David Rose is reporting in Vanity Fair that back in 2004, nearly 3 years before the U.S. included Sunnis in efforts to end the insurgency in Iraq, Sunnis reached out to the Americans and were rebuffed. Rose says it was neocons who blocked the overtures. His account turns partly on Ken Wischkaemper, a Texas agricultural businessman who had contracted to the Coalition Provisional Authority and was approached by leading Sunnis:
Wischkaemper’s first attempt to foster high-level U.S. contacts fell on barren ground. Unschooled in the neoconservative ideology that dominated the civilian side of the Pentagon, he approached the Jerusalem-based attorney Marc Zell and asked Zell to arrange a meeting with his former law partner, Douglas J. Feith, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for policy. Feith, like his immediate boss, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, had no desire to reach out to the Sunnis. He blamed them for keeping Saddam in power, and considered one of the occupation’s goals to be reducing their influence. (Feith says today that he cannot recollect an approach on behalf of Wischkaemper.) The neoconservatives, together with President Bush, were convinced that empowering the Shiites at the Sunnis’ expense would help pacify not only Iraq but also the entire Arab world. “In their view,” says James Clad, “the Shia could lead the way toward an ‘Islamic reformation’ that would finally separate religion from politics.”
….Why did these two promising initiatives die in the cradle? In retrospect, the lost opportunity is made at once more haunting and more ironic by the fact that the idea behind the initiatives was once regarded favorably by Donald Rumsfeld himself. The historian Mark Perry has obtained access to internal Pentagon documents that chart the progress of earlier proposals for curbing the insurgency by working with the Sunni tribes. One is a classified memo to Rumsfeld that advocated a policy of rapprochement as early as October 2003. It was written by Major General Ronald L. Burgess, the intelligence director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld was reportedly sympathetic to the concept. But according to a Pentagon official who has reviewed the documentary record, the U.S. military and civilian leadership in Baghdad ignored the memo entirely, while a copy sent to Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, was returned to Burgess with a handwritten comment: “They are Nazis!” Wolfowitz says today that, while he often did refer to ideological Ba’thists as Nazis, he cannot recall this particular incident."
Note that Wischkaemper approaches Feith through his former partner, a religious ideologue, Marc Zell, who moved his family from the States to the Etzion bloc of religious settlements in "Judea" a decade ago. Zell doesn't even believe in the term West Bank. Wolfowitz lived in Israel for a time, per Wikipedia. Feith, whose father's family was wiped out in the Holocaust, has often expressed Zionist sentiment, says the same thing about the West Bank in that link. Again I ask, what was the religious/Zionist component to the neocons' disastrous hold on foreign policy? (Thanks to Susie Kneedler)
“In their view,” says James Clad, “the Shia could lead the way toward an ‘Islamic reformation’ that would finally separate religion from politics.” Weiss: "Again I ask, what was the religious/Zionist component to the neocons' disastrous hold on foreign policy?" It looks like the Muslims aren't the only ones who need a reformation to finally separate religion from politics. Mind that log in your own eye, Wolfowitz.
RE: "…an ‘Islamic reformation’ that would finally separate religion from politics." MY COMMENT: As in Israel? As in the U.S. under George W. Bush? The neocons are clearly delusional.
Yeah, Christian Zionist Bush and his mostly Jewish Zionist Neocon henchmen were a real piece of work. Then we have 45 Jewish Zionists in Congress, 95% of whom are Democrats. Obviously the Democrats have a serious problem with conflating religion and politics themselves. And beyond that, we've got socialists who basically believe the State should take over the role of moral education and instruction, and who would probably like to outlaw religion altogether in favor of State-worship. Oh, how I long for the Constitutional Republic as laid down by the Founders. When can we bring back the Constitution and devolve the State to its rightfully subordinate place?
Yeah, Christian Zionist Bush and his mostly Jewish Zionist Neocon henchmen were a real piece of work. Then we have 45 Jewish Zionists in Congress, 95% of whom are Democrats. Obviously the Democrats have a serious problem with conflating religion and politics themselves. And beyond that, we've got socialists who basically believe the State should take over the role of moral education and instruction, and who would probably like to outlaw religion altogether in favor of State-worship. Oh, how I long for the Constitutional Republic as laid down by the Founders. When can we bring back the Constitution and devolve the State to its rightfully subordinate place?
