Goddamn the neoconservatives

For many years I declared that the neoconservative moment is over, and every time I was wrong. The neocons hung around, they kept their status and influence. There were enough liberals who were tarred by having bought into the neocons’ chief mistake, Iraq, that the neocons could maintain an intellectual protection racket. This is surely how establishments work: they maintain a system of rewards and punishments and secrets so that no one steps out of line– even after they’ve driven the bus into the gorge. 

The neoconservative moment is over.

It ended when the best of the neocons, the most nuanced and presentable, shot himself in the foot twice in recent weeks. David Brooks of the New York Times and NPR first called the children of mixed marriages “mutts” and then after a tidal wave of readers protested, insisted disingenuously that he didn’t mean that negatively. And just so we understood his real meaning, a few days later he wrote that Egyptians lack the “basic mental ingredients” to have a democracy– and that Islamists are missing “intellectual DNA” and “mental equipment.” 

Brooks “let his veil slip” on bigotry. Such statements are widely considered offensive in modern American culture; and Brooks was at once provoking that culture and taking it on. He seems to have thought that he would find a safe refuge in elite liberal opinion.

But he doesn’t have that anymore; in fact he has damaged himself, irrevocably.

We are too far out from the Iraq mistake at this point for the protection racket to work; and we are simply too multicultural a society to tolerate such raw expressions of racial arrogance on the part of entitled media figures.

And yes there’s a Jewish piece. Brooks and I both grew up with the belief that Jews are smarter. And maybe we were smarter, back when we were driven outsiders. But we’re not smarter anymore. In fact, a lot of us are stupider. And inasmuch as we are missing the new multicultural reality, and offering aid and comfort to Islamophobia, we’re history.

Goddamn the neocons. The sooner they are expelled from the American establishment the better. As George Soros said: because of the Iraq War mistake, the U.S. has to undergo a “a certain de-Nazification process,” that is to say, it must purge a party of bad thinkers that is all over the Establishment.

Am I too harsh? Here is another Brooks whopper that I missed, in a NYT dialogue about Syria with Gail Collins on June 12 that completely slipped under my radar: 

Brooks: Then there is the pure realpolitik reason to do something. We should be trying to turn the Syrian civil war into Iran’s Vietnam. We should make them waste money and effort trying to back their client. For all these reasons, I’m thinking that maybe it’s time for a more active U.S. role.
 

His interlocutor Gail Collins treated that line as a throwaway. People need to ask Collins: Why are you having a sporting dialogue with someone who makes such repellent statements, and you don’t have a response? Turning Syria into Iran’s Vietnam! Millions of people died in Vietnam.

And is this the neocons’ version of the great game, ten years after they destroyed another great Arab capital?

Michael Ledeen in National Review, back in 2002:

[Brent] Scowcroft… fears that if we attack Iraq “I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror.”

One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists.

That’s our mission in the war against terror.

The most dangerous course of action is Scowcroft’s: Finesse Iraq, and squander our energies fecklessly trying to broker peace between Israel and the terrorists.

That is the neoconservative great game. Turn the Middle East into a cauldron of fire, or another Vietnam, for the sake of Israel. Goddamn the neocons.

Thanks to Annie Robbins, Citizen, and Adele.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 115 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. you’re such a good writer phil, we’re all spoiled.

    • Citizen says:

      Phil definitely hit the nail on the head. The number one neocon culprit in the faux intellectual pundit sphere, who is trotted out regularly on Cable TV news infotainment circuit, is the smooth Bill Kristol. His style and intellect reminds me of Reinhard Heydrich.

  2. Don says:

    “de-Nazification process,” strikes me as appropriate.
    The seemingly bottomless thirst for vengeance (for the holocaust, I assume?), and mass murder, on the part of many of these right wingers is dizzying, and difficult, at least for me, to comprehend. Absolutely morally appalling.

