked findings were "impossible to believe". He accused the Islamic Republic of a "massive and covert [nuclear] effort". Iran has warned of serious consequences if the IAEA refers its nuclear programme to the UN Security Council. "I hope we do not reach such a stage because then things could very easily get out of control," its envoy to the IAEA, Ali Akbar Salehi, told foreign reporters. "There are many things Iran can do. We have a lot of leverage," he added without giving details.
Find out more about key nuclear sites in Iran

In graphics


The board of governors of the IAEA is due to discuss the report on Iran next Thursday. The report, which was circulated to officials on Monday, says that Iran has admitted to producing high-grade plutonium but not weapons. It finds no evidence that Tehran has secretly been developing weapons but nonetheless admonishes the Iranian authorities for being secretive. "We stand by the report but it's classified and will be considered at next week's board meeting," said IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky. 'Impossible' Iran has always claimed its nuclear programme is designed to meet the country's energy needs. Mr Bolton, speaking at a dinner for the US publication American Spectator, launched a fierce attack on Tehran and the IAEA's report. A "massive and covert Iranian effort to acquire sensitive nuclear capabilities", he said, made "sense only as part of a nuclear weapons program". "The report nonetheless concluded that 'no evidence' had been found of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme... The report's assertion is simply impossible to believe," Mr Bolton said. The tone of Mr Bolton's statement, BBC Washington correspondent David Bamford says, indicates that the US is prepared to take on the UN's nuclear body and state contrary conclusions.









US wants ban on protests during Bush visit
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=462900

By Kim Sengupta
12 November 2003
Anti-war protesters claim that US authorities have demanded a rolling "exclusion zone" around President George Bush during his visit, as well as a ban on marches in parts of central London.
The Stop The War Coalition said yesterday that it had been told by the police that it would not be allowed to demonstrate in Parliament Square and Whitehall next Thursday - a ban it said it was determined to resist. The coalition says that it has also been told by British officials that American officials want a distance kept between Mr Bush and protesters, for security reasons and to prevent their appearance in the same television shots.
The Metropolitan Police banned the Parliament Square and Whitehall route by the use of Sessional Orders - which can be enforced for such a purpose when Parliament is in session.
MPs supporting the protests saydemonstrations have been allowed while Parliament was sitting, and, in any case, it was unlikely it will be doing so on the day of the proposed march.
The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said yesterday that Mr Bush should not be shielded from public anger about the Iraq war, and Londoners should not have to pick up the £4m policing bill. He said: "To create a situation in which perhaps 60,000 people remain unseen would require a shutdown of central London which is just not acceptable."
It is reported that Mr Bush's entourage will number around 500 with up to 200 members of the security service. The Americans are also said to be bringing a US Marine Corps Sea King helicopter, a Black Hawk helicopter and 15 sniffer dogs.
Organisers say they expect between 50,000 and 70,000 people for the biggest protest against a visiting head of state. Andrew Burgin, of the Anti-War Coalition, said: "We have refused to sign off the agreement over Parliament Square and Whitehall, and we shall certainly also refuse to do so on this whole idea of an exclusion zone." He said: "If there is no agreement by next week, we have a potentially highly risky situation with so many protesters in the centre of London."
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour MP, said: "[The police] are under pressure from the Americans, and the losers appear to be people of Britain who want to show their opposition to the Iraq war."
George Galloway, the MP expelled from New Labour over his opposition to the Iraq war, said "What makes the whole matter ludicrous is that on Thursday next week, when the main march takes place, we don't think Bush is even going to be in London. We think he will be in Sedgefield with Tony Blair.
"We are not blaming the police. We have had no problem with them in previous marches. In our biggest march we had up to two million people, and the number of arrests was lower than on an average Saturday. But the Metropolitan Police are having to cope with a hidden hand which stretches from Washington via Downing Street. "A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said: "The security surrounding the Presidential visit is a matter being discussed between the American authorities, the Foreign office and the Home office."
A police source added: "It is perfectly normal to use Sessional Orders to stop demonstrations in certain areas when Parliament is sitting.
"We don't want to stop the public from exercising their legitimate right to protest. We are trying to find a reasonable agreement on this."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alpha
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 19777

PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 10:18 am    Post subject: Total War in the Middle East? Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

This article was published in Counterpunch.org. Its author argues that the alliance between Bush's administration neocons and the Sharon is helping Israel shape America's foreign policy. According to the author, the neocons main interest is to expand Israel not the well-being of our nation.

http://www.nowarforisrael.com


October 18 / 19, 2003
Total War in the Middle East?
Shock Therapy and the Israeli Scenario

By KURT NIMMO

"Israel has been urging America to invade Syria, but America seems to be reluctant. So, in order to force the hands of America, Israel is going to invade Syria," Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad told the official Bernama news agency recently. "When that happens, the Americans will have to support Israel due to domestic political reasons that make Jewish votes a major factor in its presidential election."

It's hardly a secret that pro-Zionist financial contributions exact disproportionate influence on American politics and foreign policy. Israel "has become a veritable state of the United States," Mitchell Kaidy wrote in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs back in 1997. "Indeed, with media cooperation and assistance, Israel has ascended to the ranks of an affluent, belligerent yet untouchable super-state." It is precisely this inviolable status that allows Ariel Sharon and the Likudites to do almost anything they please.

"No one in authority will admit a calamitous reality that is skillfully shielded from the American people but clearly recognized by most of the world: America suffered 11 September and its aftermath and may soon be at war with Iraq, mainly because US policy in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington," wrote Paul Findley, a former congressional representative. "Israel is a scofflaw nation and should be treated as such. Instead of helping Sharon intensify Palestinian misery, our president should suspend all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land Israel seized in 1967."

Not likely. Bush and his fanatical core of pro-Zionist neocons will continue to work alongside Sharon and the racist Likudites. Greater Israel is their unalterable mission. It's their raison d'etre.

Pat Buchanan was spot on when he said the Bush neocons "harbor a passionate attachment to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's good for
Israel is good for America."

Israel wants "total war" in the Middle East, as do the Bush neocons.

So entangled are the connections between the Likudites in Israel, the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Center for Security Policy, the American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century, so-called defense contractors, Christian Zionists with money to spend, and a handful of Zionists in and out of the Bush administration that it is nearly impossible to find the precise source of the toxin infecting United States foreign policy in the Middle East.

Its most activist and wild-eyed proponents are tucked away in Beltway think tanks, the Bush White House, and burrowed deep within the Pentagon. From there they plot the sort of pandemonium and misery currently underway in Iraq.

The next few items on the neocon "creative destruction" agenda: take out Syria and Iran, even tiny and insignificant Libya.

If Gordon Thomas of the American Free Press is correct, Sharon called Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon and gave him the low-down on the Syrian attack. "We, and you, are fighting a war against terrorism," Rumsfeld reportedly told the Butcher of Sabra and Chatila (and Qibya and Qalqilya). No doubt such tidings warmed the cockles of Arik's cold-blooded heart.

In other words, what Sharon was about to do -- brazenly attack a sovereign nation in direct violation of international law -- was akin to what the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Karl Rove apparently chimed in, admitting that Bush approved. "He saw it as a clear warning to terrorists that they can be reached anywhere," Rove briskly told reporters. "See it as necessary shock therapy."

"Israel's Ariel Sharon is intent on exploiting the opportunity provided by US plans for war in the Middle East to press forward his aim of creating a Greater Israel," Jean Shaoul wrote last year. "For months he has sought to stoke up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and scupper any possibility for even the type of truncated Palestinian state promised under the Oslo Accords. Now he has significantly upped the ante, accusing Syria of supplying Hezbollah militants in south Lebanon with thousands of surface to air rockets capable of striking northern Israeli towns and cities and demanding Syria rein in the Islamic fundamentalist group."

On the same day Mahathir Mohamad made his prediction about an Israeli invasion of Syria, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported that "Mossad has marked six Iranian nuclear facilities as targets for an Israeli Air Force preemptive strike." Sharon presumably told "Mossad chief Meir Dagani to devote 'utmost efforts' to gather information about Iran's growing nuclear capabilities... The Mossad's plan is now ready and has been delivered to the Israeli Air Force, which will carry out the strike, Der Spiegel said. The simultaneous air strike on six Iranian nuclear facilities would be carried out by IAF F-16 fighter jets."

Israel is reluctant to bomb Iran, but not for political reasons -- bombing sorties would be dicey business since the nuclear sites in question are spread across vast expanses and Iran's eastern border and are 1,300 kilometers from Israeli air bases.

However, according to Yossi Melman, the military commentator for Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper, Sharon's threats against Iran are part of an effort to fix international public opinion against the Iranian nuclear project and to prevent Iran from producing enriched uranium. It's said Mossad leaked the story to the press.

It also said Mossad leaked a story to the Los Angeles Times detailing Israel's decision to arm US-made Harpoon missiles with nukes. Once again demonstrating the propaganda clumsiness of the foolhardy Likudites and their neocon bedfellows in Washington, people who know about such things wasted no time debunking the Harpoon story. Israeli and foreign defense experts quickly noted that such a modification was technically impossible. Jane's Naval Weapon Systems in London said it was nonsense.

No such hit-or-miss flourishes are required in regard to Syria, though.

Syria is far weaker militarily and less of a threat to Israel -- and that's why the Ain Saheb camp was bombed. It also helps that it is exactly the sort of lethal behavior the Bush neocons encourage and support.

"Without American support, or at least the expectation of such support, this attack would not have taken place," Eyal Zisser, a senior lecturer at Tel Aviv University, told the Sydney Morning Herald.

It was, after all, Richard Perle (and other neocons) who declared in a report specifically authored for Benjamin Netanyahu and other radical Israeli Zionists ("Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000") that "Israel can shape its strategic environment... by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria... Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran."

In other words, Sharon's script was authored in collaboration with American neocons more interested in Greater Israel than the threat such actions -- unwarranted attacks on sovereign Arab nations -- will pose to Americans at home and especially abroad in the eventual form of blowback and terrorism.

The Arab world, if not the American public, understand US complicity in Israeli war crimes and murderous provocation. Zionists anticipate this reaction and will cynically use it to their advantage -- just as they now use Palestinian suicide bombings as a pretense to invade the West Bank and Gaza (the most recent "operation" took place in the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza where eight Palestinians, including two children, were killed and 100 buildings destroyed, leaving hundreds of families homeless).

"What [the neocons] couldn't sell to Netanyahu, they pushed on Bush, who bought it hook, line and sinker," writes Mark Ames. "Under Sharon, parts of the plan have been implemented; the big jobs -- the conquests of Iraq and Syria -- have been left to America... The Israel Scenario is already here for Americans. As anyone who has traveled to Israel and witnessed its dark slide into increasing isolation and siege will recognize, America's descent has just begun. It can get a hell of a lot worse. And it will. Which isn't so bad, so long as you're part of the American Right."

"Is the bombing [of the Ain Saheb camp] an Israeli message or an American one?" asks Ramzy Baroud of the Palestine Chronicle.

It is, in fact, a message communicated between the lines of policy white papers issued by the Project for the New American Century and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs -- there is essentially no difference between what Israeli and American Zionists want: Greater Israel victorious through "total war" (as one particularly virulent neocon, Michael Ledeen, would have it) ultimately resulting in a militarily defeated, politically splintered, and economically impoverished Arab Middle East.

Kurt Nimmo is a photographer and multimedia developer in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Visit his excellent blog at www.kurtnimmo.com/blogger.html . Nimmo is a contributor to Cockburn and St. Clair's, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. A collection of his essays for CounterPunch, Another Day in the Empire, will be published this fall by Dandelion Books.

Ha'aretz April 13, 2003 "Israel to US: Now deal with Syria and Iran"
www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtuml?itemNo=2832




USS LIBERTY Memorial
No War For Israel
If Americans Knew
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alpha
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 19777

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:55 am    Post subject: New Leak Smells of Neocon Desperation Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Leaked Neocon Memo "Connecting" Saddam to Bin Laden:

