Earlier this year, Jacob Heilbrunn twice used the word “cabal” in his book They Knew They Were Right, to describe the neocons at the Pentagon and in the university (I charted his cabalism here). Last year Glenn Kessler, Washington Post diplomatic correspondent, used the word “cabal” to describe neocons at the Pentagon, in his book The Confidante:
On one early call, [assistant secretary of state Christopher] Hill had to listen to a cabal of core conservative criticize his proposals–[deputy national security adviser J.D.] Crouch, Pentagon under secretary Douglas Feith, State nonproliferation chief Robert Joseph, and vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
Now in this interview by Peter Voskamp in the Block Island Times, former R.I. Senator Lincoln Chafee describes greater-Israel neocons and Christian right as making up a “cabal” in foreign policy that envisioned a democratic domino theory in the Middle East:
Chafee said that Wolfowitz, arguably the war’s chief architect,
“painted a compelling scenario” where “dual victories” were possible —
defeating terror through liberating Iraq while simultaneously forging a
lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. However, according
to Chafee, there exists a “cabal” of rightwing Christians and Jews in
the country who will “never give up land for peace,” as they consider
the West Bank and Gaza “part of the promised land in the Old Testament.”
Chafee suggested that was the reason Wolfowitz was ushered out of the Pentagon and to the World Bank.
Why are all these straight people using the word “cabal”? The main characteristic of a cabal is that it is unstraightforward about its true intentions. As I have argued ad nauseum lately, Douglas Feith is not straightforward. In fact, Stephen Sniegoski is about to publish The Transparent Cabal, saying the neocons are a cabal, but you can actually figure out what they believe because they’ve left so many traces. Seems like an accurate description.