    • bilal a says:

      Vengeance? : from ‘ I Love Jewish Revenge Movies’

      A few years later, I sat in a similar looking theater, anxiously awaiting the scene where “Bear Jew” caves in a Nazi’s skull with a Louisville Slugger. As Eli Roth swung the bat, I nodded in appreciation of his work. I mouthed along the quote; “Teddy fuckin’ Williams knocks it out of the park! Fenway Park on its feet for Teddy fuckin’ Ballgame! He went yard on that one!” I knew all the words to my favorite scenes, because that was my fourth time paying to see Inglourious Basterds, and to date I’ve seen it nine times. You want to know what sort of human sees a movie nine times in less than five yeas? I’ll tell you who — a guy who really likes films about Jews getting revenge. If there is promise of Jews killing people who have done them wrong, I will probably pay an absurd amount of money to see it the day it comes out, because man do I love watching Nazis and terrorists getting shot. – See more at: link to jewcy.com

      link to jewcy.com

      Evocative of the charges against Zimmerman: malice, hatred, spit, evil intent, projection much.

      • American says:

        @bilal a

        “Evocative of the charges against Zimmerman: malice, hatred, spit, evil intent, projection much.”‘

        I watched some of that trial and didnt see that in the prosecution’s case.
        Zimmerman should have charged soley with and been convicted of manslaughter.
        This guy was a life long fuck up, retard and loser and and he finally killed someone with his failed wanna -be- cop loser-ism.

      • miriam6 says:


        George Zimmerman 911 call:
        NBC fires producer over doctored recording

        After an internal investigation, NBC apologized this week for an “error” by a producer who has now been dismissed.


        After apologizing for doctoring a 911 recording of George Zimmerman the night he shot and killed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, NBC has reportedly fired the producer responsible, according to media reports.
        Prior to fatally shooting Martin, 17, on Feb 26, Zimmerman had called police to say he found the teenager to be suspicious.
        On March 27, NBC aired a recording of the call in which Zimmerman appeared to volunteer the information that Martin “looks black.”
        However, on the full recording an emergency dispatcher is heard to ask Zimmerman for the apparent race of the individual who would later be identified as Martin.
        The failure of Florida authorities to investigate Zimmerman’s actions in any depth or to prosecute him has sparked a national uproar.
        And conservative media outlets including Fox News have accused NBC and others seeking to foment discord and strife.
        NBC apologized Wednesday for what it called an “error made in the production process that we deeply regret.”
        Reuters reports today that the producer, whose identity was not disclosed had been dismissed.

        link to globalpost.com

        link to imediaethics.org

        What is curious to me is that Zimmerman was apparently warned by the police NOT to approach the ‘suspect’, and yet Zimmerman suffered no legal penalty or charge for going against the specific police instruction to stay put and avoid approaching the so – called- ‘suspect’.

        How does American law stand on the question of American citizens taking matters into their own hands at a point at which the police are already involved ,though not actually at the scene, so therefore, surely, the would- be -vigilante could be said to be obstructing the police , particularly when the would-be vigilante has been warned to leave the matter to the police?

  3. seanmcbride says:

    I wish I shared Phil’s optimism about the decline of neoconservatism. I think another scenario is more likely: neoconservatives like Brooks and Ledeen, in cooperation with “liberal Zionists” in the Democratic Party, may succeed in infecting American culture as a whole with their relentless and aggressive bigotry. We may already be there.

  4. seanmcbride says:

    Regarding the weird self-contradictions of “pro-Israel” neoconservatives like David Brooks: here is Brooks in the New York Times today on immigration reform in the United States:

    Whether this bill passes or not, this country is heading toward a multiethnic future. Republicans can either shape that future in a conservative direction or, as I’ve tried to argue, they can become the receding roar of a white America that is never coming back.

    link to nytimes.com

    At the same time, Brooks — and his “friend” Bill Kristol (as he describes him in the article) — are militant ethnic nationalists when it comes to Israel — Israel enjoys an innate mandate to be a Jewish state and to control Israeli demographics to protect that entitled status.

    How does one explain the self-contradiction? It’s obvious that Brooks doesn’t consider himself to be a member of “white America” — he is addressing that population bloc (and ethnic group) as an outsider (and possibly even as an adversary). Untangling this psychological mess is quite a challenge — he has quite a glib line of patter.

    • speaking of militant ethnic nationalists, have you read about the new “Jewish Identity Administration” ? link to haaretz.com

      Israel’s new Jewish identity initiative based on fascist values, consultant warns

      The primary goal of the nascent Jewish Identity Administration, which will operate in high schools, is the “creation of a wave of awareness to strengthen love for the Jewish homeland, for the Jewish people and for historic Jewish tradition,” according to a document obtained by Haaretz……

      In a letter Shifman sent to Bennett and Education Minister Shay Piron, he warned of the danger of the Jewish Identity Administration’s activities in high schools. In his letter, he writes that the new body “aspires to operate in Jewish public high schools, to invade the Education Ministry’s area of jurisdiction and to act in a manner that is contrary to the ministry’s spirit.” Moreover, he adds, the administration is promoting a course of action that is extremely nationalistic, perhaps even racist. An extensive examination is required in order to prevent a hostile ideological takeover of Israel’s public education system.”