http://www.antiwar.com/comment/feith1.html



New Leak Smells of Neocon Desperation


http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lobe112003.html

by Jim Lobe
November 20, 2003
This week's blockbuster leak of a secret memorandum from a senior Pentagon official to the Senate Intelligence Committee has spurred speculation that neo-conservative hawks in the Bush administration are on the defensive and growing more desperate.
Both the committee and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have asked the Justice Department to launch an investigation of the leak, which took the form of an article published Monday by the influential neo-conservative journal, The Weekly Standard.
Committee Chairman Pat Roberts characterized the leak as "egregious," noting that it might have compromised "highly classified information" on intelligence sources and methods of collecting information, as well as ongoing investigations. He also said he did not believe the leak came from his committee or its staff.
The Pentagon issued an unusual press statement declaring that the leak was "deplorable and may be illegal."
The article, "Case Closed," is a summary of a lengthy memo sent to the committee Oct. 27 by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.
He had been asked by the senators to provide support for his assertion in a closed hearing last July that US intelligence agencies had established a long-standing operational link between the al-Qaeda terrorist group and Baghdad.
That, and similar assertions by senior Bush officials before the war, have long been considered questionable, more so after the war when the administration – as with its prewar contentions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – failed to come up with evidence to back its case.
Investigative reporters and Iraq war critics have accused Feith's office of having manipulated or "cherry-picked" the intelligence on Iraq's purported ties to al-Qaeda and WMD programs before the war to persuade Bush and the public that Saddam posed a serious threat to the United States.
The leaked memo consists mainly of 50 excerpts culled from raw intelligence reports by four US intelligence agencies about alleged al-Qaeda-Iraqi contacts from 1990 to 2003.
Some of the reports include brief analysis, but most cite accounts by unnamed sources, such as "a contact with good access," "a well placed source," "a former senior Iraqi intelligence officer," a "regular and reliable source," "sensitive CIA reporting," and "a foreign government service."
Although the article's author, Weekly Standard correspondent Stephen Hayes, concludes that much of the evidence is "detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources," the only example of real corroboration is with respect to several reports regarding contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraqi agents in Afghanistan in 1999.
Most of the excerpts deal instead with alleged meetings or less direct contacts in which sources claim that al-Qaeda agents are requesting certain kinds of assistance, such as a safe haven, training or, in one case, WMD.
While supporters of the war in Iraq, such as the New York Times' William Safire, have jumped on the Hayes' article as proof of what the administration had alleged, retired intelligence officers have criticized it, both because of the security breach of the leak itself and because its contents are anything but "conclusive" of an operational relationship.
W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Washington Post the article amounted to a "listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship."
At the same time, he added, it raises the question: "If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?"
Other retired officers stressed that, to the extent that virtually all of the excerpts consist of raw intelligence unvetted by professional analysts, the article appeared to prove precisely what critics had been saying: Feith's office simply picked those items in raw intelligence that tended to confirm their preexisting views that a relationship must have existed, without subjecting the evidence to the kind of rigorous analysis that intelligence agencies would apply.
"This is made to dazzle the eyes of the not terribly educated," Greg Thielmann, a veteran of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) who retired in 2002, told IPS.
"It begs the question, 'Is this the best they can do'? If you're going to expose this stuff, you'd better have something more than this," he said, adding, "My inclination is to interpret this as probably a very good example of cherry-picking and the selective use of intelligence that was so obvious in the lead-up to the war."
Melvin Goodman, a former top CIA analyst, said the leak is a sign of desperation. "To me, they had to leak something like this, because the neo-conservatives (in the administration) have nothing to stand on."
"They're trying to get the idea out there that, 'Hey, there was a case for war', and they have 'useful idiots' like Safire who say they're right."
The notion that the leak was "friendly" or "authorized" by hawks in the Pentagon or their allies in Vice President Dick Cheney's office – as opposed to an unauthorized leak designed to embarrass the author – is widely accepted here.
The Standard, particularly Hayes and executive editor William Kristol, have acted as a mouthpiece for administration hawks like Feith, his immediate boss, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and their friends in Cheney's office, particularly his powerful chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, since even before the administration's "war on terror," declared after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
But at the same time it raises serious questions about the judgment of those responsible for the leak. Not only does the intelligence contained in the article fall embarrassingly short of "closing the case" on Iraq-al-Qaeda links, the leak itself of such highly classified material might fuel the impression that the neo-conservatives, if they were indeed the source, are willing to sacrifice the country's secrets to retain power.
"It shows a cavalier and almost contemptuous regard for the national security rationale for keeping information classified," according to Thielmann. "The objective of silencing the critics is so overwhelming that you have to throw national security secrets to the wind."
Both he and Goodman noted striking similarities between this latest case and the leak last July of the identity of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA officer.
Wilson had just embarrassed the administration by disclosing his trip on behalf of the CIA to Niger to check out a report that Iraq had bought uranium "yellowcake." He charged that Bush's assertion about the yellowcake in his 2003 State of the Union address was false and that the White House knew it or should have known it at the time.
The evident purpose of the leak to columnist Robert Novak was to discredit Wilson by suggesting that his mission to Niger was suggested by his wife.
In fact, the leak provoked enormous anger in the intelligence community as a major security breach that effectively ended Plame's career as a covert officer, and potentially endangered her life and those of people who had worked with her abroad.
The FBI is currently running a criminal investigation on the matter.
"It's obvious that if you cared about the real national security interests of this country, you wouldn't reveal an asset," said Goodman. "That shows this is a venal and desperate group who are not considering the real national-security interests of this country."
• Senate Intelligence Committee
(Inter Press Service)

http://www.nowarforisrael.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alpha
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 19777

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 8:39 am    Post subject: U.S. Deploys 20,000 Troops Near Syrian Border Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

In reference to the following article, it looks like the JINSA/PNAC Zionist extremist warmongers are getting ready to go after Syria next (especially after the passing of the Syrian Accountability Act versions in the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby influenced US Congress (as Fisk mentions the Syrian Accountability Act in his JINSA article that is also included below):


U.S. deploys 20,000 troops
near Syrian border

http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_iraq_11_19.html

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
The United States has deployed 20,000 troops along the Syrian border after Syria failed to stop militants from crossing into Iraq.
As late as October, U.S. officials said hundreds of Islamic insurgents were crossing into Iraqi from Syria. They said Syrian authorities had failed to respond to U.S. appeals to stop the flow of insurgents.
U.S. military officials said the U.S. troop presence was bolstered beginning in September and has resulted in a significant drop in infiltration from Syria. The U.S. troops are based in the Iraqi province of Anbar, Middle East Newsline reported.

Bruised credit? — Special Offer

Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, said the military completed a 200 percent increase in U.S. troops at Anbar. Swannack told a briefing in Baghdad on Tuesday that the increased deployment was also meant to stop infiltration from other Iraqi neighbors, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
But the U.S. presence has not halted the flow of insurgents from Syria. On Monday, the U.S. military said six suspected insurgents were captured near the Syrian border. One of them was later killed when he tried to attack a guard.
Swannack said the U.S. troop presence in Anbar has resulted in reducing the flow of insurgents from Syria. He said Islamic insurgents have launched attacks against the U.S. force near the 500-kilometer Syrian border. But he called the attacks ineffective.
"We are not fighting foreign fighters coming across the border in significant numbers," Swannack said. "We are fighting mostly former regime locals."



This article was published in Counterpunch.org. Its author argues that the alliance between Bush's administration neocons and the Sharon is helping Israel shape America's foreign policy. According to the author, the neocons main interest is to expand Israel not the well-being of our nation.


October 18 / 19, 2003
Total War in the Middle East?
Shock Therapy and the Israeli Scenario

By KURT NIMMO

"Israel has been urging America to invade Syria, but America seems to be reluctant. So, in order to force the hands of America, Israel is going to invade Syria," Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad told the official Bernama news agency recently. "When that happens, the Americans will have to support Israel due to domestic political reasons that make Jewish votes a major factor in its presidential election."

It's hardly a secret that pro-Zionist financial contributions exact disproportionate influence on American politics and foreign policy. Israel "has become a veritable state of the United States," Mitchell Kaidy wrote in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs back in 1997. "Indeed, with media cooperation and assistance, Israel has ascended to the ranks of an affluent, belligerent yet untouchable super-state." It is precisely this inviolable status that allows Ariel Sharon and the Likudites to do almost anything they please.

"No one in authority will admit a calamitous reality that is skillfully shielded from the American people but clearly recognized by most of the world: America suffered 11 September and its aftermath and may soon be at war with Iraq, mainly because US policy in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington," wrote Paul Findley, a former congressional representative. "Israel is a scofflaw nation and should be treated as such. Instead of helping Sharon intensify Palestinian misery, our president should suspend all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land Israel seized in 1967."

Not likely. Bush and his fanatical core of pro-Zionist neocons will continue to work alongside Sharon and the racist Likudites. Greater Israel is their unalterable mission. It's their raison d'etre.

Pat Buchanan was spot on when he said the Bush neocons "harbor a passionate attachment to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's good for
Israel is good for America."

Israel wants "total war" in the Middle East, as do the Bush neocons.

So entangled are the connections between the Likudites in Israel, the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Center for Security Policy, the American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century, so-called defense contractors, Christian Zionists with money to spend, and a handful of Zionists in and out of the Bush administration that it is nearly impossible to find the precise source of the toxin infecting United States foreign policy in the Middle East.

Its most activist and wild-eyed proponents are tucked away in Beltway think tanks, the Bush White House, and burrowed deep within the Pentagon. From there they plot the sort of pandemonium and misery currently underway in Iraq.

The next few items on the neocon "creative destruction" agenda: take out Syria and Iran, even tiny and insignificant Libya.

If Gordon Thomas of the American Free Press is correct, Sharon called Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon and gave him the low-down on the Syrian attack. "We, and you, are fighting a war against terrorism," Rumsfeld reportedly told the Butcher of Sabra and Chatila (and Qibya and Qalqilya). No doubt such tidings warmed the cockles of Arik's cold-blooded heart.

In other words, what Sharon was about to do -- brazenly attack a sovereign nation in direct violation of international law -- was akin to what the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Karl Rove apparently chimed in, admitting that Bush approved. "He saw it as a clear warning to terrorists that they can be reached anywhere," Rove briskly told reporters. "See it as necessary shock therapy."

"Israel's Ariel Sharon is intent on exploiting the opportunity provided by US plans for war in the Middle East to press forward his aim of creating a Greater Israel," Jean Shaoul wrote last year. "For months he has sought to stoke up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and scupper any possibility for even the type of truncated Palestinian state promised under the Oslo Accords. Now he has significantly upped the ante, accusing Syria of supplying Hezbollah militants in south Lebanon with thousands of surface to air rockets capable of striking northern Israeli towns and cities and demanding Syria rein in the Islamic fundamentalist group."

On the same day Mahathir Mohamad made his prediction about an Israeli invasion of Syria, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported that "Mossad has marked six Iranian nuclear facilities as targets for an Israeli Air Force preemptive strike." Sharon presumably told "Mossad chief Meir Dagani to devote 'utmost efforts' to gather information about Iran's growing nuclear capabilities... The Mossad's plan is now ready and has been delivered to the Israeli Air Force, which will carry out the strike, Der Spiegel said. The simultaneous air strike on six Iranian nuclear facilities would be carried out by IAF F-16 fighter jets."

Israel is reluctant to bomb Iran, but not for political reasons -- bombing sorties would be dicey business since the nuclear sites in question are spread across vast expanses and Iran's eastern border and are 1,300 kilometers from Israeli air bases.

However, according to Yossi Melman, the military commentator for Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper, Sharon's threats against Iran are part of an effort to fix international public opinion against the Iranian nuclear project and to prevent Iran from producing enriched uranium. It's said Mossad leaked the story to the press.

It also said Mossad leaked a story to the Los Angeles Times detailing Israel's decision to arm US-made Harpoon missiles with nukes. Once again demonstrating the propaganda clumsiness of the foolhardy Likudites and their neocon bedfellows in Washington, people who know about such things wasted no time debunking the Harpoon story. Israeli and foreign defense experts quickly noted that such a modification was technically impossible. Jane's Naval Weapon Systems in London said it was nonsense.

No such hit-or-miss flourishes are required in regard to Syria, though.

Syria is far weaker militarily and less of a threat to Israel -- and that's why the Ain Saheb camp was bombed. It also helps that it is exactly the sort of lethal behavior the Bush neocons encourage and support.

"Without American support, or at least the expectation of such support, this attack would not have taken place," Eyal Zisser, a senior lecturer at Tel Aviv University, told the Sydney Morning Herald.

It was, after all, Richard Perle (and other neocons) who declared in a report specifically authored for Benjamin Netanyahu and other radical Israeli Zionists ("Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000") that "Israel can shape its strategic environment... by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria... Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran."

In other words, Sharon's script was authored in collaboration with American neocons more interested in Greater Israel than the threat such actions -- unwarranted attacks on sovereign Arab nations -- will pose to Americans at home and especially abroad in the eventual form of blowback and terrorism.

The Arab world, if not the American public, understand US complicity in Israeli war crimes and murderous provocation. Zionists anticipate this reaction and will cynically use it to their advantage -- just as they now use Palestinian suicide bombings as a pretense to invade the West Bank and Gaza (the most recent "operation" took place in the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza where eight Palestinians, including two children, were killed and 100 buildings destroyed, leaving hundreds of families homeless).

"What [the neocons] couldn't sell to Netanyahu, they pushed on Bush, who bought it hook, line and sinker," writes Mark Ames. "Under Sharon, parts of the plan have been implemented; the big jobs -- the conquests of Iraq and Syria -- have been left to America... The Israel Scenario is already here for Americans. As anyone who has traveled to Israel and witnessed its dark slide into increasing isolation and siege will recognize, America's descent has just begun. It can get a hell of a lot worse. And it will. Which isn't so bad, so long as you're part of the American Right."

"Is the bombing [of the Ain Saheb camp] an Israeli message or an American one?" asks Ramzy Baroud of the Palestine Chronicle.

It is, in fact, a message communicated between the lines of policy white papers issued by the Project for the New American Century and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs -- there is essentially no difference between what Israeli and American Zionists want: Greater Israel victorious through "total war" (as one particularly virulent neocon, Michael Ledeen, would have it) ultimately resulting in a militarily defeated, politically splintered, and economically impoverished Arab Middle East.

Kurt Nimmo is a photographer and multimedia developer in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Visit his excellent blog at www.kurtnimmo.com/blogger.html . Nimmo is a contributor to Cockburn and St. Clair's, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. A collection of his essays for CounterPunch, Another Day in the Emp ire, will be published this fall by Dandelion Books.

Ha'aretz April 13, 2003 "Israel to US: Now deal with Syria and Iran"
www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtuml?itemNo=2832


U.S. checking the possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa

By Amiram Cohen

The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in the Israeli port city of Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Israeli Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

The Israeli Prime Minister's Office views the Iraqi oil pipeline to Haifa as a "bonus" the U.S. should give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, and had asked the Americans for the official telegram.

The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.

Sources in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office confirmed yesterday that the Bush Administration is looking into the possibility of building a new Iraqi oil pipeline via Jordan into Israel. (There is also a pipeline running via Syria that has not been used in some three decades.) The Israeli National Infrastructure Ministry recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter.

Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky said yesterday that the port of Haifa is an attractive destination for Iraqi oil and that he plans to discuss this matter with the U.S. secretary of energy during his planned visit to Washington next month. Paritzky added that the plan depends on Jordan's consent and that Jordan would receive a transit fee for allowing the Iraqi oil to piped through its territory. The minister noted, however, that "due to pan-Arab concerns, it will be hard for the Jordanians to agree to the flow of Iraqi oil to European countries via Jordan and Israel."

Iraqi oil is now being transported via Turkey to a small Mediterranean port near the Syrian border. The transit fee collected by Turkey is an important source of revenue for the country. This line has been damaged by sabotage twice in recent weeks and is presently out of service.

In response to rumors about the possible Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa pipeline, Turkey has warned Israel that it would regard this development as a serious blow to Turkish-Israeli relations.

(That is the point of the 'bombings' in Turkey)

Iraq is one of the world's largest oil producers, with the potential of reaching about 2.5 million barrels a day. Oil exports were halted after the Gulf War in 1991 and then were allowed again on a limited basis (1.5 million barrels per day) to finance the import of food and medicines. Iraq is currently exporting several hundred thousand barrels of oil per day.

-----------------------

Netanyahu Says Iraq-Israel Oil Pipe Line No Pipe-Dream
Fri Jun 20,11:11 AM ET

By Steven Scheer

LONDON (Reuters) - Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (news - web sites) said he expected an oil pipeline from Iraq (news - web sites) to Israel to be reopened in the near future after being closed when Israel became a state in 1948.

