Steve Walt has a great post following the news from Tony Blair that when he was planning the Iraq war disaster with George Bush they consulted the Israelis, and that Israeli security was a consideration. Walt feels vindicated on the most controversial claim of his book, that the Israel lobby pushed the Iraq war. Here's an excerpt from Walt, then I will provide my two cents.
Consider the following passage from an editorial in the Jewish newspaper Forward, published in 2004:
As President Bush attempted to sell the war .. in Iraq, America's most important Jewish organizations rallied as one to his defense. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Some groups went even further, arguing that that the removal of the Iraqi leaders would represent a significant step toward bringing peace to the Middle East and winning America's war on terrorism"
The editorial also noted that "concern for Israel's safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups."
The Forward, it is worth noting, is well-connected and has a well-deserved reputation for probity in its reporting on the American Jewish community. It is hard to see how its editors could be mistaken about such an important issue or why they would lie about it. And they never issued a retraction. We can therefore assume that the writers of this editorial knew what they were talking about: key groups in the lobby supported the war. Reasonable people can disagree about how important their influence was, of course, but at a minimum these groups reinforced the Bush administration's resolve and made it less likely that other politicians or commentators would conduct a serious debate about the wisdom of the invasion.
Finally, it bears reiterating that I am talking about key groups and individuals in the Israel lobby, and not about the American Jewish community in toto. Indeed, my co-author and I have repeatedly pointed to surveys showing that American Jews were less supportive of the decision to invade Iraq than the American population as a whole, and we have emphasized that it would be a cardinal error (as well as dangerous) to try to "blame the Jews" for the war. Rather, blame should be reserved for Bush and Cheney (who made the ultimate decision for war), for the neoconservatives who dreamed up this foolish idea, and for the various groups and individuals -- including those in the lobby -- who helped sell it.
What's always intrigued me about the argument that American Zionists/the lobby/American Jewish leadership had no responsibility for the war is that I grew up being told that Jews were the smartest people in the world and our ideas had changed history-- Einstein, Freud, and Marx were the triumvirate my parents cited-- and then the Iraq war happens, and basically it's our ideas, or Zionist neocon ideas, and when the thing is a disaster everyone says that Bush and Cheney came up with it. And the Forward, fearing pogroms, says, "In Dark Times, Blame the Jews." It just doesn't track. Ideas are important; that's a modern conception, and a Jewish conception; and god knows that ideas that arose in the Jewish community were very important indeed here. The evidence is endless. There are all the books by Wurmser, Berman, Kaplan, Kristol, Perle and Frum on my bookshelves arguing for the Iraq war in part because of suicide bombers in Israel. There's Tom Friedman making that argument; and later telling Ari Shavit that if you had abducted 25 intellectuals within a mile of his office in D.C., most of them Jewish, the war would never have happened. There's the collapse of the liberal Jewish establishment, from the Union for Reform Judaism to the New Yorker magazine to 9 of 11 Jewish congressmen from NY and California (praise Bob Filner and Jerrold Nadler for their Tonkin Gulf-awareness). Yes and why did they collapse? There's Philip Zelikow, the head of the 9/11 Commission saying that Israeli security was the motive for the war that dare not speak its name; there's Colin Powell saying that the idea for the war came out of the Zionist thinktank the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs; there's Condi Rice saying the war was to "help Israel," per her biographer. And now there's Blair.
Vietnam helped bring down the WASP Establishment, and Iraq is going to do a number on the Jewish presence in this Establishment. That's why there's such anger at Mearsheimer and Walt; there's a lot of social status in play, let alone national security issues. And Jewish life won't be healed until we recognize the degree to which macho Israeli militarist ideas inside our Diaspora thinktank-journo-privileged-pencil-neck community have wagged the dog. We're empowered people. Yes we have been victimized in history, as other people have been too. But that has given rise to a myth of Jewish non-agency in world affairs.
great post phil, i agree completely.