      The work plan for the new body’s “high school task force” presented at the meeting stated that the administration’s goal is “to restore the State of Israel’s Jewish soul” and that one of its practical objectives is the “establishment of an infrastructure of educational and community activities that will focus on the “creation of a living, meaningful encounter for the general public, especially Jewish youth, with the legacy and the traditions of the Jewish people.”

      here’s more on background ” The Jewish Brotherhood movement
      Behind the scenes of the Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett show, Israel’s ‘Jewish’ spirit – Khomeinist and anti-democratic – is running wild.”

      link to haaretz.com

      • seanmcbride says:

        Annie,

        I saw that article — and the first thought that came to mind is that if every ethnic group chooses to play this game (including David Brooks’ “white America”), we are all going to be in deep trouble — every ethnic group for itself, using whatever means are available to advance its interests.

        This is the main issue: isn’t Zionism at its root all about militant ethnic identity politics? Do liberal Zionists really differ from Lapid and Bennett in their ideological focus? No — they don’t.

      • American says:

        Sounds like a version of Hitler’s Youth Corp. ..indoctrinate them while they’re young.

        Doubt there will be much difference between the Jewish Brotherhood and Aryan Brotherhood ideology.

        • miriam6 says:

          American;

          The big , BIG difference is the deaths of 60 million people in a World War..

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          When most every member of the Hitler Youth underwent indoctrination, no such war was occurring. They were then in the same position as the Jewish youth are today (Except that the German youth were not in a state in which the native inhabitants of the land had been ethnically cleansed less than a century before and which continued to exist on stolen land.)

      • seanmcbride says:

        Yesh Atid members should pay attention to what’s going on here. For the first time in the country’s history, a government will provide assistance (not to mention a budget and salaries for the employees and the enthusiastic manager) to an activity aimed at brainwashing high-school students with fanatical messianic ideas painted in strong nationalist hues and clad in military uniforms and insignia.

        link to haaretz.com

        • Hostage says:

          For the first time in the country’s history, a government will provide assistance (not to mention a budget and salaries for the employees and the enthusiastic manager) to an activity aimed at brainwashing high-school students with fanatical messianic ideas painted in strong nationalist hues and clad in military uniforms and insignia.

          No, not at all. Zionists like Begin, Shamir, Moshe Arens, the Netanyahus, and the Meridors are all products of Betar, founded in 1923 by Jabotinsky himself.

          That organization has always had fascist paramilitary projects, just like this one, between the Government of Israel, the Jewish Agency for Israel and the World Betar Executive.

        • sean, that blockquote was american peace now’s ‘quote for the day’.

    • ritzl says:

      Phil, I think, posted an article a week or so ago citing a Jewish college student stating that she was surprised that she wasn’t included as a “minority” in discussions about the ME/Israel. My search skills aren’t such that I can find it now, but my take was that this (Brooks’) is a bubble waiting to burst.

  5. RE: “Goddamn the neocons.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: I concur! ! !

    * Catch Me If You Can Movie CLIP – “Doctor…, Do You Concur?” (2002) [VIDEO, 01:53] – link to youtube.com

  6. surewin says:

    “Brooks ‘let his veil slip’ … he has damaged himself, irrevocably.”

    He did let his veil slip, no doubt about it, but I can see him recovering if he is allowed to. This piece by Phil is very encouraging in that respect, however.

    Recently MJ Rosenberg tweeted that “David Brooks combines condescension of the high bred WASP, his aspiration, with the ethnic chauvinism of the parochial Jew, which he is.”

    Amusing as always, but not quite right in my view. In the Jewish Week article about Brooks (dated 11/15/11) that Phil linked to in his July 4 article a week ago, Brooks says of his family “that their social lives are less involved with Washington’s power brokers and journalists, but rather built around weekly Shabbat dinners with friends from their shul and their kids’ schools.”

    I see Brooks as following the path that David Mamet has taken (one example among many), not as aspiring to be a high-bred WASP.