"he approached the Jerusalem-based attorney Marc Zell and asked Zell to arrange a meeting with his former law partner, Douglas J. Feith…" That was his first mistake. For a great overview of the intricacies of the Sunni/Shia/American/Zionist/Kurdish/Arab elements at work in Iraq, check out: http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com
while a copy sent to Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, was returned to Burgess with a handwritten comment: “They are Nazis!” This is interesting. As a young adult I often complained this should have happened on German ground much more thoroughly. But the more I read about it the more complex the picture got. Would take longer to explain why. But just imagine the chaos and mostly not available evidence. And yes it somehow felt, they were trying to do it better than the Allies did it in post WWII Germany. I often thought about that.
And now they're after Shiite Iran so that the Sunni Arab world is 'safe'. Anyone else getting a hint of 'Divide and Conquer'?
Wait a minute. As much as anyone I thought the Iraq war was stupid and wrong from the get-go, and I thought that there were indeed a good number of people plumping for it to help Israel. And I wouldn't even deny that a Sunni approach was made in 2004 and Wolfowitz spurned same calling them Nazis. But let's face it, the "ideological Ba'thists" *did* behave like Nazis when they were in power. Are we to forget their gassing of the Kurds? Their aggressive war against Iran? Their torture cells? The famous wood chipper that Saddam's security services fed people into? It seems that ultimately we did make some accomodation with alot of the Sunnis some if not many of whom were "ideological Ba'thists." And we still have that. But it's not unproblematic; in the first place what's going to happen when we stop paying them to behave, which we are? So okay, maybe from a realpolitik view it was dumb/wrong/whatever to spurn their approach(s) back in 2004, but calling them Nazis then wasn't far off, nor do I see doing so as necessarily reflecting Wolfowitz's affection for Israel/Zionism. Anyone, jew or Gentile could have and did make that comparison at the time, and remember Saddam himself was said to have had Stalin as his hero. A limited issue, but it's silly (and unnecessary) to try to shoehorn every incident into one's grand theory or understanding of things. (And for that matter, as to the bigger issue of going to war with Iraq at all in the first place, even though I know he signed that paper addressed to Netanyahu advocating a war against Iraq and even though I know he is indelibly linked to the neo-cons and he has all these Israeli connections, for what it's worth I think Wolfowitz was and is a huge moral, intellectual and patriotic cut above the hacks like Feith and etc. and would never sacrifice American interests for Israel's benefit. You read the guy's stuff going back years and years and he's always taken a pretty assertive stance as regards asserting U.S. power, no matter what countries or issues were involved, and no matter if Israel wasn't interested in the least. And—somewhat applying the "reverse Goldhagen test"—he also has shown enormous interest in lots and lots of issues *other* than Israel, including economic development in the Third World and etc. Not to say I agree with him at all on anything, much less on the ME policy he was involved in which was a disaster, but in my estimation Wolfowitz was just a guy who was honestly wrong about that ME policy. And I just don't think it's necessary to brand everyone who one disagrees with or who turned out wrong to have been evil, nefarious or a liar. If you read much of Wolfie it's clear you're dealing with a deeply patriotic guy who, I'd agree, tended to see every challenge in too serious a way, but who was so intellectual and earnest that he struck you as one actually naive about the politics of things and how he looked in them. And he was and is way too smart not to recognize that U.S. interests and Israel's couldn't differ. He just thought they honestly didn't. Again, I don't think there's a need to brand everyone one disagrees with as evil or etc. Just my opinion….)
That's assuming that these Sunnis are 'Ideological Baathists', which I don't think is the case
This is the guy who badly wrote a book about a little girl having sex with a bear. All neoncons honestly believe(d) there is and was not any real difference between Israel and USA interests. They compartmentalize, allowing for differing standards nobody with honest mental integrity would. His interest in the economic development of the Third World never questioned the standard policy of pushing that world into even worse conditions via higher debt. Just my opinion, based on what I've know about "moral" Wolfie. In short, his morality leaves a lot to be desired.
This is pretty shocking. I say this as a one-time Straussian, in view of the fact that these neocons are reputed to be Straussians. If there's anything they should have learned from the ol' Sphinx without a Secret, it's that constitutions are to be used for mixing and balancing the population to achieve reconciliation. Like the Athenian Stranger says in the Laws, if there's a family with just brothers and unjust brothers, simply destroying the bad is not the preferable way to go. Better to have them live together amicably under good laws.
Hi Shafiq, thanks for the response. Of course you're right that is the assumption but my readings support it. Of course many—tribes, families, cities, etc.— just "went along" with the harder-core Ba'thists and the regime out of convenience and they too are the ones we finally reached an accord with and presumably were among the ones who approached us in '04 and who Wolfie rejected. But there were enough of the hard-core, and even as to the softer core look again at what they supported via the regime they supported. That's "core" enough I think to say "hey, these include some very bad guys and groups who happily went along with some terrible things sticking it to the Shia. Or look not only at a huge amount of informed opinion but indeed the fears of the U.S. since we did agree to play footsie with these folks later: The very barbed question is "why aren't they going to just return sticking it to the Shia again like they did under Saddam once we stop paying them?" And that question seems a good one, which is why you see people like Petraeus even quietly talking about maybe U.S. troops needing to remain longer than Obama's announced pull-out date(s) and beyond "when we'd like to get out" and etc. and so forth. So I think the assumption is "generally true enough," but I'll admit you've got a point that it's a matter of degree.