Very much agree Annie.. Phil is the absolute best. Take a look at the comments section at the bottom of the actual blog entry (via the following URL) by Stephen Walt as some interesting posts appear there currently:
Blair, Bush, Israel and Iraq | Stephen M. Walt
link to walt.foreignpolicy.com
“Israeli security was a consideration. Walt feels vindicated on the most controversial claim of his book, that the Israel lobby pushed the Iraq war. ”
If you feel that those two are logically directly connected, then my opinion of your reasoning has decreased. To NOT consider Israel’s security in undertaking a war, would have been GROSSLY negligent, on Blair’s or any foreign policy perspective.
“and Iraq is going to do a number on the Jewish presence in this Establishment”
And, how is this statement not fascist?
Your use of the term “we” is a big lie. You are referring to a “them”. You don’t identify with the neo-conservative factions that you quote in any way. They are not a “we” to you.
Sometimes your comments are actually ugly, Phil.
The 9/11 Commission got the word from the Arab terrorist horses’ mouth that the attack was because of USA policy rubber-stamping Israel’s policies in its domain of control.
This word was generalized for the publishing of the Commission’s report into a simple statement that USA foreign policy does have blowback. The whole point of
what has been discovered, and which Phil alludes to, is NOT that Israel’s security was not considered, but that Israel’s security was CONSIDERED TOO MUCH, i.e., as if
the USA’s interests and Israel’s are identical. How many Gentile American kids
enlist in the IDF? Perhaps there is a reason that the answer is zero?
What exactly is “fascist “about the statement that “and Iraq is going to do a number on the Jewish presence in this Establishment?”
A couple dozen neocons, a napkin of easy assembled Zionist enabling congressmen on a napkin in Congress produced at the drop of a hat?
Witty, maybe you don’t care about the good Jews in the USA who were against Shrub’s war on Iraq–still going on 8 years later, costing plenty when the USA cannot afford it–but some of us here do care.
And BTW, Dicky Witty, where do you stand on the USA and/or Israel bombing Iran?
RW writes: “and Iraq is going to do a number on the Jewish presence in this Establishment”
And, how is this statement not fascist?
Because it is a prediction of what may very well happen — it is not advocacy. Can you even think straight?
You didn’t quote the whole sentence, Richard. Here it is–
“Vietnam helped bring down the WASP Establishment, and Iraq is going to do a number on the Jewish presence in this Establishment.”
Was the part about the WASP establishment being brought down by Vietnam a fascist statement? I don’t know if Phil is right on either part of the sentence, but they go together.
I don’t know. Ask Citizen if he was offended.
I dislike the generalization of the terms that Phil used. Again, it does not represent the Jews that I know. I represents a few of them, but Phil isn’t using language to speak of the few, but of the many.
He’s careless in that regard. And, the consequences are visible, mostly in angry and malevolent things that people feel ok saying, or angry that they can only say privately.
Instead of making the better argument.
The Iraq War was not stupid for the US to pursue because a small group of Jewish (and non-Jewish) “intellectuals”, argued for it. It was stupid because it was an imposition, violent, destabalizing, expensive, toxic, inciteful.
I can see your point about the generalization. Steve Walt actually does a really good of separating Jews from the Israel lobby, interestingly enough.
“To NOT consider Israel’s security in undertaking a war, would have been GROSSLY negligent, on Blair’s or any foreign policy perspective.”
How on earth is one country thinking for itself first before involving itself in a multi-trillion dollar, eight year (at least) war grossly negligent?
A line is drawn by Walt when he reasserted that it was not Israel behind the Iraq war but the neocons and their Jewish cheerleaders in the US. The Israelis, initially cold to an attack on Iraq got on the bandwagon to help with the preparatory PR groundwork after Bush comforted them about the Iranians and Syrians being next on the hit list. It reasserts my thinking about all strategic decisions being taken by the US and Israel having to tag along willingly like a lap dog and not the other way around as we are led to believe.
Richard, your comments on Weiss are interesting; do you have any on Walt’s vindication?