    The high-bred WASP act is camouflage, as are Brooks’ many positions that make him a “moderate” Republican. It gives him the appearance of reasonableness, of being willing to consider all points of view and to balance them out and avoid extremist conclusions. On every issue except one, of course. Moderate, reasonable Republicans find themselves unemployed and powerless these days, unless they do the one thing that can make them unassailable.

    This approach, Brooks’ approach, necessarily creates a certain amount of cognitive dissonance on the part of his readers, listeners, and interlocutors, apparently including Gail Collins. Many NYT/NPR/PBS followers will respond to statements like “We should be trying to turn the Syrian civil war into Iran’s Vietnam” by not quite knowing what to think, and in many cases just filing the idea away in their minds without due diligence.

    If Brooks isn’t “the best of the neocons, the most nuanced and presentable,” I don’t know who is. He’s insidious and dangerous, and he shouldn’t be left alone to do his underhanded work. If he is, the damage he has done to himself will, alas, be revocable. It’s good to see that Phil doesn’t intend to let that happen.

    • ritzl says:

      Great analysis.

    • MRW says:

      Recently MJ Rosenberg tweeted that “David Brooks combines condescension of the high bred WASP, his aspiration, with the ethnic chauvinism of the parochial Jew, which he is.”

      “high bred WASPs” wouldn’t be caught dead talking, or thinking, like that. The children and grandchildren of a nouveau-riche one would.

      There just aren’t enough “high bred WASPs” to go around to understand, or appreciate, the difference.

  7. Sibiriak says:

    Turn the Middle East into a cauldron of fire, or another Vietnam, for the sake of Israel. Goddamn the neocons.

    Vietnam was a fine liberal war.

    It’s easy to make too much of a distinction between neocons and liberal interventionists. They work together symbiotically. They are just two currents of capitalist-militarism and some variation of them has always and will always be around (as long as the basic system dynamic remains.)

    • Was there anything “liberal” about the delusional American military adventure in Southeast Asia, in 1960s (and early ’70s)?

      The Labour Prime Minister in Britain refused to get his country involved in the giant quagmire.

      • Denis says:

        “Was there anything “liberal” about the delusional American military adventure in Southeast Asia, in 1960s (and early ’70s)?”

        Well, now that you ask, two names come to mind: 1. Kennedy 2. Johnson.

        How liberal does it get? The fact that Johnson personally turned-tail in 1968 as the USG was getting it’s butt kicked during Tet didn’t magically convert the war to a conservative cause. The Tonkin Gulf resolution was the work of liberals.

        And before we conclude that Iraq was a neocon debacle we’d better go back and check the voting on the 2002 Joint Resolution to Kick Saddam’s Butt. About 60% of Democrats [ala' liberals] in both houses backed it.

        Congress and the WH has always been populated with evil people who are more than willing to kill hundreds of thousands or millions in the name of democracy in order to benefit Halliburton, or Lockheed, or Israel. Some are conservatives, some are neoconservatives, some are democrats. Who cares what they’re called? The outcome is the same: US taxpayers footing the bill to kill other people’s children.

        Liberals are always getting into this holier-than-thou-bs about war and about Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Bush killing innocents. If you want to get into a pissin’ contest over what congresses or what presidents have caused the most carnage, be careful. My guess would be that liberals have voted into office and/or supported those with the most blood on their hands, but you’ll have to dig a bit deeper to find all the bodies. For instance, the hidden fact that Johnson supported the Indonesia genocide where 1 – 3 million were killed — see Joshua Oppenheimer’s The Act of Killing.

        I would expand on Sibiriak’s PoV. It’s time to stop thinking liberal v. conservative, right v. left, us v. them. That whole us/them paradigm is pounded into Americans from the first high-school football pep rally they attend and it’s all but impossible to purge by the time they’re old enough to drive. But once one gets past ill-conceived biases and takes a holistic view, one notices that the number of dangerous, evil, idiots running the world suddenly doubles.

        • The American disaster in Vietnam was direct result of delusional “thinking” on part of American leaders that reunification under the Communists was a threat to the national security of the US.

          Neither “liberal” nor “conservative”.

          Neocons hoping to benefit Israel were the sine qua non for idiotic American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Yes, war profiteers figured into equation also.