"Are we to forget their gassing of the Kurds?" Who sold them the gas again? "If you read much of Wolfie it's clear you're dealing with a deeply patriotic guy" He's an Israeli patriot, not an American patriot.
well, who put them in power? The good ol' USA, that's who.
Sin Nombre, basically I had and partly still have a similar impression concerning Wolfowitz. I don't know enough about him. But he surely had his eyes set on Saddam for a long time. The perpetual use of Hitler disgusts me. It's pretty constant over the centuries that tyrants kill whomever they perceive as a danger to their power, but Hitler singled out one group only for being a member of this group. I think we should recognize this is something basically different. And this leads to another subject that one shouldn't deal with people in a generalizing manner. Do you think all Bathists were evil, do you think its possible to generalize like that? One side good the Kurds & Shia good, all Sunni evil? The Sunni evil in Iran but good in Iraq? Or only their religious leaders. Or is it only about their however real or alleged aspirations to power? A new pan-something threat? Fighting Islamists by attacking the only–admittedly despotic/(power creates crazies)–secular Arab state? How comes? Why wasn't this discussed, why did nobody ask? This surely was served up too easily on a platter, conveniently forgetting Western entanglement. The gas was German by the way. But the Germans weren't his only supporters. And why not study him more carefully, but execute him swiftly? Wasn't the ultimate reason somehow that he nationalized oil? I have too many questions. Basically I would like to have access to all conversations that probably won't even leave traces. And plainly, I considered Paul Wolfowitz' suggestion that the Iraqi oil could finance the war, highly cynical. Whom does he serve, the military industrial complex? While yes, I respected him for admitting really early that the WMD's were a ruse. Didn't he? Just as I respected Olmert when he created a big uproar and highly interesting confusion in Israel by simply mentioning the "secret" atomic arsenal.
Rowan, what's your authority for the U.S. putting the Ba'thists in power? I know we played footsie with Saddam for sure in the Iraq/Iran war, but I wouldn't have thought that the it could be said we actually "put them in power." LeaNder22, I know, I know, I'm sick of this "everything looks like Hitler" crap too, but in part that can just be that we're kind of political junkies and we've just heard it so much—and know so much about Hitler and Hitlerism—that it's just made us tired and prone to not seeing the colloquial understanding. A funny example took place just the other day: A couple of weeks ago or so I was here on another threat basically arguing that while you could certainly make some valid comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israel (race laws and some other things), essentially it just wasn't a broad-blanket comparison. And then at a party just a few days ago was in a clatch of people who were talking politics and the talk turned to this Gaza business and this utterly apolitical guy came out and, appropos of the use of that white phosphorus in close civilian quarters said "geez, isn't that something like what the Germans did in Warsaw?" So anyway just because we're sick of some trope don't make it non-apt and in that vein I think that Saddam was Hitlerite enough. Certainly though I take your point that it wasn't all Sunnis nor indeed not nearly all Ba'thists. On the other hand it's probably true that there were lots of Nazis, and indeed important Nazis who privately scorned Hitler and didn't agree with lots he did and etc. and so forth. Still is enough to call 'em "Nazis," right? "Colloquially" at least, right? As to your other points I didn't see Wolfie's talk about Iraq oil financing the war as cynical in terms of saying the US companies would be getting that money. I saw it as consistent with his (erroneous, wildly) belief that we would be seen as liberators (which to at least some degree early on we were), and that the newly liberated would be able to easily use their oil money to pay us—the U.S. gov't—back. Naive, yes, but as I said that's part of my take on Wolfie. I also don't think he "admitted" the WMD stuff was a ruse so much as he admitted that they consciously chose to *emphasize* their belief that Saddam had WMDs. And I think that was pretty much a good faith belief; certainly all the West's intell. services believed it to one degree or another. Now that's not to say Wolfie can't still be slammed for cynically participating in that spinning still, but what political regime doesn't spin the hell out of things now? Hell, Lincoln "spun" aspects of the Civil War and the Athenians their wars and probably back when there were cave fights there was such spinning by opposing parties to the other caves. Don't make it right, but…. jdva: As with Rowan, can you give some cite for the idea that Saddam got his Kurd-gas from us? (Who I suspect you mean, although you also might mean Israel?) To sum up … look, folks, I'm not meaning to be a big-time shill for Wolfie. Maybe indeed (predictably) LeaNder22 said it best when he talked about his (somewhat mistaken) impression that I was lumping all Sunnis together where he said same involved the mistake of "deal[ing] with people in a generalizing manner." That is, I was just saying that in my humble (and indeed perhaps wrong) opinion that it was wrong to overgeneralize and easily put Wolfie in the same bag with so many of the other neo-cons like Feith and Ledeen and etc. Wolfie seems to me to be a genuine, honorable guy. Made terrible mistakes I don't deny, but I don't think out of nefarious, unpatriotic impulses. Again again again … just my opinion, and God knows I've been wrong before. (Which I suppose should stop me from forming any new ones, but….)