"It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa," the port city in northern Israel, Netanyahu told a group of British investors, declining to give a timetable.

"It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and the majority of Iraqi oil will flow through Israel to the Mediterranean."

Netanyahu later told Reuters the government was in the early stages of looking into the possibility of reopening the pipeline, which during the British Mandate sent oil from Mosul to Haifa via Jordan.

"It's not a pipe-dream," Netanyahu said.

In April, a source at the Israeli National Infrastructure Ministry told Reuters Israel and Jordan would hold talks on reopening the pipeline, which would give Israel control of the majority of Iraqi oil distributed to western European countries, and which Israel believes would lower fuel costs for all Israelis by at least 25 percent.

The source said that the Israeli section of the pipeline was in good condition but did not know about the Jordanian section.

Jordanian officials denied they would meet Israeli officials, citing cold relations with the Jewish state since the outbreak of a Palestinian uprising in late 2000.

The United States, Israel's closest ally, toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) during an invasion that began in March. A U.S.-led coalition now runs Iraq and many Arabs voice concern over the control Washington can exercise over Iraq's oil wealth.

Iraq owns the world's second largest oil reserves valued at over $300 Trillion.

This speech by Galloway (from Toronto on October 19th) was excellent as well:

http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=8044


USS LIBERTY Memorial:

http://www.ussliberty.com

No War For Israel

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

If Americans Knew

http://www.ifamericansknew.org

http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk0910.html

CounterPunch


September 10, 2002


Bush's Contempt of the World


by Robert Fisk
The Independent

The crucial question remains: is the Iraqi President mad as well as bad? Just as Americans are recovering from the harrowing television re-runs of the 11 September attacks, their President is going to launch the biggest reshaping of the Middle East since the British and French parcelled out the Arab lands after the 1914-18 war. When he addresses the United Nations on Thursday, George Bush will be threatening not only Iraq--which had absolutely nothing to do with the crimes against humanity in New York and Washington--but Syria, Iran and, by extension, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The Syrian Accountability Act, which accuses Damascus of supporting "terrorism", will come into force as President Bush is speaking and will follow only days after the State Department branded the Lebanese Hizbollah as the "A-team of terrorism", more dangerous even than Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida. Like Iraq, the Hizbollah had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks--indeed, they were among the first to condemn them--but the White House now seems set on painting allies and enemies alike in the Middle East as a focus of evil.

Only The Nation among all of America's newspapers and magazines has dared to point out that a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working within the American administration and the Bush plans for the Middle East--which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world--fit perfectly into Israel's own dreams for the region. The magazine listed Vice-President Dick Cheney--the arch-hawk in the US administration--and John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for Arms Control, with Douglas Feith, the third most senior executive at the Pentagon, as members of the advisory board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) before joining the Bush government. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is still an adviser on the institute, as is the former CIA director James Woolsey.

Michael Ledeen, described by The Nation as "one of the most influential 'Jinsans' in Washington" has been calling for "total war" against "terror"--with "regime change" for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Mr Perle advises the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld--who refers to the West Bank and Gaza as "the so-called occupied territories"--and arranged the anti-Saudi "kernel of evil" briefing by Laurent Murawiec that so outraged the Saudi royal family last month. The Saudi regime may itself be in great danger as the princes of the House of Saud attempt to seize more power for themselves in advance of the depart-ure of the dying King Fahd.

Jinsa's website says it exists to "inform the American defence and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East". Next month, Michael Rubin of the right-wing and pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute--who referred to the outgoing UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson as an abettor of "terrorism"--joins the US Defence Department as an Iran-Iraq "expert".

According to The Nation, Irving Moskovitz, the California bingo magnate who has funded settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is a donor as well as a director of Jinsa.

President Bush, of course, will not be talking about the influence of these pro-Israeli lobbyists when he presents his vision of the Middle East at the United Nations on Thursday.

Nor will he give the slightest indication that the region is, in the words of its own kings and dictators, a powder keg of resentment and anger. The tectonic plates of the Arab world are now grinding with increasing violence. Into this political earthquake zone, Mr Bush now seems intent on leading his country, with his loyal British ally.

Most of today's Arab nations were fashioned out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France in the aftermath of the First World War--and Palestinians still blame Britain today for supporting the formation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Both European nations stationed tens of thousands of troops across the region, suppressing Arab revolts in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon--itself created by the French at the request of its Christian Maronite community. The whole colonial framework led to the loss of tens of thousands of lives before both the British and French retreated from the Middle East.

Now President Bush seems set on following the colonial powers into the region for another military and political adventure--ostensibly to spread "democracy" among those nations it most despises (Iraq, Palestine and Iran) but in fact more likely to increase American control of an increasingly anti-Western Arab world.

The Arabs themselves warn that this will lead to massive instability and widespread violence. The Israelis--and their allies in the US administration--are hell bent on the whole shebang.

The following is the article from "The Nation" which Fisk mentions in the above article from the London Independent newspaper as it is important to note that JINSANS like Dick Cheney and Richard Perle are also associated with PNAC:


The Men From JINSA and CSP


This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest

by JASON VEST[from the September 2, 2002 issue]Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power. Just as the right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a shadow defense establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too, did the right during the Clinton years, in part through two organizations: the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP). And just as was the case two decades ago, dozens of their members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. Industrious and persistent, they've managed to weave a number of issues--support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general--into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core. On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war--not just with Iraq, but "total war," as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, "regime change" by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative. Anyone who dissents--be it Colin Powell's State Department, the CIA or career military officers--is committing heresy against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East--a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action. For example, the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board--chaired by JINSA/CSP adviser and former Reagan Administration Defense Department official Richard Perle, and stacked with advisers from both groups--recently made news by listening to a briefing that cast Saudi Arabia as an enemy to be brought to heel through a number of potential mechanisms, many of which mirror JINSA's recommendations, and which reflect the JINSA/CSP crowd's preoccupation with Egypt. (The final slide of the Defense Policy Board presentation proposed that "Grand Strategy for the Middle East" should concentrate on "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot [and] Egypt as the prize.") Ledeen has been leading the charge for regime change in Iran, while old comrades like Andrew Marshall and Harold Rhode in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment actively tinker with ways to re-engineer both the Iranian and Saudi governments. JINSA is also cheering the US military on as it tries to secure basing rights in the strategic Red Sea country of Eritrea, happily failing to mention that the once-promising secular regime of President Isaiais Afewerki continues to slide into the kind of repressive authoritarianism practiced by the "axis of evil" and its adjuncts. Indeed, there are some in military and intelligence circles who have taken to using "axis of evil" in reference to JINSA and CSP, along with venerable repositories of hawkish thinking like the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute, as well as defense contractors, conservative foundations and public relations entities underwritten by far-right American Zionists (all of which help to underwrite JINSA and CSP). It's a milieu where ideology and money seamlessly blend: "Whenever you see someone identified in print or on TV as being with the Center for Security Policy or JINSA championing a position on the grounds of ideology or principle--which they are unquestionably doing with conviction--you are, nonetheless, not informed that they're also providing a sort of cover for other ideologues who just happen to stand to profit from hewing to the Likudnik and Pax Americana lines," says a veteran intelligence officer. He notes that while the United States has begun a phaseout of civilian aid to Israel that will end by 2007, government policy is to increase military aid by half the amount of civilian aid that's cut each year--which is not only a boon to both the US and Israeli weapons industries but is also crucial to realizing the far right's vision for missile defense and the Middle East. Founded in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that the United States might not be able to provide Israel with adequate military supplies in the event of another Arab-Israeli war, over the past twenty-five years JINSA has gone from a loose-knit proto-group to a $1.4-million-a-year operation with a formidable array of Washington power players on its rolls. Until the beginning of the current Bush Administration, JINSA's board of advisers included such heavy hitters as Dick Cheney, John Bolton (now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control) and Douglas Feith, the third-highest-ranking executive in the Pentagon. Both Perle and former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, two of the loudest voices in the attack-Iraq chorus, are still on the board, as are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eugene Rostow and Ledeen--Oliver North's Iran/contra liaison with the Israelis. According to its website, JINSA exists to "educate the American public about the importance of an effective US defense capability so that our vital interests as Americans can be safeguarded" and to "inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East." In practice, this translates into its members producing a steady stream of op-eds and reports that have been good indicators of what the Pentagon's civilian leadership is thinking. JINSA relishes denouncing virtually any type of contact between the US government and Syria and finding new ways to demonize the Palestinians. To give but one example (and one that kills two birds with one stone): According to JINSA, not only is Yasir Arafat in control of all violence in the occupied territories, but he orchestrates the violence solely "to protect Saddam.... Saddam is at the moment Arafat's only real financial supporter.... [Arafat] has no incentive to stop the violence against Israel and allow the West to turn its attention to his mentor and paymaster." And if there's a way to advance other aspects of the far-right agenda by intertwining them with Israeli interests, JINSA doesn't hesitate there, either. A recent report contends that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge must be tapped because "the Arab oil-producing states" are countries "with interests inimical to ours," but Israel "stand[s] with us when we need [Israel]," and a US policy of tapping oil under ANWR will "limit [the Arabs'] ability to do damage to either of us." The bulk of JINSA's modest annual budget is spent on taking a bevy of retired US generals and admirals to Israel, where JINSA facilitates meetings between Israeli officials and the still-influential US flag officers, who, upon their return to the States, happily write op-eds and sign letters and advertisements championing the Likudnik line. (Sowing seeds for the future, JINSA also takes US service academy cadets to Israel each summer and sponsors a lecture series at the Army, Navy and Air Force academies.) In one such statement, issued soon after the outbreak of the latest intifada, twenty-six JINSAns of retired flag rank, including many from the advisory board, struck a moralizing tone, characterizing Palestinian violence as a "perversion of military ethics" and holding that "America's role as facilitator in this process should never yield to America's responsibility as a friend to Israel," as "friends don't leave friends on the battlefield." However high-minded this might sound, the postservice associations of the letter's signatories--which are almost always left off the organization's website and communiqués--ought to require that the phrase be amended to say "friends don't leave friends on the battlefield, especially when there's business to be done and bucks to be made." Almost every retired officer who sits on JINSA's board of advisers or has participated in its Israel trips or signed a JINSA letter works or has worked with military contractors who do business with the Pentagon and Israel. While some keep a low profile as self-employed "consultants" and avoid mention of their clients, others are less shy about their associations, including with the private mercenary firm Military Professional Resources International, weapons broker and military consultancy Cypress International and SY Technology, whose main clients include the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, which oversees several ongoing joint projects with Israel. The behemoths of military contracting are also well represented in JINSA's ranks. For example, JINSA advisory board members Adm. Leon Edney, Adm. David Jeremiah and Lieut. Gen. Charles May, all retired, have served Northrop Grumman or its subsidiaries as either consultants or board members. Northrop Grumman has built ships for the Israeli Navy and sold F-16 avionics and E-2C Hawkeye planes to the Israeli Air Force (as well as the Longbow radar system to the Israeli army for use in its attack helicopters). It also works with Tamam, a subsidiary of Israeli Aircraft Industries, to produce an unmanned aerial vehicle. Lockheed Martin has sold more than $2 billion worth of F-16s to Israel since 1999, as well as flight simulators, multiple-launch rocket systems and Seahawk heavyweight torpedoes. At one time or another, General May, retired Lieut. Gen. Paul Cerjan and retired Adm. Carlisle Trost have labored in LockMart's vineyards. Trost has also sat on the board of General Dynamics, whose Gulfstream subsidiary has a $206 million contract to supply planes to Israel to be used for "special electronics missions." By far the most profitably diversified of the JINSAns is retired Adm. David Jeremiah. President and partner of Technology Strategies & Alliances Corporation (described as a "strategic advisory firm and investment banking firm engaged primarily in the aerospace, defense, telecommunications and electronics industries"), Jeremiah also sits on the boards of Northrop Grumman's Litton subsidiary and of defense giant Alliant Techsystems, which--in partnership with Israel's TAAS--does a brisk business in rubber bullets. And he has a seat on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, chaired by Perle. About the only major defense contractor without a presence on JINSA's advisory board is Boeing, which has had a relationship with Israeli Aircraft Industries for thirty years. (Boeing also sells F-15s to Israel and, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, Apache attack helicopters, a ubiquitous weapon in the occupied territories.) But take a look at JINSA's kindred spirit in things pro-Likud and pro-Star Wars, the Center for Security Policy, and there on its national security advisory council are Stanley Ebner, a former Boeing executive; Andrew Ellis, vice president for government relations; and Carl Smith, a former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee who, as a lawyer in private practice, has counted Boeing among his clients. "JINSA and CSP," says a veteran Pentagon analyst, "may as well be one and the same." Not a hard sell: There's always been considerable overlap beween the JINSA and CSP rosters--JINSA advisers Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle and Phyllis Kaminsky also serve on CSP's advisory council; current JINSA advisory board chairman David Steinmann sits on CSP's board of directors; and before returning to the Pentagon Douglas Feith served as the board's chair. At this writing, twenty-two CSP advisers--including additional Reagan-era remnants like Elliott Abrams, Ken deGraffenreid, Paula Dobriansky, Sven Kraemer, Robert Joseph, Robert Andrews and J.D. Crouch--have reoccupied key positions in the national security establishment, as have other true believers of more recent vintage. While CSP boasts an impressive advisory list of hawkish luminaries, its star is Frank Gaffney, its founder, president and CEO. A protégé of Perle going back to their days as staffers for the late Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (a k a the Senator from Boeing, and the Senate's most zealous champion of Israel in his day), Gaffney later joined Perle at the Pentagon, only to be shown the door by Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci in 1987, not long after Perle left. Gaffney then reconstituted the latest incarnation of the Committee on the Present Danger. Beyond compiling an A-list of influential conservative hawks, Gaffney has been prolific over the past fifteen years, churning out a constant stream of reports (as well as regular columns for the Washington Times) making the case that the gravest threats to US national security are China, Iraq, still-undeveloped ballistic missiles launched by rogue states, and the passage of or adherence to virtually any form of arms control treaty. Gaffney and CSP's prescriptions for national security have been fairly simple: Gut all arms control treaties, push ahead with weapons systems virtually everyone agrees should be killed (such as the V-22 Osprey), give no quarter to the Palestinians and, most important, go full steam ahead on just about every national missile defense program. (CSP was heavily represented on the late-1990s Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, which was instrumental in keeping the program alive during the Clinton years.) Looking at the center's affiliates, it's not hard to see why: Not only are makers of the Osprey (Boeing) well represented on the CSP's board of advisers but so too is Lockheed Martin (by vice president for space and strategic missiles Charles Kupperman and director of defense systems Douglas Graham). Former TRW executive Amoretta Hoeber is also a CSP adviser, as is former Congressman and Raytheon lobbyist Robert Livingston. Ball Aerospace & Technologies--a major manufacturer of NASA and Pentagon satellites--is represented by former Navy Secretary John Lehman, while missile-defense computer systems maker Hewlett-Packard is represented by George Keyworth, who is on its board of directors. And the Congressional Missile Defense Caucus and Osprey (or "tilt rotor") caucus are represented by Representative Curt Weldon and Senator Jon Kyl. CSP was instrumental in developing the arguments against the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Largely ignored or derided at the time, a 1995 CSP memo co-written by Douglas Feith holding that the United States should withdraw from the ABM treaty has essentially become policy, as have other CSP reports opposing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the International Criminal Court. But perhaps the most insightful window on the JINSA/CSP policy worldview comes in the form of a paper Perle and Feith collaborated on in 1996 with six others under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Essentially an advice letter to ascendant Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" makes for insightful reading as a kind of US-Israeli neoconservative manifesto. The paper's first prescription was for an Israeli rightward economic shift, with tax cuts and a selloff of public lands and enterprises--moves that would also engender support from a "broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders." But beyond economics, the paper essentially reads like a blueprint for a mini-cold war in the Middle East, advocating the use of proxy armies for regime changes, destabilization and containment. Indeed, it even goes so far as to articulate a way to advance right-wing Zionism by melding it with missile-defense advocacy. "Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state," it reads. "Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel's survival, but it would broaden Israel's base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense"--something that has the added benefit of being "helpful in the effort to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem." Recent months in Washington have shown just how influential the notions propagated by JINSA and CSP are--and how disturbingly zealous their advocates are. In early March Feith vainly attempted to get the CIA to keep former intelligence officers Milt Bearden and Frank Anderson from accepting an invitation to an Afghanistan-related meeting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon--not because of what the two might say about Afghanistan, according to sources familiar with the incident, but likely out of fear that Anderson, a veteran Arabist and former chief of the CIA's Near East division, would proffer his views on Iraq (opposed to invading) and Israel-Palestine (a fan of neither Arafat nor Sharon). In late June, after United Press International reported on a US Muslim civil liberties group's lambasting of Gaffney for his attacks on the American Muslim Council, Gaffney, according to a fellow traveler, "went berserk," launching a stream of invective about the UPI scribe who reported the item. It's incidents like this, say knowledgeable observers and participants, that highlight an interesting dynamic among right-wing hawks at the moment. Though the general agenda put forth by JINSA and CSP continues to be reflected in councils of war, even some of the hawks (including Rumsfeld deputy Paul Wolfowitz) are growing increasingly leery of Israel's settlements policy and Gaffney's relentless support for it. Indeed, his personal stock in Bush Administration circles is low. "Gaffney has worn out his welcome by being an overbearing gadfly rather than a serious contributor to policy," says a senior Pentagon political official. Since earlier this year, White House political adviser Karl Rove has been casting about for someone to start a new, more mainstream defense group that would counter the influence of CSP. According to those who have communicated with Rove on the matter, his quiet efforts are in response to complaints from many conservative activists who feel let down by Gaffney, or feel he's too hard on President Bush. "A lot of us have taken [Gaffney] at face value over the years," one influential conservative says. "Yet we now know he's pushed for some of the most flawed missile defense and conventional systems. He considered Cuba a 'classic asymmetric threat' but not Al Qaeda. And since 9/11, he's been less concerned with the threat to America than to Israel." Gaffney's operation has always been a small one, about $1 million annually--funded largely by a series of grants from the conservative Olin, Bradley and various Scaife foundations, as well as some defense contractor money--but he's recently been able to underwrite a TV and print ad campaign holding that the Palestinians should be Enemy Number One in the War on Terror, still obsessed with the destruction of Israel. It's here that one sees the influence not of defense contractor money but of far-right Zionist dollars, including some from Irving Moskowitz, the California bingo magnate. A donor to both CSP and JINSA (as well as a JINSA director), Moskowitz not only sends millions of dollars a year to far-right Israeli settler groups like Ateret Cohanim but he has also funded the construction of settlements, having bought land for development in key Arab areas around Jerusalem. Moskowitz ponied up the money that enabled the 1996 reopening of a tunnel under the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, which resulted in seventy deaths due to rioting. Also financing Gaffney's efforts is New York investment banker Lawrence Kadish. A valued and valuable patron of both the Republican National Committee and George W. Bush, Kadish helps underwrite CSP as well as Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, an offshoot of conservative activist William Bennett's Empower America, on which he and Gaffney serve as "senior advisers" in the service of identifying "external" and "internal" post-9/11 threats to America. (The "internal" threats, as articulated by AVOT, include former President Jimmy Carter, Harper's editor Lewis Lapham and Representative Maxine Waters.) Another of Gaffney's backers is Poju Zabludowicz, heir to a formidable diversified international empire that includes arms manufacturer Soltam--which once employed Perle--and benefactor of the recently established Britain Israel Communication and Research Centre, a London-based group that appears to equate reportage or commentary uncomplimentary to Zionism with anti-Semitism. While a small but growing number of conservatives are voicing concerns about various aspects of foreign and defense policy--ranging from fear of overreach to lack of Congressional debate--the hawks seem to be ruling the roost. Beginning in October, hard-line American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin (to Rubin, outgoing UN human rights chief Mary Robinson is an abettor of terrorism) arrives at the Pentagon to take over the Defense Department's Iran-Iraq account, adding another voice to the Pentagon section of Ledeen's "total war" chorus. Colin Powell's State Department continues to take a beating from outside and inside--including Bolton and his special assistant David Wurmser. (An AEI scholar and far-right Zionist who's married to Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute--recently the subject of a critical investigation by London Guardian Middle East editor Brian Whitaker--Wurmser played a key role in crafting the "Arafat must go" policy that many career specialists see as a problematic sop to Ariel Sharon.) As for Rumsfeld, based on comments made at a Pentagon "town hall" meeting on August 6, there seems to be little doubt as to whose comments are resonating most with him--and not just on missile defense and overseas adventures: After fielding a question about Israeli-Palestinian issues, he repeatedly referred to the "so-called occupied territories" and casually characterized the Israeli policy of building Jewish-only enclaves on Palestinian land as "mak[ing] some settlement in various parts of the so-called occupied area," with which Israel can do whatever it wants, as it has "won" all its wars with various Arab entities--essentially an echo of JINSA's stated position that "there is no Israeli occupation." Ominously, Rumsfeld's riff gave a ranking Administration official something of a chill: "I realized at that point," he said, "that on settlements--where there are cleavages on the right--Wolfowitz may be to the left of Rumsfeld."