  8. American says:

    ‘It ended when the best of the neocons, the most nuanced and presentable, shot himself in the foot twice in recent weeks. David Brooks of the New York Times and NPR first called the children of mixed marriages “mutts” and then after a tidal wave of readers protested, insisted disingenuously that he didn’t mean that negatively. ‘

    If you look at all Brooks’s writings on multi ethnics, immigration,etc. you get the sense he might be (liberally) ‘conflicted’ about where this is headed. US Jews have straddeled the benefits fence of being ‘white and ‘in the establishment’ and being a ‘minority’ with also the special status as ‘victims. That might be diffcult to keep maintaining in the new ‘mutt’ nation as he calls it. To be able to do it means the Jewish orgs will have to, as they trying to do, bring the larger ethnics into the lobby fold and have some control over them.
    So in addition to his concerns about diluting the Jewishness of Jews because of intermarriage or Judaism shrinking because of this and the multi ethnic increase in the US I think he has some political concerns.
    His tribal conflicts on this show thru or slip out in his use of descriptions like ‘mutts no matter how he tries to keep up his liberal veneer.

  9. just says:

    Shades of PNAC. We will never ever see peace until the neocons implode, and our relationship with the Zionists becomes transparent and honest. Unfortunately, the neocons occupy both sides of the aisle and corporate boardrooms and our media. The citizens of this country need to help this implosion happen. Thanks to MW and other sites, the information & truth is available– we need to spread it far and wide. We should not allow the violence we perpetrate on others by action/inaction to continue to be sanitized by the MSM.

    The neocons and their supporters/adherents are drenched with the blood of innocents, and commit terror and mayhem in our name. It’s shameful and completely demonic.

  10. You know Phil, I follow your work here and believe that the neocons have been singled out and cornered so to speak and everyone knows what they are all about…i.e Israel first, big corporate national security spending, and Israel always, followed by cheerleading American jews into blindly supporting the jewish state and keeping that herd from splintering.

    I contend that it’s the msm…the mainstream media and how they serve these interests that is most damning to us out here in the real world, where an out of control national security state threatens our ever dwindling civil liberties to say nothing of the soldiers are sacrificed on the altar of these interests.

    The Snowden Greenwald affair has once again shown how servile this group; the press, is to the interests they obediently protect…it is becoming more apparent that the national press is loosing credibility and the Brooks example is more proof of this, but i again will use the word contend, that until more people like yourself take the battle directly to these sycophantic stenographers for the state, and literally point to the underhanded way their reporting serves to propagate the lies of the state that no matter how many battles the neocons will seemingly loose they will always continue to win the war of the minds against the American people.

    This is where the crucial battles in that war will need to be waged, by calling out individually every one of the highest of profiles among them….Greenwald just took his sword out against Pincus i believe at the wash post ….people read this and sooner or later these guys will respond because otherwise they know that their ramparts will be completely overun and their bastions will be lost.

    We do need more Greenwalds and maybe they all will come from the Blogosphere because the msm suffers from Stockholm Syndrome.

    The same with Politicos, they are a captured lot also.

    Best to you, I am just an observer of the tides.

  11. American says:

    I think we should pressure some wealthy segments to finance a campaign and advertising blitz for the formation of a ‘American Lobby’……and I mean a real Lobby with teeth that operates like APAC does…but has no special interest attached to it and is aimed at overseeing congress and government.
    As for example..on the current Egypt issue of the WH ignoring US Law on giving aid to countries who throw military coups….a US President over riding established US law.

    • Taxi says:

      33 million Egyptian civilians took to the streets and demanded the resignation of their failed leader and you wanna call it a “military coup”?

      How do you just dismiss the largest civilian protest in the history of mankind? I don’t get it, American. Respectfully, and in earnest, I urge you to reconsider your deductions. (Discourse on another thread, of course).

      Regarding Phil’s astute and sanguine article, it is worth remembering how hostile ideologies operate: first you infect the old guardians (politicians in high office), then you shoot at the youth from your tower of power. The result? Within a generation, you’ve succeeded in perfectly blending a heinous ideology into the very fabric of society.

      … And it was always forever thus.

      • American says:

        Taxi

        I’m not dismissing it……just calling it like it is.
        Whether it was by popular demand or not, the military ‘deposed and arrested’ an elected President.
        You can be for it or aganst it but you do have to call it what it was.
        No matter how many Egyptians took to the streets it was a military coup…even if the Egyptians dont realize it yet.

