I've neglected to blog about two ideas I heard on TV that seemed important.
1. Chris Matthews, a history buff, has been praising Eisenhower. And not just praising Ike for his political marketing, as this Times Op-Ed column did. But Matthews mentioned Suez. The fact that Eisenhower put the brakes on that adventure of neo-colonialism. He didn't make too much of it, but some day historians will say that the Israel lobby got itself together in the 1960s and from then till 2008 or so it was all she wrote. Nixon railed against it, Ford fumed, Carter threw himself body and soul agin it, Reagan propitiated it, George Bush was enraged by the settlements, etc. But no one had the effect that Ike had. I think that was Matthews's dog whistle meaning. Maybe I was the only dog, though.
2. Duncan Hunter is a rightwing congressman from California with a military bent. At a hearing a week or so back of political appointees with Iraq responsibilities, he dismissed the idea that it was a mistake to disband the Iraqi army when the Americans took over. You'll recall that the disbanding of the army in April is the great original sin cited by George Packer and Charles Ferguson, director of No End in Sight. Up till then, in their view, the war was peachy-keen. Anyway, Hunter said that if you had kept an officer corps loyal to Saddam, there would have been no real change and far more turmoil in the end. There would have been chaos. I think it's a reasonable point, but it only serves a more important point. Once we decided to invade, the choice was, A, Chaos, Murder and Mayhem, or B, Chaos, Murder and Mayhem.
I've spent quite a bit of time in Iraq and Iraqis have told me over and over again that disbanding the army and making Ba'ath Party members unemplyable in the govt was the biggest mistake we made.
One general told me, "Why do you think you won so fast? We didn't fight. We aimed our gun barrels to the ground."
Iraq knew Saddam would be ousted and few were unhappy about it. Loyalty to Saddam was limitted to the inner circles that managed to profit from sanctions. The rest of the population thought anything would be an improvement. Now they realize they were wrong.
This doesn't mean that the invasion was a good idea. It was a bad idea but it was also very badly executed.
Here is a question: Do you think that a segment of the Israel lobby will mount a concerted campaign against Chris Matthews if he ever ran for Senate?
After hyping Saddam and his regime as the new Hitler and Nazis, why would the Neocons ever allow the regime's army to be kept intact? Did the Americans and Russians allow Germany to keep its armies intact post-WWII? The entire point of the invasion was destruction — the wholesale destruction of one of Israel's enemies to prove a Neocon point: that they were bad-asses who could kill en masse at will. It's kind of blown up in their faces — or has it? As far as I can see, the Zionists in this country are no weaker than they were going in; they've merely morphed out of their Neocon identity and have again gone back to posing as principled liberal interventionists. They have no less power, and perhaps even more, given the intact Patriot Act, ability to spy on domestic opponents, and other authoritarian initiatives still held in place by their allies and partners in the Democrat Party.
'But Matthews mentioned Suez. The fact that Eisenhower put the brakes on that adventure of neo-colonialism. He didn't make too much of it'
Hardly an oversight. If he'd been at all inclined to make anything of it, he might have asked ther obvious questions 'where today are influential Americans with Ike's balls; who today would dare stand up to the Lobby; how have we allowed ourselves to sink down to a level at which we are afraid even to voice our own concerns?'
'Here is a question: Do you think that a segment of the Israel lobby will mount a concerted campaign against Chris Matthews if he ever ran for Senate?'
Oh for sure, but Matthews is not Cynthia McKinney or even Ned Lamont. He has his own constituency and his opinion carries clout nationwide.
It would be a David and Goliath situation but someone is going to have to do it at some stage. It's his big chance to do something more for his country than be handsomely rewarded for carrying elite water.
'It's kind of blown up in their faces — or has it?'
Oded Yinon would be laughing in his grave. That's if he's dead; I'm unable to ascertain if he is. No Wikipedia entry, which strikes me as a bit strange. The author, in 1982, of the blueprint for Zionist control of the ME by breaking up surrounding states into harmless cantons, the father of Clean Break/PNAC – not important enought for Wikipedia.
The neocons would be happy enough to wear all our goy opprobrium, on top of the eternal hatred of the Arabs and Muslims, if they succeed in implementing Yinon's plan. We can throw mud at them but they'll hardly notice; they dream of their own kind greeting them with flowers, maybe even an honoured grave in Jerusalem.
To paraphrase an old song, tomorrow belongs to them.
Chris Matthews–I think he'd like to take the leap afforded by how own knowledge and political savvy–but he's not ready to be a martyr; prefers high living by staying just a notch above his professional competitors in patriotic integrity…In the end, he doesn't have confidence in the masses. Hard to blame him, but I do.