The American Conservative Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America¹s interest.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties

http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html

Counterpunch December 13, 2002


A Rose By Another Other Name The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties

here's what Bob Barr, hardly a left-leaning figure in politics has to say about the PNAC. the truth sometimes crosses political lines.



The brave new world of the neo-cons
World domination can get mighty pricey
BY BOB BARR



I could deal with "neo-conservatives," if they were just a bunch of converted liberals. But their newly influential movement is more troublesome than that. It threatens the American body politic with ever-expanding government power, larger bureaucracies and losses of our fundamental freedoms.

The movement's elevated status can be traced directly to Sept. 11, 2001, although it was developing into a major political force long before then. Michael Lind writes in The New Statesman that neo-conservatives' roots reach back to the anti-communist liberalism that took hold in America from the 1950s to the 1970s. Others trace its religious fervor -- its self-righteous zeal -- as far back as the Puritans.

Many earlier American political movements were closely tied to an aggressive, military-based foreign policy. In the 19th century, the push toward "manifest destiny" was rooted in an understandable desire on the part of America's leaders to extend America's continental reach to meet the needs of a nation struggling to industrialize and capitalize its resources. In the early 20th century, Teddy Roosevelt, often viewed as an imperialist, actually exercised considerable restraint in the use of American military power when he involved troops in circumstances clearly limited in time and scope. Woodrow Wilson's ill-fated drive to "make the world safe for democracy" was born of a genuine, if unrealistic notion that political freedom was preferable to tyranny and that democratic governments would be less predisposed to war as a tool of political power. Though Wilson's effort failed miserably, the goal was to avoid, not foster, war.

But neo-conservatives rely on the raw and aggressive use of military power to a unique degree, and their almost messianic mission to root out "bad guys" around the world, is unprecedented.

In 1997, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think tank headquartered in Washington, issued a Statement of Principles that lays out the neo-conservative vision of an international order completely subservient to U.S. business, military and political interests. At its core, the statement makes clear that nothing less than total, global American military dominance will suffice. The statement was signed by Dick Cheney, who is now vice president, Donald Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense, and Paul Wolfowitz, now deputy defense secretary.

The problem is that such total, global American military dominance would require a huge federal bureaucracy. And even worse: It would require an essentially permanent state of war abroad, as well as a climate of fear at home -- leading to ever-increasing levels of government power. The tragic events of Sept. 11 offered neo-cons the perfect catalyst to move into high gear. And, brother, have they ever.

We now have a huge new bureaucracy -- the Department of Homeland Security -- already creeping beyond its legislatively imposed jurisdiction. We have new laws, including the USA PATRIOT Act, that fundamentally alter the balance of power between citizens and government (in the latter's favor, of course). We see movement to break down the sacrosanct barriers between domestic law enforcement and our military, and between domestic law enforcement and the CIA. And we are witnessing the creation of a rash of invasive programs, such as the Pentagon's Terrorist Information Awareness program, designed to forever take from America's citizens their privacy.

One of the most troubling aspects of neo-conservatism is its intolerance for dissent. Former Education Secretary and drug czar William Bennett, who recently formed an organization called Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, audaciously asserts in an open letter printed as an advertisement in the New York Times that internal dissent poses as much a threat to victory over terrorism as do external groups attacking the United States. The message from neo-cons is clear: Questioning where we are and where they want to lead us is unpatriotic. It's a new and scary direction in American politics that neither true conservatives nor true liberals have historically championed.

When the House of Representatives took a rare, small step away from increased government power, by passing an amendment to a spending bill cutting off funds for so-called "sneak and peek" searches, the Justice Department quickly branded the move "devastating" to America's war against terrorism. Such hyperbole is nonsense, of course, but it reflects the dual-pronged, neo-con strategy of branding any opposition to its agenda as essentially unpatriotic and of using fear as its vehicle of choice.

In 1984, George Orwell described a nation built on fear and perpetual war. "The object of being at war, and therefore in danger," he wrote, "makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival." Let's hope that, at least in this instance, Orwell proves not to be as prescient as in many of his other observations.

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, a Republican, represented parts of Cobb County and Northwest Georgia from 1995 to 2003.

http://www.atlanta.creativeloafing.com/flipside.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alpha
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 19777

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 6:19 pm    Post subject: Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network




http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lobe080703.html

An ad hoc office under US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith appears to have acted as the key base for an informal network of mostly neo-conservative political appointees that circumvented normal interagency channels to lead the push for war against Iraq.

The Office of Special Plans (OSP), which worked alongside the Near East and South Asia (NESA) bureau in Feith's domain, was originally created by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to review raw information collected by the official US intelligence agencies for connections between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Retired intelligence officials from the State Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have long charged that the two offices exaggerated and manipulated intelligence about Iraq before passing it along to the White House.

But key personnel who worked in both NESA and OSP were part of a broader network of neo-conservative ideologues and activists who worked with other Bush political appointees scattered around the national-security bureaucracy to move the country to war, according to retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was assigned to NESA from May 2002 through February 2003.

The heads of NESA and OSP were Deputy Undersecretary William Luti and Abram Shulsky, respectively.

Other appointees who worked with them in both offices included Michael Rubin, a Middle East specialist previously with the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI); David Schenker, previously with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); and Michael Makovsky; an expert on neo-con icon Winston Churchill and the younger brother of David Makovsky, a senior WINEP fellow and former executive editor of pro-Likud Jerusalem Post.

Along with Feith, all of the political appointees have in common a close identification with the views of the right-wing Likud Party in Israel.

Feith, whose law partner is a spokesman for the settlement movement in Israel, has long been a fierce opponent of the Oslo peace process, while WINEP has acted as the think tank for the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which generally follows a Likud line.

Also like Feith, several of the appointees were protégés of Richard Perle, an AEI fellow who doubles as chairman until last April of Rumsfeld's unpaid Defense Policy Board (DPB), whose members were appointed by Feith, also had an office in the Pentagon one floor below the NESA offices.

Similarly, Luti, a retired naval officer, was a protégé of another DPB board member also based at AEI, former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich. Luti in turn hired Ret. Col. William Bruner, a former Gingrich staffer, and Chris Straub, a retired lieutenant colonel, anti-abortion activist, and former staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Also working for Luti was another naval officer, Yousef Aboul-Enein, whose main job was to pore over Arabic-language newspapers and CIA transcripts of radio broadcasts to find evidence of ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that may have been overlooked by the intelligence agencies, and a DIA officer named John Trigilio.

Through Feith, both offices worked closely with Perle, Gingrich, and two other DPB members and major war boosters – former CIA director James Woolsey and Kenneth Adelman – in ensuring that the "intelligence" they developed reached a wide public audience outside the bureaucracy.

They also debriefed "defectors" handled by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an opposition umbrella group headed by Ahmed Chalabi, a longtime friend of Perle, whom the intelligence agencies generally wrote off as an unreliable self-promoter.

"They would draw up 'talking points' they would use and distribute to staff officers for inclusion in any background papers or other documentation provided to their senior officers throughout the Pentagon, and presumably to the office of the Vice President," said Kwiatkowski. "But the talking points would be changed continually, not because of new intel (intelligence), but because the press was poking holes in what was in the memos."

The offices fed information directly and indirectly to sympathetic media outlets, including the Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and FoxNews Network, as well as the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and syndicated columnists, such as Charles Krauthammer.