Walt is vindicated by his statements of respect for the two-state approach, for his assertion of the validity and necessity for Israeli defense, for his assertions that the relationship between the US and Israel is a real one, and deserves support and attention.
The article was not his high ground. It was something that he felt that he personally needed to express, but used his academic credentials as if it was a scholarly effort rather than a personal one. The book was an improvement, in that he clarified the above points, while at the same time constructing the content of a conspiracy, even though disclaimed.
Phil exagerated the importance of the works, and exagerates. He uses generalizations like “Jews”, rather than specific individuals, or even specific theses.
He neglects to “make the better argument”, when that is what is urgently needed.
When did Walt suggest the relationship between the US and Israel deserved support?
“It was something that he felt that he personally needed to express, but used his academic credentials as if it was a scholarly effort rather than a personal one.”
On what grounds do you come to that conclusion? Did you read hsi book, or are you dong what you always do and using a 3rd hand analysis?
It’s really reassuring that Israel decided to second-track bombing Iran, their first priority, to allow Shrub to attack Iraq, Shrub’s first priority. LOL. Just so we
attack Iraq, Iran, and Syria in some timely order, eh? Now there’s an agenda
every American will benefit from. It’s all good.
Phil, you wrote: “And the Forward, fearing pogroms, says, ‘In Dark Times, Blame the Jews.’ It just doesn’t track.”
The problem is, in time it will. History repeats, and the progressive non-jews like me and the thoughtful Jews who come here – as well as others interested in peaceful outcomes are working like the dickens through our words and thoughts and communications to get the fanatics out of power and/or to wake up to the danger they are creating for themselves and their “chosen” zionist favorites and wider jewry. I sure hope the wisdom of our collective words and views will win out in enough time. I abhor violence and we are fighting a group of people (fanatical zionists and their ancillary groups) that celebrates it, glorifies it, lionizes it, in the name of their objectives.
“I abhor violence and we are fighting a group of people (fanatical zionists and their ancillary groups) that celebrates it, glorifies it, lionizes it, in the name of their objectives.”
That’s a problem. After all, you don’t have to hurt anyone to celebrate it, glorify it, or lionize it, and it just feels so damn good, too.
Frankly, I don’t think American Jews have the guts to fix Israel and the Zionists, nor should they. But I don’t think they have the guts to turn their back on them, either. It’s a sad situation.
“Nor should they?”
Please clarify, Mooser. Thanks!
“As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this.”
- Tony Blair speaking about his meeting with Bush at Crawford.
link to iraqinquiry.org.uk
(Page 41)
Gee, are we back at the Balfour Declaration time? Things change, and remain the same?
1. The signers of the Project for a New American Century included many Jewish neoconservatives. It also included Dick Cheney who was the brains behind Bush Jr. after Bush chose him as his veep. When did Cheney make the shift from realist to neoconservative and why are interesting questions.
The goal of the Project for a New American Century was the extension of US military dominance into the new century. Considering that a vital goal of US policy was control over the Middle East’s oil, (which doesn’t necessarily mean that US companies get the contracts but that there are contracts to be gotten without a regional hegemon controlling the spigot) that was certainly a region that had to be considered. Unlike realists who thought of assuring the flow of oil through soft power, militarists wished to assure the flow of oil through hard power. Given this mindset it is hard to imagine not placing Israeli military power near the center of the US’s future military dominance.
(Realists might seek to limit Israel’s power and thus cajole oil producers to cooperate with the West’s thirst for oil. But it is hard to imagine a project for US hard power that could have not included a strong role for Israel.)
2. Ever since Israel made peace with Egypt its primary fears have been to the north- vis a vis a fighting army: Syria and vis a vis a regional opponent or nuclear enemy: Iraq and Iran. Although Shamir “fell off his chair” when he heard that Bush Sr. had stopped the first Gulf war before toppling Saddam, by 2002 Israel was satisfied with the containment of Iraq and its primary concern was Iran.
(In fact Rabin’s moves towards peace with the Palestinians, which only ended with his assassination, were motivated in a strategic sense by the dangers of Iran. Rabin did not consider the Palestinians an existential threat, but he recognized Iran as such a threat.)