        Maybe they will get lucky in the next election..if not they’re gonna have to do Revolt III sooner or later.
        Unless they willing to settle for basically the same power structure they had before, with military still controlling 40% of Egypt’s economy with maybe some economic gains for the average Egyptian if the Arab states and the US and IMF come thru.
        Maybe they will settle for that…than again maybe not.

        • Hostage says:

          I’m not dismissing it……just calling it like it is.
          Whether it was by popular demand or not, the military ‘deposed and arrested’ an elected President.

          So when our own Congress passes laws regarding US nationals living in Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, & etc. how is that any different from the government of the elected British Parliament passing acts that General Washington and his French allies resisted and overruled by force? You do realize that the loyalists who supported the legitimate British government had to flee the USA altogether after the war?

        • MHughes976 says:

          London Review of Books arrives and makes me think. There’s an anti-Morsi, pro-revolt, article by an Egyptian who teaches politics at Cambridge (our Cambridge) but writing from Egypt. He argues that the religious rhetoric unleashed against any protest against Morsi constituted intolerable threats of violence, that the regime attempted shabby deals with the old regime and with western powers (I believe that bit) and he compares the five republics experienced by France after 1789 with the succession of regimes in Cairo (but is that comforting?) His figures are 22 mil signatories to ‘revolution petitions’, 17 mil anti-Islamist marchers ‘officially’ or 33 mil on the marchers’ own figures, accepted by our colleague Taxi. ‘They promised us that Islam was the solution but we saw neither Islam nor a solution’.
          On the other hand the same LRB edition mentions Tocqueville’s plausible remark that the normal effect of revolution is for the oppressor to fall but for oppression to continue and for ‘the head of liberty to be placed on a servile body’.

        • Taxi says:

          American,

          You are indeed still dismissing the voices of 33 million protestors, even alluding to their dim-wittedness: “even if the Egyptians dont realize it yet.” Man this is so condescending. I mean THEY WERE THERE and you weren’t – so like should they believe you or their own eyes?

          Morsi too dismissed them and look what happened to him. His moslem brotherhood were already killing Egyptian Shias and Christians and threatening to make “rivers of blood” with the protestors – and they meant it. The army had to step in and step in it did to protect the protestors and halt any attempts by the now desperate brotherhood to turn their political disaster into a sectarian war. Without the 33 million protestors and the looming and very real threat of “rivers of blood”, the army would NOT have been able to give Morsi an ultimatum. In Egypt, the army’s loyalty is to the security of the homeland and to the safety of the people, not to the pomp and powers of transient governments. The people demanded and the army backed their demand – not the other way round. This is why it’s a people’s revolution and not a military coup.

          What you’re objecting to is how the army maneuvered itself, AFTER the ouster, to protect it’s economic interests. This is a separate issue, my friend.

          And as to Morsi’s arrest, well the dude was dangerously dazed and confused and intent on inciting sectarian massacres against civilians. He was not going to do the decent thing and resign. The zealot president of Egypt was choosing mass murder of his people instead of resigning by popular demand. Clearly he was mentally unfit to rule.

          And there’s also some kinda story circulating about the army wanting to investigate his prison escape from a Mubarak jail during the first revolution. Very little info has been given out on this so we’ll have to wait and see.

          It really was a populist revolution that occurred, American. What the Egyptian people will make of it, remains to be seen. For sure they have ahead of them a colossal mountain of complexities to reconfigure. I for one wish them luck and congratulate them on their truly astounding achievement. There is no doubt that they are better off without both Mubarak and Morsi as their rulers.

        • American says:

          @ Hostage

          The American Revolution didnt depose King George from his British throne just kicked him out of his American colony…… yes by force….I come from a long line of rebels that fought in it, some of whose papers during that era now reside in the NC Museum of History…so for all your expertise on other subjects I doubt there is much you need to explain to me about the American Revolution.
          And yes I do realize that loyalist fled for Britain, I live in an area that still has reminders of that era like the Old Britt Place that was abandoned by a loyalist family and has passed thru dozen of hands since then and is still standing.
          Not every military coup is the same…..I call this a military coup because the ‘power’ ended up in the hands of the military..or the power to ‘enforce and make ‘decisions for whoever the ‘deciders were in the people’s revolt ended up in their hands of the military….at least for the time being. You can argue that was good or bad or necessary. You can even argue that it was both a peoples and a military coup. But so far by all accounts the military is the ‘enforcer and at least the visible ‘decider.
          I dont see the E -military as quite the benevolent champion of the people some think they are—they had enough self interest that they monopolized 40% of the Egyptian economy and their generals were quite corrupt themselves…the Egyptian people weren’t the side their bread was buttered on.
          So we will see what happens.