In interagency discussions, Feith and the two offices communicated almost exclusively with like-minded allies in other agencies, rather than with their official counterparts, including even the DIA in the Pentagon, according to Kwiatkowski.

Rather than working with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, its Near Eastern Affairs bureau, or even its Iraq desk, for example, they preferred to work through Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (and former AEI executive vice president) John Bolton; Michael Wurmser (another Perle protégé at AEI who staffed the predecessor to OSP); and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of the Vice President Dick Cheney.

At the National Security Council (NSC), they communicated mainly with Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, until Elliott Abrams, a dyed-in-the-wool neo-con with close ties to Feith and Perle, was appointed last December as the NSC's top Middle East aide.

"They worked really hard for Abrams; he was a necessary link," Kwiatkowski told IPS Wednesday. "The day he got (the appointment), they were whooping and hollering, 'We got him in, we got him in.'"

They rarely communicated directly with the CIA, leaving that to political heavyweights, including Gingrich, who is reported to have made several trips to the CIA headquarters, and, more importantly, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser.

According to recent published reports, CIA analysts felt these visits were designed to put pressure on them to tailor their analyses more to the liking of administration hawks.

In some cases, NESA and OSP even prepared memos specifically for Cheney and Libby, something unheard of in previous administration because the lines of authority in the Vice President's office and the Pentagon are entirely separate. "Luti sometimes would say, 'I've got to do this for Scooter,'" said Kwiatkowski. "It looked like Cheney's office was pulling the strings."

Kwiatkowski said she could not confirm published reports that OSP worked with a similar ad hoc group in Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office.

But she recounts one incident in which she helped escort a group of half a dozen Israelis, including several generals, from the first floor reception area to Feith's office. "We just followed them, because they knew exactly where they were going and moving fast."

When the group arrived, she noted the book which all visitors are required to sign under special regulations that took effect after the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks. "I asked his secretary, 'Do you want these guys to sign in?' She said, 'No, these guys don't have to sign in.'" It occurred to her, she said, that the office may have deliberately not wanted to maintain a record of the meeting.

She added that OSP and MESA personnel were already discussing the possibility of "going after Iran" after the war in Iraq last January and that articles by Michael Ledeen, another AEI fellow and Perle associate who has been calling for the US to work for "regime change" in Tehran since late 2001, were given much attention in the two offices.

Ledeen and Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, recently created the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI) to lobby for a more aggressive policy there. Their move coincided with suggestions by Sharon that Washington adopt a more confrontational policy vis – vis Teheran.

Iran recently said it was prepared to turn over five senior al-Qaeda figures, including the son of Osama bin Laden, who are currently in its custody if Washington permanently shuts down an Iraqi-based Iranian rebel group that is listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department.

Pentagon officials, particularly Feith's office, have reportedly opposed the deal, which had been favored by the State Department, because of the possibility that the group, the Mujahadeen Khalq, might be useful in putting pressure on Tehran.



(Inter Press Service)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alpha
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 19777

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:37 am    Post subject: Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network:

http://itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=10640
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alpha
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 19777

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:14 am    Post subject: Ahmed Chalabi: NEOCON PUPPET FOR IRAQ Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

BRITISH AND US SOLDERS ARE DYING IN IRAQ FOR ISRAEL:

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

NO DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT IN IRAQ WILL SELL OIL TO THE LAND STEALING ZIONISTS, BUT A COUNCIL OF IRAQI LACKEYS (LIKE CONVICTED BANK FRAUDSTER CHALABI) MIGHT:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/21/dreyfuss-r.html

Tinker, Banker, NeoCon, Spy
Ahmed Chalabi's long and winding road from (and to?) Baghdad

By Robert Dreyfuss
Issue Date: 11.18.02 Print Friendly | Email Article

If T.E. Lawrence ("of Arabia") had been a 21st-century neoconservative operative instead of a British imperial spy, he'd be Ahmed Chalabi's best friend. Chalabi, the London-based leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), is front man for the latest incarnation of a long-time neoconservative strategy to redraw the map of the oil-rich Middle East, put American troops -- and American oil companies -- in full control of the Persian Gulf's reserves and use the Gulf as a fulcrum for enhancing America's global strategic hegemony. Just as Lawrence's escapades in World War I-era Arabia helped Britain remake the disintegrating Ottoman Empire, the U.S. sponsors of Chalabi's INC hope to do their own nation building. "The removal of [Saddam Hussein] presents the United States in particular with a historic opportunity that I believe is going to prove to be as large as anything that has happened in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the entry of British troops into Iraq in 1917," says Kanan Makiya, an INC strategist and author of Republic of Fear. Chalabi would hand over Iraq's oil to U.S. multinationals, and his allies in conservative think tanks are already drawing up the blueprints. "What they have in mind is denationalization, and then parceling Iraqi oil out to American oil companies," says James E. Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Even more broadly, once an occupying U.S. army seizes Baghdad, Chalabi's INC and its American backers are spinning scenarios about dismantling Saudi Arabia, seizing its oil and collapsing the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). It's a breathtaking agenda, one that goes far beyond "regime change" and on to the start of a New New World Order. What's also startling about these plans is that Chalabi is scorned by most of America's national-security establishment, including much of the Department of State, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He is shunned by all Western powers save the United Kingdom, ostracized in the Arab world and disdained even by many of his erstwhile comrades in the Iraqi opposition. Among his few friends, however, are the men running the Bush administration's willy-nilly war on Iraq. And with their backing, it's not inconceivable that this hapless, exiled Iraqi aristocrat and London-Washington playboy might end up atop the smoking heap of what's left of Iraq next year. The Chalabi Lobby
Almost to a man, Washington's hawks lavishly praise Chalabi. "He's a rare find," says Max Singer, a trustee and co-founder of the Hudson Institute. "He's deep in the Arab world and at the same time he is fundamentally a man of the West." In Washington, Team Chalabi is led by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, the neoconservative strategist who heads the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Chalabi's partisans run the gamut from far right to extremely far right, with key supporters in most of the Pentagon's Middle-East policy offices -- such as Peter Rodman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Michael Rubin. Also included are key staffers in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, not to mention Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former CIA Director Jim Woolsey. The Washington partisans who want to install Chalabi in Arab Iraq are also those associated with the staunchest backers of Israel, particularly those aligned with the hard-right faction of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Chalabi's cheerleaders include the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). "Chalabi is the one that we know the best," says Shoshana Bryen, director of special projects for JINSA, where Chalabi has been a frequent guest at board meetings, symposia and other events since 1997. "He could be Iraq's national leader," says Patrick Clawson, deputy director of WINEP, whose board of advisers includes pro-Israeli luminaries such as Perle, Wolfowitz and Martin Peretz of The New Republic. What makes Chalabi so attractive to the Washington war party? Most importantly, he's a co-thinker: a mathematician trained at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Chicago and a banker (who years ago hit it off with Albert Wohlstetter, the theorist who was a godfather of the neoconservative movement), a fellow mathematician and a University of Chicago strategist. In 1985, Wohlstetter (who died in 1997) introduced Chalabi to Perle, then the undersecretary of defense for international-security policy under President Reagan and one of Wohlstetter's leading acolytes. The two have been close ever since. In early October, Perle and Chalabi shared a podium at an American Enterprise Institute conference called "The Day After: Planning for a Post-Saddam Iraq," which was held, appropriately enough, in AEI's 12th-floor Wohlstetter Conference Center. "The Iraqi National Congress has been the philosophical voice of free Iraq for a dozen years," Perle told me. Philosophical or not, since its founding in 1992, Chalabi's INC has been trying to drag the United States into war with Iraq. By its very nature, the INC's strategy -- building a paramilitary presence inside Iraq, creating a provisional government, launching attacks on Iraqi cities -- was intended to create inexorable momentum for a war in which in the United States would be compelled to support the INC. But American policy in the 1990s was focused primarily on containing Saddam Hussein and depriving him of weapons of mass destruction, so the INC's efforts were sidetracked during the Clinton administration. At the time, most of the national-security establishment saw the INC as weak and ineffectual. Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East, famously ridiculed Chalabi and company as "silk-suited, Rolex-wearing guys in London," adding, "I don't see any opposition group that has the viability to overthrow Saddam." Supporting the INC, he warned, meant that "the Bay of Pigs could turn into the Bay of Goats." And a widely cited 1999 Foreign Affairs article titled "The Rollback Fantasy," lambasted the INC's strategy for a gusano-style offensive by a ragtag army operating out of the so-called no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq, saying it was "militarily ludicrous and would almost certainly end in either direct American intervention or a massive bloodbath." Indeed, in 1996 an ill-organized INC offensive in northern Iraq, where Chalabi had assembled about 1,000 fighters, was half-heartedly backed by the CIA. Not only did Saddam Hussein's troops not defect en masse, as predicted by Chalabi, but one of the INC's key allies, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, chose to ally itself with Baghdad, inviting the Iraqi army back into northern Iraq's Kurdish areas for a mop-up exercise. Another of the INC's allies, the Iraqi National Accord, apparently blew up the INC's main offices in an act of bloody fratricide. These tragic failures only increased the distaste for Chalabi at the CIA and among the U.S. military. Still, Chalabi is a survivor. Since the 1996 fiasco, he's managed a precarious balance atop a fractious and quarrelsome constellation of Iraqi opposition factions, from Kurds and Shi'a tribal leaders to Islamic fundamentalists, monarchists and military officers. Our Man in Baghdad
Born in 1945, Chalabi is the scion of a wealthy, oligarchic Shi'a family with close ties to the Hashemite monarchy that was installed in Iraq after World War I by Lawrence, Gertrude Bell and the British imperial authorities. Chalabi's grandfather served in nine various Iraqi cabinet positions, his father was a cabinet officer and president of the figurehead Iraqi senate, and his mother ran political salons that catered to Iraq's elite. In 1958 that all came to a crashing end when a coalition of army officers and the Iraqi Communist Party led a revolution that toppled King Faisal II. The Chalabis scattered. As a young man Chalabi lived in Jordan, Lebanon, the United Kingdom and the United States, where he attended MIT before earning a doctorate in mathematics at the University of Chicago. He took a position teaching math at the American University of Beirut. In 1977, Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan invited Chalabi to Amman to establish the Petra Bank, a financial institution that would soon become the second-largest commercial bank in Jordan. In an August 1989 episode still surrounded by controversy, however, the government of Jordan seized the Petra Bank under martial law, arresting its chief currency trader and using Jordan's central bank to pump $164 million into the Petra Bank and its allied institutions to keep them liquid. To avoid arrest, Chalabi fled the country "under mysterious circumstances," according to a 1989 article in the Financial Times. The Hudson Institute's Max Singer says that Prince Hassan personally drove Chalabi to the Jordanian border, helping him escape. (According to one account, Chalabi was in the trunk of the car.) Chalabi eventually was tried in absentia by a Jordanian court and sentenced to 22 years of hard labor for embezzlement, fraud and currency-trading irregularities. He reportedly got away with more than $70 million. The INC offers a different version. According to Zaab Sethna, an INC spokesman, King Hussein of Jordan executed a politically motivated coup against Chalabi in coordination with Iraq because Chalabi was "using the bank to fund [Iraqi] opposition groups and learning a lot about illegal arms transfers to Saddam." Because the Petra Bank had inside information about Jordanian-Iraqi trade, Chalabi used his position in a freelance, cloak-and-dagger operation to feed intelligence about Iraq's trade deals to the CIA. Because Chalabi was already active in anti-Iraq opposition groups and had a connection with Perle, it's possible that Chalabi's account is true. Further evidence of political motives behind the seizure of the Petra Bank and Chalabi's intelligence connections: The American lawyer who represented the Petra Bank's Washington, D.C., subsidiary was former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. And when Chalabi fled the country, anonymous leaflets reportedly circulated linking Chalabi to an alliance with Iraq's Shi'a and with (mostly Shi'a) Iran, all in a vague conspiracy against Iraq and Jordan. (During the Iran-Iraq war and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Jordan -- always delicately balanced between "Iraq and a hard place," as King Hussein was wont to say -- tilted toward Iraq. Afterward, King Hussein distanced himself from Baghdad and eventually reconciled with Chalabi. The jail sentence for bank fraud stands but reportedly might be lifted soon by Jordan's King Abdullah.) Of course, the fact that Chalabi may have been prosecuted for political reasons does not mean that he is innocent of embezzlement and fraud. In any case, allegations of self-dealing have followed him everywhere since. Puppet Theater
Soon after fleeing Jordan, Chalabi began making the contacts with the CIA that would eventually lead to the INC's founding in 1992. Meeting first in Vienna, Austria, and then in Salahuddin in northern Iraq, the INC emerged as an umbrella group for the many factions of Iraqi opposition in exile. In the early 1990s, the CIA spent about $100 million through the INC and its Kurdish allies in the north -- until the fiasco of 1996. Though the CIA cut off the INC after that, Chalabi was undeterred and went about working with congressional Republicans to pass the Iraq Liberation Act. That law set up a pool of funds and in-kind contributions for the INC and other opposition forces. In its implementation, however, the INC has been embroiled in repeated disputes with the State Department over its accounting for funds received. (In 1999, when asked about secrecy in accounting for certain INC expenditures, Chalabi blurted: "Damn right! It was covert money.") "He's a criminal banker," says Akins, the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia. "He's a swindler. He's interested in getting money, and I suspect it's all gone into his bank accounts and those of his friends." Earlier this year, the State Department and the INC were deadlocked over payments to the INC, and the dispute was resolved only when the Pentagon, with its pro-Chalabi group, agreed to take over payments to the INC for the latter's intelligence-gathering work inside Iraq. Even after 1996, Chalabi continued to insist that Saddam Hussein's government would crumble if the INC, with only limited American backing, were to launch its planned offensive. In June 1997, Chalabi spoke to JINSA's board, which includes, not surprisingly, Perle, Woolsey and key hard-line backers of Israel such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Max Kampelman, Eugene Rostow and former Rep. Steve Solarz (D-N.Y.). "The INC plan for Saddam's overthrow is simple," Chalabi told JINSA. From its base in northern Iraq, the INC would begin to confront Iraqi forces with only political and logistical support from the United States, including U.S. efforts to "feed, house and otherwise provide for the Iraqi army as it abandons Saddam." Then, Chalabi concluded, "With U.S. political backing and regional support for a process of gradual encirclement, Saddam can be driven into hiding in Takrit and eventually removed." That's it. The idea that ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein is as easy as that was, of course, ridiculed by virtually all CIA, military and State Department strategists. But without the ability to commit hundreds of thousands of American troops and a relentless wave of bombing sorties, it was all that Chalabi and his allies had -- until September 11. Effectively capitalizing on the impact of 9-11, Perle, Woolsey and company began beating the drums for a full-scale war against Iraq. With President Bush in tow and railing against "the guy who tried to kill my dad," the war party got the upper hand. According to the latest leaks about U.S. strategy, a war against Iraq now could involve up to 250,000 U.S. troops and would result in an open-ended military occupation of Iraq modeled on the post-World War II occupations of Germany and Japan. The INC, meanwhile, hopes to ride into Baghdad on American tanks. Weeks ago the Pentagon began a program to train INC combatants for a coming conflict in Iraq, but its effort fooled no one. Ousting Saddam Hussein, if it happens, will be the work of U.S. troops, not the INC. But a Big Brother-style public-relations offensive is being readied, aimed at creating the myth that Iraq has been liberated by an alliance of the United States and the INC. "I want to create the national story that Iraqis liberated themselves," says WINEP's Clawson. "It may have no more truth than the idea that the French liberated themselves in World War II." But, insists Clawson, it's a fiction that will resonate with Iraqis. Almost no one, not even the INC itself, thinks that Chalabi has any cachet inside Iraq. Entifadh Qanbar, the earnest, young ex-Iraqi officer who heads the INC's office in Washington, says that Chalabi represents Iraq's "silent majority." Asked whether people in Baghdad have even heard of Chalabi, Qanbar says: "They may not know the man. But he represents their views." Others scoff at even that notion. "It's a formula for setting up a puppet regime," says David Mack, vice president of the Middle East Institute, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and ex-deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs who's dealt extensively with Iraqi opposition politicians and military officers. "And we will have responsibility for propping them up for a long, long time to come, possibly with the blood of American soldiers." But indefinitely propping up an INC-style quisling regime might be exactly what the United States wants, as it would mean that U.S. troops would be occupying Iraq's oil fields for years to come. Striking Oil
It's hard to overstate the importance of Iraqi oil. With proven reserves of 112 billion barrels (and many analysts saying that its true reserves are double that), Iraq sits above the second largest supply of oil in the world. Its crippled industry can produce only 2 million barrels of oil a day at present, but with a modest effort, Iraq's output could soar to as high as 7 million to 8 million barrels per day by decade's end. Controlling that much oil would give the United States enormous leverage over Europe and Japan, which depend heavily on Gulf oil; over Russia, whose economy is hinged to the price of its oil exports, which could be manipulated by an American-run Iraq; and over Saudi Arabia, whose regime's survival is linked to oil. "The American oil companies are going to be the main beneficiaries of this war," says Akins. "We take over Iraq, install our regime, produce oil at the maximum rate and tell Saudi Arabia to go to hell." "It's probably going to spell the end of OPEC," says JINSA's Bryen. The INC is quietly courting the American oil companies. In mid-October, Chalabi had a series of meetings with three major U.S. oil firms in Washington. "The oil people are naturally nervous," says INC spokesman Zaab Sethna, who took part in the meetings between Chalabi and the oil executives. "We've had discussions with them, but they're not in the habit of going around talking about them." That's true. In interviews, oil company officials speak cautiously and only on background about Iraq, laughing nervously at the idea of being quoted. They are extremely wary of associating themselves with the INC or with U.S. war plans for fear of angering Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries in the Persian Gulf. Asked about talks with the INC, one U.S. oil executive blanched, saying, "I can't discuss that, even on background." But the untold riches that lie beneath the soil of Iraq are a powerful lure for multinational oil companies. "I would say that especially the U.S. oil companies ... look forward to the idea that Iraq will be open for business," says an executive from one of the world's largest oil companies, adding that the companies are trying hard not to be noticed. "We don't have a stake in Iraq now," says another oil industry executive. "One of the frustrations that U.S. oil companies have is that the Russians, the French and the Chinese already have existing relations with Iraq. And the question is: How much of that will be sanctified by the people who succeed Saddam?" The INC and its backers make no bones about the fact that the American forces gathering to attack Iraq will be liberating Iraq's oil. Unable to restrain himself, Chalabi blurted to The Washington Post that the INC intends to reward its American friends. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," he proclaimed. Meanwhile, economists allied with the INC -- including strategists at the Heritage Foundation, the AEI and JINSA -- are abuzz with plans to "denationalize" the Iraqi oil industry and then distribute it to Western, mostly American, companies. In late September, in "The Future of a Post-Saddam Iraq: A Blueprint for American Involvement," the Heritage Foundation's Ariel Cohen put forward a nearly complete scheme for the privatization of Iraq's oil, creating three separate companies for southern Iraq, the region around Baghdad and the Kirkuk fields in northern Iraq, with additional companies to operate pipelines and refineries and to develop Iraq's natural gas. In an interview, Cohen warned that France, Russia and China might find that their existing oil contracts with Iraq won't be honored by the INC. "It will be up to the next government of Iraq to examine the legal validity of the deals signed by the Saddam regime," says Cohen. "From a realpolitik point of view, these governments should try to get in early with the Iraqi National Congress and abandon Saddam. The window of opportunity is closing." It's hard to imagine that a regime that denationalized Iraq's oil would be very popular with Iraqis. The nationalization, which took place between 1972 and 1974, electrified Iraqis and stunned the industry worldwide. It also set dominoes falling throughout the Persian Gulf and the OPEC nations, as other countries ousted the multinationals and created state-owned enterprises. Eventually, even Saudi Arabia seized control of all-powerful Aramco, the consortium of Exxon, Mobil, Texaco and Chevron that had long been the colossus of the Persian Gulf. Now, cautiously, the oil industry sees a war in Iraq as a way to win back what's been lost. "Even in Saudi Arabia, all we can do is buy their oil," says an American oil company official. U.S. companies, this executive confirmed, want to return to greater direct control, perhaps through so-called production-sharing agreements that would give them both a direct stake in the oil fields and a greater share of the profits. It's also clear that the INC, the neoconservatives and oil executives are thinking beyond Iraq to Saudi Arabia. Ever since Robert W. Tucker wrote an article in Commentary in the 1970s proposing a U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia's oil fields, such a scenario has been a cherished vision for a small but growing circle of strategists. (Last summer Perle invited a RAND Corporation analyst to speak to the Defense Policy Board on exactly that topic.) Earlier this year, in an article titled "Free the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia," Singer suggested that the United States should help create a Muslim Republic of East Arabia. "I meant it seriously," says Singer. "Saudi Arabia is vulnerable not only to a U.S. seizure of their land but to U.S. unofficial participation in a rebellion by minority Shi'a in the Eastern Province." The Eastern Province, which is largely Shi'a, happens to include the vast bulk of Saudi Arabia's oil fields. One other problem is that the INC does not represent the entire Iraqi opposition movement. The two main Kurdish parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, though long-time bloody rivals, have momentarily patched things up. They've allied, in turn, with the Iraqi National Accord, a CIA-backed group of former Iraqi military officers, and with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq to form the Group of Four, an alternative to the INC that, they hope, will attract further American support. There is even a monarchist group trying to restore T.E. Lawrence's Hashemite kingdom in Baghdad that, some say, could promote a kingship in Iraq for Prince Hassan of Jordan, a Hashemite himself. Do these strategic realities, and the wide ridicule of Chalabi among Middle East experts, matter? "I don't think their point of view is relevant to the debate any longer," says Danielle Pletka, vice president of the American Enterprise Institute. "Sor-ry!" Thanks to the "entire vast army [of neoconservatives]" who've successfully won over Bush and Cheney, she observes, the INC has something that the other groups lack: the support of the president of the United States.