You should go back and read the W&M chapter on Iraq. They make the case that ‘war for oil’. is very weak for why we invaded Iraq. Basically, there is no evidence for this hypothesis . Other than that oil man Cheney was pushing it there is no evidence that US oil companies wanted such a war.
I think the reason we invaded Iraq is two fold. First the Israel and the Jewish Lobby is major, W&M document this exhaustively. Blair’s statement now is minor in comparison to the original case. Second the US was in a war lust mood and needed someone to beat up on. Friedman in his famous ‘suck of the this’ statement illustrates that point.
So basically it comes down to an enraged America looking for revenge (Afghanistan, though satisfying, was not sufficient) and a well placed group of Zionists and Israel directing us towards Iraq.
syvanen: They make the case that ‘war for oil’. is very weak for why we invaded Iraq. Basically, there is no evidence for this hypothesis .
Maybe we can get wondering jew to substantiate him/herself.
bob,
If you address me in the 2nd person, you wouldn’t have to do the him/herself thing. In English, all second person is “you” whether male, female, plural, formal or informal.
It seems widely agreed that the first Gulf war was fought for oil. Maybe this is because Bush Sr. was a realist and surrounded by realists, whereas Bush Jr. was an “idealist” surrounded by neoconservatives. Maybe this is because the first Gulf war was considered a success, whereas the second Gulf war is considered a fiasco. Before the first Gulf war there was talk about the amen corner of Israel (Pat Buchanan, who else?) being the only supporters of the war, but after the war none of that talk was heard. The first Gulf war was widely accepted as justified by two causes: oil (a reason offered by James Baker, I believe) and sovereignty of member nations of the United Nations.
If we all agree that the first Gulf war was fought for oil, is it possible that the cause of oil totally disappears between the first Gulf war and the second Gulf war?
The front man for the Iran regime, A’jad recently said that he who controls the Middle East controls the world. Do you commentators agree or disagree with that statement. If it is true, do you think the reason is because of the Suez Canal or the Middle East’s proximity to Europe, Russia and China? Or do you think the reason is oil?
I assume that everything that happens in the Middle East is about oil.
To identify the cause of oil with the oil companies is a bit myopic. The oil companies have their short term profits at heart. Those short term profits and their quarterly statements is what keep their shareholders happy and keep their board of directors from any significant turmoil. Therefore the oil companies favor realism rather than militarism. Therefore the oil companies prefer soft power to hard power.
A country or a military cannot afford to think in terms of quarterly profits. If they do, they will think tactically instead of strategically.
Unfortunately the second Gulf war was fought based upon a blind belief that the key to the war was toppling Saddam and the post Saddam situation would handle itself. Obviously this was untrue. The post Saddam situation has been a fiasco.
If Israel was located elsewhere, say Chile or Uganda or Greenland or Australia, the dynamics would be entirely different. Israel is located near the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. It is the strongest military power in the region of the Persian Gulf.
To ignore its location and focus only on the domestic Jewish lobby is myopic.
Israel is the strongest military power in the region of the Persian Gulf because of the extensive influence of the domestic Israel lobby (both Jewish and non-Jewish) on the government of the USA. Proximity to oil fields does not bring power but political influence over a super-power does. The Israel Lobby is to Israel as Samson’s hair was to his strength.
wondering jew:
This is the problem with “oil” arguments. Since theres no direct evidence, its full of conjecture. I require better evidence. The call to you, posted twice was “Basically, there is no evidence for this hypothesis .” Where is it? Plus, it needs to be more focused. “War for oil” is an incredibly loose statement. Above its ranging from “oil companies” to some ephemeral “spigot control” argument.
I assume that everything that happens in the Middle East is about oil.
Everything?
I’d like to make a clear statement on this. Its pretty apparent to me that people can get away with unsubstantiated conjecture when making an “oil” argument. There’s no reprisal. There’s no cadre of people sitting in their home computers, passionately defending the other side, making sure the argument is nuanced. Theres no nasty slurs thrown when an argument isn’t parsed correctly.