Hi Sin Nombre Here's a good place to begin: link to fantompowa.org
Sin Nombre said: "As with Rowan, can you give some cite for the idea that Saddam got his Kurd-gas from us? (Who I suspect you mean, although you also might mean Israel?) " "Powell also failed to acknowledge that Iraq obtained some of its initial anthrax bacilli from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), a Maryland/Virginiabased nonprofit bio-resource center that supplies viruses and germs to governments, companies and academic institutions worldwide. Between 1985 and 1989, ATCC sent Iraq deadly shipments that included a variety of anthrax bacteria and germs that cause meningitis, influenza, botulism, lung failure and tetanus, according to media reports and U.N. records. ATCC did not respond to a request for an interview. Thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture deadly mustard gas, made its way to Iraq via Alcolac International, Inc., a Maryland company, since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc., and Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum and now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and energy company." http://i14.tinypic.com/2d2b2uf.jpg
and that the newly liberated would be able to easily use their oil money to pay us—the U.S. gov't—back. under purely economic forces the military complex surely can develop it's own dynamics. Under that aspect one could consider it an innovative approach, a new field to exploit, a future war marketing trend. Rent the US army. US Army for hire: We free your country, you get discount for larger orders or let's say if we can test and demonstrate our latest developments in the field we can deduct a little for the resulting advertisement impact. And I think that was pretty much a good faith belief; certainly all the West's intell. services believed it to one degree or another. I basically agree we have been spinned by war marketing professionals for quite some time now, Saddam's soldiers tearing babies out of incubators heartlessly throwing them on the floors come to mind, with an actress trained and staged in the US, but carefully chosen for credibility. I would have liked to witness the brainstorming session leading up to that idea. Or the Kosova horseshoe tale, served over here by people that weren't trained that well for their jobs. E.g. this clown. But considering the above. I beg to differ, you simply didn't watch carefully enough.
It's interesting to observe Sin Nombre's attempts backdoor attempts to support the Iraq War. For God's sake man, just come out and say it. Wolfowitz's moral character is not pristine at all. In other issues, don't forget his and Rummie's attempt to shove the 30 billion dollar tanker deal with Boeing down our throats. Also, his recent corruption problems with the World Bank come to mind. Back to Iraq – unless Wolfie is really dumb, he and others in the intellegence community knew that Saddam was no threat to the U.S. Let's assume he still had his WMD's – What kind of delivery system was he going to use on this country. Certainly not the balsa wood drone powered by a lawn mower engine that Colin Powell testified of at the U.N. There are too many other Bush/Cheney lies to rehash here but regarding Wolfie, the bottom line was Israel First.
"It's interesting to observe Sin Nombre's attempts backdoor attempts to support the Iraq War. For God's sake man, just come out and say it." Nope Mike, can't. Probably on this blog but certainly on others and otherwise I thought it was a terrible terrible blunder, if not a crime. The worst in U.S. foreign affairs history even maybe. (Depends on how it turns out, and so far it's only getting worse.) I just think Wolfowitz was in it due to suffering a disease common to intellectuals which is an excess belief in theory. Namely, the idea that without doing something and esp. with WMD's we'd eventually see the "Saddamization" of the arab and moslem Middle-East, the consequent monopolization of ME energy supplies and the consequent leverage over many of our allies that would mean, very possibly some horrific war(s) with India and (yes, this too) Israel, in either case which would drag us in, and etc. and so forth. Not so with so many if not all other other prominent neo-cons, as I said. To me for instance Feith and Ledeen are nothing but Israeli agents, pure and simple, and I don't dispute that many others are, as you say, Israeli Firsters.
The problem with Wolfowitz is that he's a connected idiot. He's the dipstick that said, "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq" four months into the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He's a real innerlekteral alright.
Read David Rose's entire article and you will realize that ken wischkaemper is a hero.