Robert Dreyfuss
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alpha
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 19777

PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 10:24 am    Post subject: U.S. is acting as Israel's proxy by invading Iraq Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

Subj: U.S. is acting as Israel's proxy by invading Iraq...by Ronald Bleier
Date: 11/22/03 11:09:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: RePorterNoteBook



April 2003
Invading Iraq: Converging u.s. and Israeli Agendas
by Ronald Bleier
http://desip.igc.org/ConvergingAgendas.html

For a brief moment in early March the media was alive with the question of whether the U.S. is acting as Israel's proxy by invading Iraq. On network TV, Tim Russert asked Richard Perle, a high profile advocate of removing Saddam Hussein, whether the proposed war would be serving U.S. interests, and specifically about the link to Israel. Similar issues were raised in a New York Times Op-ed by Bill Keller ("Is it Good for the Jews," March 8, 2003) and in a Times news article on the subject ("Divide Among Jews Leads to Silence on Iraq War," 3.15.03). Patrick Buchanan in The American Conservative ("Whose War?" March 24, 2003) and Stephen J. Sniegoski in Current Concern ("The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel," February 2003) published long articles arguing that this is a war on Israel's behalf. Slate's Michael Kinsley wrote a tongue in cheek article on the subject (J'Accuse, Sort Of, 3.12.03).

Activist Ali Abunimah lists three ways in which Israel could hope to gain by the Iraq war. First, it would eliminate Iraq as a potential rival. Second, by increasing "the already deep alienation between Arab and American societies, such a war [would be] good for Israel." Third, the U.S. war against Iraq might give the government of Ariel Sharon cover to crack down even harder on the Palestinians, and perhaps even implement mass expulsions of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. ("Yearning for World War IV: The Israeli-Iraq connection," October 3, 2000, The Electronic Intifada.)

Key people in Bush administration are on record as strong supporters of Israel and of regime change in Iraq, among them: Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Doug Feith, Under Secretary, Arms Control and International Security, John R. Bolton, senior director on Middle Eastern affairs on the National Security Council, Eliot Abrams.

These administration figures and others are promoters of Israel's right wing Likud party in Israel and Israel's superhawkish prime minister, Ariel Sharon. They advocate rolling back the territorial concessions Israel made under the now defunct Oslo accords (1993). Secretary Rumsfeld publicly referred to the "so called occupied territories" in August 2002 and implied that since Israel won them when it urged neighboring countries not to get involved in war, it has no obligation to return those territories.

The events of 9/11 provided administration hawks with the "Pearl Harbor" that allowed them to implement their long standing demand for regime change in Iraq. These plans go back to the neoconservatives who began promoting the removal of Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. Many of the neoconservatives were liberals who drifted to the right when the Democratic Party moved to anti-war McGovernite left. And concern for Israel loomed large in their change. As political scientist, Benjamin Ginsberg puts it: 'One major factor that drew them inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel and their growing frustration during the 1960s with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed to American military preparedness and increasingly enamored of Third World causes [e.g., Palestinian rights]. In the Reaganite right's hard-line anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of other nations ...neocons found a political movement that would guarantee Israel's security. (Stephen J. Sniegoski, op.cit.; For a similar analysis see Buchanan, op.cit.)

Thus support for Israel is at the root of the neoconservative movement which has risen to the top policy making echelon of the U.S. government. As far back as the end of the first Gulf War, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney urged the adoption of a military plan to invade Iraq but were blocked by Colin Powell (at that time, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and General Norman Schwartzkopf. In February 1998 Wolfowitz and a host of neocons signed an open letter to President Clinton which proposed bringing down Saddam Hussein. (Sniegoski, op cit.)

On the one hand it would seem to go against all logic that a tiny country like Israel, albeit with the with the world's 7th, most powerful army and armed with nuclear weapons and delivery systems, could shape U.S. foreign policy. Nevertheless it shouldn't be so surprising that this is the present case. We recall that the tiny Cuban lobby exercises powerful influence over Cuban policy even though they are at odds with the otherwise influential farm lobby. Similarly when it comes to Middle East issues, the extraordinary power of the Zionist lobby has been a fact of life for many years. On the other hand, the U.S. would not venture on such a war if its leadership didn't see clear political and strategic gains for itself.

The Israeli connection to the Iraq war was highlighted by the furor over Virginia Congressman Jim Moran's response in early March to a constituent question during a town hall meeting. He said: that "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should."

He would have been on safer ground had he limited his remarks to the leaders of the Jewish community. Jews, like all other groups, are split on the war. One poll taken shortly before the beginning of the war indicated that 59% of Jews supported the war, matching the rest of the country. But the congressman was correct and extraordinarily courageous in pointing to the leadership of the major Jewish organizations and suggesting that they could have blocked this war. As a 13-year veteran member of the House, Jim Moran has been around long enough to understand how political power on Middle East issues operates in Congress. War against Iraq has so isolated the United States and makes so little sense that were it not perceived as good for Israel it would have had a more difficult time arousing sufficient support. Much of the mainstream media which is also largely controlled by pro-Zionist Jews played an important role in allowing this extremist agenda to go forward without significant question or debate.

(See appendix listing below for Jewish leadership of much of the mainstream media,)

When Congressman Moran says that the leadership of the Jewish community is influential enough to change the direction of where this is going, he is stating a simple truth about the power of the Zionist lobby which helps to explain the silence and timidity of the Democrats. The power of Zionist interests explains in part why many high profile Democrats such as Senators John Kerry, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer and others voted to give President Bush the authority for war in October 2002 despite the manifest recklessness of the venture. They understand that opposition to perceived Israeli interests might well have a dramatic impact on campaign contributions since Jewish sources reportedly donate 50% or more of the total receipts to the Democratic party. (See Mother Jones 400;

http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclusives/special_reports/mojo_400/)

Support by the leadership of the Jewish community for war against Iraq represents a culmination of 50 years of U.S. support for Israel's expansionist and oppressive rule. The passionate attachment to Israel, the dual loyalty felt by many Americans -whereby Israel's interests are put on the same or higher level than U.S. interests -- has come back to haunt the United States through the agency of a President willing to adopt the most extravagant dreams of right wing Israelis and pro-Israeli hawks. The result is that the full might of the world's only super power has been dragged into Israel's service despite the costs, and the dangers and the folly of such a policy. Attachment to Israel has come back to haunt America by enabling a decisive shift in U..S. policy away from helping to preserve the peace and security of the world and turning the U.S. into an aggressor nation, just as Israel has been and continues to be.

A measure of the influence of right-wing pro Israeli hawks in this administration is the way they have allowed Ariel Sharon free reign to apply extraordinary and unending pressure on the Palestinians and to destroy the possibility for Palestinian civil society.