        • Probably only a third of the free people in the 13 colonies supported separation from Britian.

        • Hostage says:

          @ Hostage

          The American Revolution didnt depose King George from his British throne just kicked him out of his American colony…… yes by force….I come from a long line of rebels

          They liked the King just fine when his Charters and Armies helped line their pockets or secure more territory. But they obviously endorsed the right of the people to overthrow the government by force. That’s the proposition that the US Declaration of Independence advocated. The rebels didn’t waste their time lobbying the British Parliament to change the laws on treason either.

        • Sibiriak says:

          Taxi:

          It really was a populist revolution that occurred.

          It was a populist revolution *hijacked* by the military and other elite interests, local and international.

          … those who provide the mass support for a revolution, those who lead it, and those who ultimately profit from it are very different sets of people.

          (Barrington Moore)

        • Sibiriak says:

          Taxi:

          There is no doubt that they are better off without both Mubarak and Morsi as their rulers.

          A lot of Muburak folks are back, or reinvigorated, as a result of the recent military coup. The “deep state” cannot be fully separated from the previous Mubarak regime as you suggest:

          link to fpif.org

          “Egypt’s Military Brings Neither Stability Nor Democracy”

          …the military has political interests which do not align with the general will of the people.

          In fact, the military is an arm of Egypt’s “deep government,” a complex of institutions that underpinned Mubarak’s 30-year old regime—including the judiciary and the media—which Morsi never fully dissolved.

          Because of this, the military will always back those friendly to the deposed Mubarak regime who have also been stridently against Morsi.

          link to zcommunications.org

          “Egypt: Dr. Frankenstein’s Constitution”

          If the vacuous civilian leadership and the military’s recent brutality were not enough to demonstrate the shortsighted nature of the “people’s coup” in Egypt, the constitutional declaration issued by army-backed interim president Adly Mansour certainly does.

          [...]

          The continued overt involvement of MUBARAK ERA JUDGES in redrawing Egypt’s constitution, something Morsi attempted to circumvent, raises serious doubts about whether the resulting document will accurately reflect the most pressing concerns that prompted Egyptians to revolt against the former dictator.

          [...]

          Morsi was particularly singled out for attempting to replace the Mubarak-era public prosecutor in a sweeping expansion of presidential power.

          In the first days of his presidency, not only has Mansour already made appointments to the heads of Egypt’s major judicial bodies (ALL REMNANTS OF THE MUBARAK REGIME, incidentally), but he is also poised to appoint a new public prosecutor after the Supreme Judicial Council ruled that it could not do so under a suspended constitution, effectively leaving it up to the president.

        • Taxi says:

          The Egyptian military and it’s administrative hierarchal machination was established by General Jamal Abdul Nasser. The army’s hearth and the top tier is Nasserite to the bone, ideologically speaking. Mubarak and his cronies cannot touch or change this. Mubarak is seen, especially by the army, as a midget ruler next to the giant Nasser. It’s a mistake, Sib, to define the Egyptian army as a Mubarakite army. What you define as “a lot of Muburak folks are back” are actually a ‘few’ Mubarak era middle-men (the ones who aren’t important enough to be behind bars already). They are your garden variety two-faced pragmatists maneuvering to protect their personal interests and not to bring back a ‘Mubarakite’ as ruler. In other words, inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

        • Taxi says:

          Sib,

          It’s false to call the army’s maneuver a “hijack”. If after the new Egyptian elections the army refuses to hand over the reigns of power to the new leader, then you can accurately describe it as that. Till then, it’s your personal speculation.

          Mindful here that the army did actually hand over the power reigns to Morsi, a guy who’s not exactly their best friend. The record speaks for itself.

          I have no doubt that come the time (not immediately for sure), Egyptians will change their constitution to take away some of the army’s unchecked powers. But this will not even start to happen till after israel’s hegemony has been neutralized. The region can then get on catching up sociopolitically with the rest of the world without the added crushing burden of constantly having to deal with a violent predator state in the neighborhood.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Taxi,

          Isn’t the Egyptian military largely under the thumb of American neoconservatives and the Israel lobby in general?