Now, when making an argument on “pro-Israel ideology” as a factor for the war, we’ve seen countless nasty slurs, a demand for the highest scholastic rigor, and a need to defend from a whole host of people who are passionately defensive about the topic. Strawmen arguments like “protocols of Zion” are thrown around and “anti-semite” slurs are tossed in tandem with ease.
Frankly, I think its this split that at one hand, makes the “pro-Israeli” exposure so well cited and nuanced; on the other hand, I wonder if the lack of rigor needed to make a “oil” statement has somehow contributed to how unsubstantiated the argument is. We would be well served if people would take the time to nail down the particulars and focus the argument. Make the argument with people, direct connections to contemporaneous policy making to the event discussed (e.g. don’t just cite a 1970′s document for 2003 policy), and show clear lines of direct evidence. This would be good for us all. I know there aren’t people passionately defending Exxon-Mobil on the internet/print in the way that the “pro-Israeli” crowd does, but that shouldn’t preclude all of us from reading a well researched piece with direct evidence. I encourage you or anyone to do that. We all would be better served by it.
bob,
I do not consider myself a scholar, so I am the wrong person to give a scholarly retort. But I did ask at least two questions that you didn’t answer. 1. Was the first Gulf war fought for oil? and 2. Do you agree with A’jad that he who controls the Middle East controls the world? and if you do agree, why is that?
1. Was the first Gulf war fought for oil?
Was it. Was it so monocausal? I’d be cautious to say that. For example
2. Do you agree with A’jad that he who controls the Middle East controls the world?
Oil is highly fungible. Control doesn’t work like that.
Poor WJ wants to blame our oil companies for the fiasco in Iraq. Problem is that there absolutely no evidence that they pushed for such a war. On the contrary, they have for the past few decades been major advocates for diplomacy and open bidding on oil contracts. The war in Iraq is the result of zionist pressure on the US to remove Israel’s perceived enemies. This plus an unhinged administration is what led us to war. Yes it is very important for the American people to finally realize that the special relationship with Israel leads only to more war that is in no way in the interests not only of the American people but our oil industry as well.
I did not blame the oil companies, nor the oil industry. I was asserting that the concept of hard US power in the new century would be meaningless if the US was going to act sheepishly vis a vis the Middle East and its oil.
The oil companies were perfectly willing for Saddam to remain in power. The oil companies did not care about US military power extending into the new century.
(The mistake of the neo conservatives was in assuming that toppling Saddam was the key problem, which it was not. The key problem was the instability which followed Saddam and the increased power that Iran achieved in Saddam’s aftermath. Their minimizing of these problems was criminally negligent.)
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties
by Oded Yinon (with a foreword by, and translated by Israel Shahak)
“Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.”
link to cosmos.ucc.ie
wondering jew
Change this to: ….the brains behind Bush Jr. after Cheney chose himself as his veep. Cheney already had the neocons in his team.
A large number of them were dual-loyalty Israelis, who’d already written “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” [in 1996] that urged incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to roll back Syria, work to effect regime change in Iraq, and refuse to return the occupied territories to the Palestinians. They then wrote: ‘Project for the New American Century’ which notoriously suggested that America needed a new Pearl Harbor, which they got, on 9/11.
PNAC has been dissolved, not surprisingly, because America is already headed down the plughole.
Richard Parker:
I’ve never been able pin down when Cheney went with the Neocons on Iraq/Iran. He gave his famous Iraq invasion as a “quagmire” speech from the AEI, of all places. While he was at Jinsa, he was completely against AIPAC and Neocon pressures for sanctions. Cheney was quite vocal against the sanctions. When Walt says “they played a major role in persuading Bush and Cheney to back a war against Iraq,” I can’t get a clean date for this turn.
bob – could you explicate further on Cheney being against AIPAC at JINSA?
I thought Cheney was vocal against sanctions on Iran, not Iraq.
see link above titled: sanctions.