The Bush administration signaled their intention to leave the Palestinians to the tender mercies of the Israeli government as soon as they took office when they announced that they would allow the contending parties to settle their own differences. This ignored the disparity of power between the two sides and predictably the situation has deteriorated to its current awful level, ever spiraling downward with widening ripples into a hopeless future.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was recognized that the Israeli Palestinian conflict was at the heart of the Al-Qaeda attack and there was a fair amount of attention to the subject even in the United States. However, as time passed, the issue returned to its familiar marginalization, banished from the major media. But it is already clear that the war against Iraq will only exacerbate matters as Sharon continues to put more and more pressure on the Palestinians. As a result, the Muslim and Arab world are likely to be further inflamed, even more now as a longer than expected war is bound to inflict terrible suffering on many Iraqis. All the talk of a road map towards a Palestinian state is widely regarded as mere public relations from a Bush administration dead set against any concessions to the Palestinians.

Permanent War: A Separate U.S. Agenda
In addition to serving Israel, there is a separate and converging U.S. interest in waging war against Iraq: namely the Bush administration's pursuit of an agenda of permanent war. Their policy of pre-emption represents a radical break with the past. The new National Security Strategy issued in September 2002, with its breathtaking justification of pre-emptive military action represents a revolutionary break with fifty years of American policy and raises questions about the government's commitment to U.S. security. It's true that the U.S. has engaged in pre-emptive military action in the past, but pre-emption has never before been invoked as an ongoing policy, nor has it ever been used so audaciously in the face of such widespread opposition. As many have noted, the war against Iraq seems destined to spur rather than deter terrorism and perhaps provoke another 9/11-style attack on the American homeland. For this and other reasons it suggests that the security of the American people is not a priority for this government. Their apparent lack of interest in national security might explain President Bush's veto of $39 million for Port Container Security and cuts of more than $1 billion out of existing grants for local police/fire departments according to Democratic party sources.

See: http://www.house.government.appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

How is it possible that the U.S. government could be disinterested, even antagonistic to the security of its people? The answer is that Americans already live in an Orwellian world where the leadership understands that another 9/11-style attack might very well advance their right wing domestic program and their international agenda of permanent war. In the climate of fear and revenge that such another attack would engender, the successor to the Patriot Act, already leaked to the press, would head up a list of Bush administration priorities that would almost certainly face little or no domestic opposition.

As noted above, the core of the neoconservative philosophy is the commitment to American military strength and the desire to use force as the chief option. Under President George W. Bush's leadership the U.S. has worked to free itself from the restraints of multilateralism and seeks war after war. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman put it, the war against Iraq is merely "a pilot project," ("Things to Come," 3.18.03). If circumstances allow, they will seek to wage war against North Korea and Iran - the other wings of the axis of evil), and afterwards to pursue regime change in some or all of Israel's other enemies, including Syria, Lebanon, and Libya. During the second week of the war, Secretary Rumsfeld complained publicly about Syrian shipments of military equipment including night goggles to Iraq, hinting that an attack on Syria might be a natural outgrowth the Iraq war. The White House did not gainsay his remarks.

In the view of those currently running the U.S. government, the unrivaled military power of the U.S. can operate to best advantage in an atmosphere of anarchy and conflict. U.S. policy in the George W. Bush era, is similar to the unprovoked aggression that the world observed in the days of Hilter, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and other leaders who stepped onto the world stage with unrivalled military force. Characteristic of the Bush team's brutal cynicism is their comparison of Saddam Hussein to Hitler when they are the ones who most resemble Hitler in their power, their ruthless determination for war at all costs and their threat to world peace and security.

The U.S. government is interested in war in part as a way of testing and employing their high tech military weaponry, including nuclear weapons. Since as far back as the Reagan administration they attempted to move nuclear weapons away from the sphere of deterrence to actual battlefield use. In the current administration, they have already moved to break down the administrative barriers to the use of nuclear weapons and to ease the way for their practical implementation. They have announced that if circumstances warrant they intend to use nuclear weapons even against countries that don't possess them. (See "The Nuclear Option in Iraq: The U.S. has lowered the bar for using the ultimate weapon," William M. Arkin, Los Angeles Times, 1.26.03 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-op-arkin26jan26.story)

The implications of the Bush agenda for permanent war go beyond rearranging the Middle East to Israel's liking. The logical conclusion to their policy is eventually to make war against Russia and China whom they regard as potential rivals. In effect, they want to make war against the whole world. They want to fight World War V after they have won WW3, the war against terrorism, and WW4 the war against militant Islam. It remains to be seen how far the world will allow them to pursue their goals. Noam Chomsky has suggested that their desire to crush any perceived challenges to U.S. power "poses serious dangers" and could even lead to "extinction of the species."

("Deep Concerns, March 20, 2003, distributed over the internet by Znet.) Extinction of the human species may actually be slightly ambitious even for these superhawks, but Chomsky's concern is a serious one. The threats of global warming, resource scarcity and the political tensions they generate are indicators of extraordinary pressures on our modern technological civilization and the Bush regime's prescription for global war can only hasten a day of reckoning.

Clearly the neoconservative war plans are rife with contradictions and ultimately suicidal, not to say reckless and irresponsible. But the important thing to note is that any policy has winners and losers and our task is to look at some of the consequences of a permanent war agenda. First of all, it is a highly promising avenue to re-election and permanent power. Just as the buildup to the Iraq war dominated the 2002 elections, so the Iraq war continues to obscure many other pressing domestic and economic issues that might otherwise be prominent. War divides the opposition and puts it on the defensive. Moreover when the country is at war, it greases the wheels of the right wing domestic agenda. A bloated military budget has already been passed with much more for the military on the way. We have already seen a curtailment of social spending, huge tax cuts for the wealthy, derailment of environmental controls, and an attack on civil liberties. If the war party manages to enact permanent war, it could result in permanent rule, an end to democracy, an end to the republic.

War for oil or war for imperialism? Not really
While Iraq's immense oil reserves are very important and already one of the contracts to rebuild the Iraqi oil infrastructure has gone to a Halliburton subsidiary and undoubtedly more such contracts will flow to American firms, nevertheless it's a misunderstanding to think that this is a "war for oil." The numbers tell a good part of the story. Although its oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's, Iraq represents merely 3% of the world's pumping capacity. It would take ten years and an estimated $40 billion to bring Iraqi output to 6 million barrels a day (double its pre 1991 pumping level). Over the ten year post-war period, total revenue from Iraqi oil exports have been estimated at $300 billion, short of the estimated $350 billion that the war plus five years of peacekeeping is expected to cost the United States. The costs of rebuilding Iraq over the next ten years are estimated at $400 billion. In the current atmosphere it's more than likely that the bulk of Iraq's oil revenue will go towards rebuilding Iraq, rather than reimbursing the U.S. treasury for the costs of the war. (Donald F. Hepburn, "Is It a War for Oil," Middle East Policy, Vol X, No. 1 Spring 2003; see also "Iraq oil, the reality," Dilip Hiro, Middle East International, 10 January 2003)

Similarly the argument that this is a war for oil misses the point that such a war, however immoral would at least have a rational basis in attempting to secure important resources. Yet, before embarking on war, the U.S. was getting all the oil it wanted from Iraq and war has only curtailed these supplies, and could conceivably threaten other oil suppliers. The best way to secure Middle East oil would have been to seriously grapple with the Israeli Palestinian conflict and avoid war with Iraq at all costs. Paul Wolfowitz, chief architect of this war has been quoted as saying: "If we're not true to our principles, we're not serving our national interest." He believes that war on Iraq will engender more democracy in the Middle East and "the tendency toward successful representative self-government works for the benefit of the United States." ("First Stop Iraq," Time Magazine, 3.31.03) It's difficult to see how the reputedly brilliant Wolfowitz can actually believe this rubbish since everybody knows that a democratic Middle East would work against Israel's interests. Perhaps such talk is the way policy makers convince themselves of the justice of their cause. But in any event it should be clear that the Bush war policy is not a rational solution to the problem of scarce and valuable resources and has little to do with real world problem solving. Rather it is an ideological and messianic vision of pursuing a permanent war agenda by way of destroying Israel's enemies.

Similarly, the charge that this is a war to further U.S. imperialist aims misses the point that the U.S. already dominates the world, politically, militarily and economically. It is already a hyper-imperialist power.

The historical record shows that in the real world, hegemony never has been a winning grand strategy. The reason is simple: The primary aim of states in international politics is to survive and maintain their sovereignty. And when one state becomes too powerful - becomes a hegemon - the imbalance of power in its favor is a menace to the security of all other states. So throughout modern international political history, the rise of a would-be hegemon always has triggered the formation of counter-hegemonic alliances by other states. (Sniegoski, op cit.)

As an imperialist power there is little more that the United States could wish for aside from redrawing the Middle East map in order to eliminate Israel's enemies. But Israel has enemies because it dominates and represses Arab peoples in order to consolidate a Jewish state in the former Palestine. It's possible that the enormous military power of U.S. can help to enforce the most grandiose Israeli expansion plans, but this is an uncertain prospect for the long term. By opting for unprovoked aggression against Israel's enemies, the U.S. is embarking on a project beyond imperialism, and moving toward world war and Armageddon.
The End
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix
JEWS IN THE MEDIA 4.3.3
Compiled by Jeffrey Blankfort
MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant" (Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp., owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his "mentor."
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel media."
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times network of "alternative weeklies."
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer and Bill O'Reilly.
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL- TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief….NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20
.
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son
of
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director Project for
a New American Century
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has Israeli flag on his home page.
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REZNIK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications, includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group, includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement; American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chinese Axiom:
When things are investigated, knowledge is extended.

When knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere.

When the will is sincere, the mind is correct.

When the mind is correct, the self is cultivated.

--Confucius

"An anti-Semite condemns people because they are Jews" --ICHEE.org
I am not an anti-Semite
---Michael Santomauro

"An anti-Semite is someone that the Jews hate."
---Joe Sobran

Another way of putting it:
An anti-Semite used to be someone who does not like Jews; now it is
someone who the Jews do not like.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace is patriotic!
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
253 West 72nd street #1711
New York, NY 10023
http://www.RePortersNoteBook.com
Available for Talk-Radio interviews 24hours 212-787-7891
http://reportersnotebook.com/newforum/indexforum.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The QUESTION:
To subscribe and grow with knowledge or
to unsubscribe and Die Stupid? Send an E-mail to:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alpha
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 19777

PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:59 pm    Post subject: War in Iraq Conceived in Israel Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm

The war on Iraq:
Conceived in Israel

By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alpha
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 19777

PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 4:24 pm    Post subject: Iraq Instability the Intended Result Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

Subj: Iraq Instability the Intended Result
Date: 11/24/03 4:28:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:
To:
Sent from the Internet (Details)




Friends,

Iraq Instability the Intended Result

This piece by Michael Doliner provides more reasons as to why the existing chaotic situation in Iraq, with its concomitant huge financial burden for the United States, was the expected outcome in Iraq, as opposed to the neocon optimistic predictions of an easy occupation and a reconstruction of Iraq that could be paid for by Iraq's oil wealth. As Doliner writes: "The plan, from the start, was unworkable, and one must either assume those in charge are completely incompetent, admittedly a plausible assumption, or that the present outcome is not that far from what they expected. I do not mean that they expected the resistance to be so stiff (though they should have) or that their pretext for the war would be so transparently exposed as lies, but simply that they never intended to restore Iraq to anything like a functioning state."

Doliner focuses on Iraq's enormous debt—the highest in the world in ratio to national income. Iraq would have to greatly increase its oil production for its national income to even exceed the interest accruing on its debt.. "To increase oil export to the roughly 2.4 million barrels a day prewar figure will require at minimum $10-15 billion investment in infrastructure according to most estimates. No oil company will invest this money in the political morass that is now Iraq. Without this investment Iraq will have a GDP of far less than even the interest accruing on the loan. Right after the war many advocated debt forgiveness for Iraq, but creditors resisted."

The author maintains that the debt cannot simply be written off because it would provide the basis for other debtor nations to demand similar treatment. "Iraq could only emerge from its present catastrophe if it renounced all its former obligations and started afresh. Such a course could never be undertaken while the United States is in control. For the United States to countenance renunciation of Iraqi debt would be to countenance the renunciation of other debt including the debt Russia assumed as a successor state to the Soviet Union and the debt previously incurred by corrupt dictators and now burdening Latin American countries such as Argentina and Chile. Much of this debt is owed to American institutions."

Then the author goes on to imply that the easily foreseen dire conditions now prevailing in Iraq might have been the intended consequence of the war. "So as long as the United States stays in Iraq, it will remain a zone of chaos, a zone that is likely to spread into neighboring states. That this would happen was not hard to predict, but could this result have been the intention of the Bush administration? Again, it was not difficult to determine Iraq's debt and the probable costs of reconstruction. Nor was it hard to anticipate the political chaos that followed the invasion. Either the Bush Administration had no member capable of adding or thinking politically, or it was aware from the start that reconstruction was not in the cards. Incompetence or calculation?"

Doliner seems to lean to the view that the existing chaos and devastation was the intended result. "Iraq's wealth, its oil, would be even more valuable without its population. Indeed, without that population oil companies would have a far easier time exploiting it. To extract oil, undermine OPEC, and aid Israel in its battle with the Arab states surrounding her might have been rational motives, but only if the plan were to devastate Iraq so that it could offer no further resistance." The author summarizes: "To destroy the political structure of a country, leaving the population helpless against expropriation is a rational, Machiavellian, if monstrous, political intention."

I think that the author of this article almost has it correct, although the purpose of the unsettled conditions in Iraq would be to benefit Israel, (as the Likudniks envision Israeli security), not to facilitate the acquisition of oil. Oil could be better obtained by stability. And representatives of the oil interests actually opposed the war and had actually sought the lifting of sanctions so as to allow American companies to become involved in Iraqi oil Moreover, there is some evidence that Saddam, through back channels, offered American companies lucrative oil deals in order to state off the US invasion. [David Rennie, "Saddam 'offered Bush a huge oil deal to avert war,'" Telegraph, November 7, 2003, Lebanon Wire, http://www.lebanonwire.com/0311/03110702TGR.asp ; Gary Leupp, "’They Were All Non-Starters’: The Thwarted Iraqi Peace Proposals," CounterPunch, November 10, 2003, http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp11102003.html ]

But certainly, expert opinion predicted dire consequences for an American occupation. For example, a year-long pre-war State Department study foresaw chaotic conditions in Iraq that would exist during the period of US occupation. [Eric Schmitt and Joel Brinkley, "State Dept. Study Foresaw Trouble Now Plaguing Iraq," New York Times, October 19, 2003, http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/102003D.shtml] The CIA also warned the Bush administration of extensive post-war resistance that would make reconstruction extremely difficult. [Bryan Bender, "CIA Warned Bush of Iraq War Guerrilla Peril, Boston Globe, August 9, 2003, http://globalsecurity.com/iraq/cia_warned.htm]

More significantly, and despite administration rhetoric to the contrary, an exhaustive pre-war report conducted in the fall of 2002 by the US Defense Department's Energy Infrastructure Planning Group contended that an oil bonanza should not be expected because of the dilapidated condition of the Iraqi oil infrastructure. It held that Iraq's oil infrastructure would require years of work and billions of dollars in investment before it would provide plentiful oil. [Rupert Cornwell, "Pentagon officials ignored reports on dire state of Iraq's oil industry," Independent, October 6, 2003, http://www.rense.com/general42/oosl.htm ; Jeff Gerth, "Report Offered Bleak Outlook About Iraq Oil," New York Times, October 5, 2003, http://middleeastinfo.org/article3460.html ]

Furthermore, military experts such as Maj. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who headed the US Central Command from 1997 to 2000 and was later George W. Bush's special envoy to the Israeli/Palestinian negotiations, also predicted difficult conditions for American occupation forces from Iraqi opposition. [Eric Alterman, "Why Chickenhawks Matter," http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031201&s=alterman ]

The fact of the matter is that outside of the neoconservatives, expert opinion was largely either opposed to or, at best, lukewarm to the invasion of Iraq. Among those foreign policy experts questioning the invasion were Larry Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Now, these individuals had held leading national security positions in previous administrations, including that of George Bush the Elder.

The crux of the matter is that neoconservative rosy views of the occupation completely went against the views of experts and government studies of the subject. The question is why the neocons held such wrongheaded views. Were they simply incompetent, naïve babes in the woods as some critics seem to think?

There are some obvious reasons to reject the "neocons as incompetents" theory beginning with the obvious fact that neocons are intelligent, successful individuals. To say that they were incompetent is to take at face value their pro-war propaganda., which should be looked upon as simply good propaganda to advance their Middle East war agenda. Remember that their mentor Leo Strauss stressed the need to deceive the masses in order to advance a hidden agenda, though I don't think Strauss’ teaching was necessary to convey this obvious lesson.

More importantly, the destabilization of the Middle East was a long-held Likudnik position, which the neoconservatives openly embraced. I brought this out in my essay "The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel," [http://www.thornwalker.com:16080/ditch/conc_toc.htm] "War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel," [http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/20030102.php]

An increasing number of commentators now identify the neocons as the driving force for the Iraq war, but few have looked into this Israeli Likudnik background. That some American Jews might try to use the US government to advance the interests of Israel is a taboo issue. (Presumably, we are really supposed to believe that AIPAC is working for US interests by its efforts to advance Israel.)

A long-standing Likudnik view has been that a destabilized, fragmented Middle East would enhance Israel security. This destabilization and fragmentation policy was put forth in a 1982 policy paper entitled, "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," authored by Oded Yinon. Yinon proposed that Israel would engage in military action to bring about the dissolution of its Middle East enemies. The late critical commentator on Israel affairs Israel Shahak described this proposal in his "The Zionist Plan for the Middle East." . In summarizing this strategy, Shahak observed that Yinon's essay "represents … the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states." Shahak continued: "To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel's satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation." [http://www.theunjustmedia.com/the%20zionist_plan_for_the_middle_east.htm]

The neoconservatives copied this Likud strategy. Richard Perle, David Wurmser, and Douglas Feith, openly pushed this destabilization strategy in their 1996 study, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which was originally prepared as a working paper for then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. In this work, the elimination of Saddam's regime would serve as a first step towards eliminating the anti-Israeli governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. [The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000," "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm ]

The report was a framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy, one of which by David Wurmer, entitled "Coping with Crumbling States:A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant," emphasized the fragility of Syria and Iraq, and how Israel should take advantage of that situation. The report read: "Syria's and Iraq's regimes are based on Baathism, a variant of Nasser's brand of secular-Arab nationalism. Baathism has failed. . . . Underneath facades of unity enforced by state repression, their politics are still defined primarily by tribalism, sectarianism, and gang/clan-like competition. It is unlikely that any institutions created by tyrannical secular-Arab nationalist leaders, particularly the army, will escape being torn apart." [http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat2.htm ]

Notably, there was no mention of democracy in these proposals; they were oriented toward strictly Realpolitik. The goal was not to create stable, productive Middle East states, but instead dissolved, fragmented entities that would not be any threat to Israel. It might be added that stable, economically productive, democratic neighbors would be anathema to Likudniks. Democratic states would be almost guaranteed to be anti-Israel, since Arab/Islamic opinion is anti-Zionist. Stable, economically productive Middle Eastern states (controlling a large portion of the world's oil reserves), who would work together rather than fight each other, would be able to put immense pressure on Israel regarding the Palestinian issue.

It is quite apparent that the war on Iraq has achieved positive results from the neocon/Likudnik perspective--the weakening of Israel's Middle East enemies, the US planted more firmly in the Middle East in opposition to Israel's enemies, the worsening of the Palestinian position, a firmer alliance between Israel and the US, the Middle Eastern states faced with destabilizing terror attacks, and international pressure being placed on Iran to eliminate its nuclear program. Even the fact that the Arabs/Muslims are fighting the US is a positive achievement from the Likudnik position. In short, not only is Israel not alone as an enemy of the Arabs/Muslims, it would actually seem that the US has replaced Israel as the foremost enemy--a very good achievement from the position of Israeli national security. None of this is to deny that the neocons would prefer to have even greater achievements: regime change throughout the entire Middle East with pro-Israel puppet regimes installed by the US. But such a development was unlikely and cannot be attained at this moment because of political realities. But again it should be emphasized that from the neocon/Likudnik perspective the power situation in the Middle East has much improved since 9/11/2001.

Does this mean that the neocons were simply agents of Likudnik Israel, hijacking American foreign policy for the interest of another country? As I have written before, it would simply seem that neoconservatives view American foreign policy through the lens of Israeli interest (as Likudniks perceive Israeli interest). Quite likely they view American and Israeli interests to be identical. The idea that some Americans might be motivated by an attachment to a foreign country and that they could be influential in determining American foreign policy is not such an outlandish, unheard-of idea. Historians and other commentators have frequently stated that German-Americans, Cuban-Americans, Polish-Americans, and other ethnic groups have been influenced in their foreign policy views by their attachment to a foreign country. Historians have stated that Woodrow Wilson's support for England in World War I was, in part, due to a pro-English bias. If Israel and Jews were not involved, there would be nothing extraordinary about this thesis. .



____________________________________

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/doliner2.html

The Motive for the Invasion

by Michael Doliner

November 22, 2002

"This follows also on another natural and common necessity, which always causes a new prince to burden those who have submitted to him with his soldiery and with infinite other hardships which he must put upon his new acquisition. In this way you have enemies in all those whom you have injured in seizing that principality, and you are not able to keep those friends who put you there because of your not being able to satisfy them in the way they expected, and you cannot take strong measures against them, feeling bound to them. For, although one may be very strong in armed forces, yet in entering a province one has always need of the goodwill of the natives.

"But in maintaining armed men there in place of colonies one spends much more, having to consume on the garrison all the income from the state, so that the acquisition turns into a loss, and many more are exasperated, because the whole state is injured; through the shifting of the garrison up and down all become acquainted with hardship, and all become hostile, and they are enemies who, whilst beaten on their own ground, are yet able to do hurt. For every reason, therefore, such guards are as useless as a colony is useful."

~Machievelli, The Prince

Those who prosecuted the war against Iraq should have known these passages. After all, The Prince should be on the basic reading list for anyone interested in government. The plan, from the start, was unworkable, and one must either assume those in charge are completely incompetent, admittedly a plausible assumption, or that the present outcome is not that far from what they expected. I do not mean that they expected the resistance to be so stiff (though they should have) or that their pretext for the war would be so transparently exposed as lies, but simply that they never intended to restore Iraq to anything like a functioning state. Hounding the bureaucracy to extinction and dismissing the army are precisely wrong moves for anyone wanting to stabilize the country, but rational for someone who wants to destroy it. They must have known, unless they are completely incompetent, that chaos would follow their actions.

If the hope was to rebuild Iraq it was folly also because of Iraq's economic situation. Reconstruction in Iraq under American occupation will never happen. Here is an account of Iraqi debt:

"Estimates of Iraq's indebtedness vary greatly, from 60 billion to several hundred billion dollars. The most comprehensive study of Iraqi debts, by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), calculates Iraq's total debt to be $127 billion, of which $47 billion is accrued interest (based on 2001 World Bank figures). Iraq owes a further $199 billion in Gulf War compensation and $57 billion in pending contracts signed between the Saddam Hussein regime and foreign companies and governments. Iraq's overall financial burden, according to the CSIS figures, is $383 billion.

"Based on these figures, Iraq's financial obligations are 14 times its estimated annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $27 billion – a staggering $16,000 per person. Measured by the debt-to-GDP ratio, Iraq's financial burden is over 25 times greater than Brazil's or Argentina's, making Iraq the developing world's most indebted nation."

The $27 billion GDP mentioned above is Iraq's income from oil sales before the invasion. Even with the optimistic figures presently given, Iraq now has only a third of that. To increase oil export to the roughly 2.4 million barrels a day prewar figure will require at minimum $10-15 billion investment in infrastructure according to most estimates. No oil company will invest this money in the political morass that is now Iraq. Without this investment Iraq will have a GDP of far less than even the interest accruing on the loan. Right after the war many advocated debt forgiveness for Iraq, but creditors resisted. Here is Bloomberg.com's take on the situation:

"United Nations, May 8 (Bloomberg) – The Bush administration's plan to rebuild Iraq, including a request that more than a dozen creditor countries forgive $127 billion of Iraqi debt, is getting little support from France, Germany and Russia, who opposed the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime last month.

"Negotiations – covering sovereign debt owed to such nations as Russia, Poland, Egypt and Germany as well as claims from Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait – may hinder Iraq's reconstruction, according to Robert Hormats, a managing director of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and a former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration.

"'This will be the biggest renegotiation of financial obligations in history and probably the most rancorous,' said Hormats, who also was an economic adviser in the administrations of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. 'The countries that are in control have very little of the debt, so they will pressure others to give, and those nations will demand concessions.'

"U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow asked for debt reduction in meetings of the Group of Seven industrialized nations last month in Washington. While some creditors are willing to discuss debt in global forums such as the Paris Club, they haven't publicly made specific counterproposals.

"Agreement to cut Iraq's debt is critical because a resumption of Iraq's oil sales at prewar levels of 2.4 million barrels a day won't be enough to finance a reconstruction that may cost as much as $100 billion, according to Hormats.

"'Not even close,' Hormats said in an interview."

That was on May 8. Nothing significant has happened since then except for further destruction of Iraq and the further impoverishment of the people so that virtually 100% are now dependent on international food programs for survival, programs that the UN, obviously, can no longer administer. The theoretical costs of reconstruction are rising daily. There is far more that could be said about this, but it is not necessary. Iraq could only emerge from its present catastrophe if it renounced all its former obligations and started afresh. Such a course could never be undertaken while the United States is in control. For the United States to countenance renunciation of Iraqi debt would be to countenance the renunciation of other debt including the debt Russia assumed as a successor state to the Soviet Union and the debt previously incurred by corrupt dictators and now burdening Latin American countries such as Argentina and Chile. Much of this debt is owed to American institutions.

So as long as the United States stays in Iraq, it will remain a zone of chaos, a zone that is likely to spread into neighboring states. That this would happen was not hard to predict, but could this result have been the intention of the Bush administration? Again, it was not difficult to determine Iraq's debt and the probable costs of reconstruction. Nor was it hard to anticipate the political chaos that followed the invasion. Either the Bush Administration had no member capable of adding or thinking politically, or it was aware from the start that reconstruction was not in the cards. Incompetence or calculation?

In the beginning of the sixteenth century when Machiavelli wrote The Prince, the population of a country was needed to extract the country's wealth. Iraq's wealth, its oil, would be even more valuable without its population. Indeed, without that population oil companies would have a far easier time exploiting it. To extract oil, undermine OPEC, and aid Israel in its battle with the Arab states surrounding her might have been rational motives, but only if the plan were to devastate Iraq so that it could offer no further resistance. If so they must be planning for a lot more devastation. After a few more months of resistance the American public might be prepared for such a move.

To destroy the political structure of a country, leaving the population helpless against expropriation is a rational, Machiavellian, if monstrous, political intention. Perhaps the Bush Administration did not expect their pretexts – WMDs, links to al-Qaeda, and whatever – to be so thoroughly exposed as false. No doubt they expected to find some kind of spinnable evidence of these things. But such exposure only influences their ability to gain American public support, and in spite of it, support still remains strong. At worst they might have to wait until after the election to complete the plan. (Battlefield nuclear weapons are now being prepared.) I admit, the idea that devastation was the goal from the start is a horrible one, but the idea that the Bush administration actually believed in Iraqi reconstruction can only be explained by attributing complete incompetence to them. Aside from these two possibilities I see no other.

Continued American presence in Iraq will serve no purpose unless complete devastation is the goal. Iraq cannot recover under American auspices. Machiavelli saw all this clearly. Too much injury has been done to the local population for them ever to accept American, or puppet, rule. Reconstruction requires enormous expense and renunciation of the debt or its forgiveness and hence cannot proceed under American (or puppet) government. There are simply no achievable American goals in Iraq except to turn it into a failed state and extract oil from its corpse. What pursuit of such a policy would mean for American relations with the rest of the world is not hard to imagine. But I do not find it hard to believe that this was the plan all along. Bush administration avowal of imperial ambitions makes it seem plausible.

Michael Doliner studied with Hannah Arendt at the University of Chicago 1964-1970. He has taught at Valparaiso University and Ithaca College, but is now a businessman in Ithaca.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    War Without End Forum Index -> Articles All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
 Miserable Failure | Poodle | Poodle