        • just says:

          Yes, well said Sibiriak.

          Why no El Baradei, by the way?

          It was a massive protest that I remain in awe of, but the outcome has yet to be determined. I fear for the Egyptians. Who would want to live with the military in control?

          They won’t surrender power willingly.

        • American says:

          @ Hostage

          It’s a mistake to try and compare or defend or condemn one revolution based on another one.
          Try and compare Castro’s people’s revolution against Batista and his “military ‘ to a revolution in which the military is part of the revolt and calls the shots in the aftermath.
          Or try the French revolution..as said they are not all the same.

          Your and Taxi’s grip with my ‘coup’ calling seems to be 1)I am not giving the Egyptian people ‘credit”, 2) I am calling them dumb 3) saying the gov over throw was wrong and 4) that people don’t have the right to overthrow their governments..

          That IS NOT what I am saying.
          What I am saying is that the military chose a side and ENFORCED this coup. NOW ,you can say the military chose the ‘right side’ ..I dont give a rats ass about the sides or who thinks what about the ‘sides’. The fact is they deposed a elected leader ‘without a democratic process ONLY thru the power of the military.
          If the military hadnt issued their ultimatum to Morsi the protestors would still be in the streets trying to get rid of him.
          When the military of a country turns on it’s gov or leader and is the ‘instrument that ‘actually’ overthrows it or them, whether by ‘popular demand’ or not, it is usually called a military coup.

        • American says:

          Sibiriak says:
          July 14, 2013 at 3:06 am
          Taxi:…
          It really was a populist revolution that occurred. ”

          It was a populist revolution *hijacked* by the military and other elite interests, local and international.

          …” those who provide the mass support for a revolution, those who lead it, and those who ultimately profit from it are very different sets of people. ”
          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

          EXACTLY.
          And once again not all revolutions are not the same…one man’s ‘revolution can be another man’s coup.

        • American says:

          @ Taxi

          Get a grip on your emotions….no one is ”putting down” the Egyptian people or belittling their efforts.
          And dont tell me what I mean or when I am ‘dismissing’ people or calling them dimwitted.
          If that were my intention or belief I would have said it in such a way that you would have had an apocalyptic aneurysm, passed out and not been able to chastise me. LOL

        • Blank State says:

          It just seems ludicrous to me that one can use the correct terminology to describe the power change in Egypt, and as a result be accused of taking sides.

          Well…,uh…duh…the military removes a leader from power, puts someone in his place, institutes arrests, and stations tanks and military personel willy nilly throughout the urban centers….and its not a “military coup”???

          HUH???

          I believe in healthy debate, but egads. Seems to me Taxi’s meter is overcharging.

        • Various efforts were made by American colonials in England, to influence Parliament to do one thing or another.

          On the whole, the colonials were lightly taxed.

          The elimination of the French threat changed the equation substantially. While it existed, independence was not a good option.

        • Hostage says:

          @ Hostage It’s a mistake to try and compare or defend or condemn one revolution based on another one.

          No it’s not. I’m pointing out that the US Congress passes laws that govern the lives of unrepresented US nationals today in exactly the same way that the duly elected British Parliament did with respect to that government’s colonial possessions.

          I’m also pointing out that the coup provisions of the US Foreign Assistance Act would have theoretically applied to our own foreign-backed rebel government. The same can be said about the Egyptian Colonels who overthrew King Farouk and his duly elected Parliament. Nasser was wildly popular in the Arab world for doing that – and for exactly the same reasons other rebel military leaders, like Washington and Bolivar were popular and became full time political leaders.

          I’ve noted on many occasions that both the US and UK governments have conspired to displace the people of the Chagos Islands and deny them self government in order to maintain US military installations on Diego Garcia. I’m a hell of a lot more worried about that situation than the odds of a representative government being elected to govern Egypt.

        • Hostage says:

          Well…,uh…duh…the military removes a leader from power, puts someone in his place, institutes arrests, and stations tanks and military personel willy nilly throughout the urban centers….and its not a “military coup”???

          HUH???

          But first there were reportedly 33 million civilians pissed off enough to take to the streets and call for the dissolution of the government. It’s funny to watch the mental gymnastics you guys are going through to claim that the military wasn’t responding to a popular revolution.

          When Mubarak was removed, the coup clause was initially waived until elections could be arranged. Then the Chairman of the Senate Committee on State Department and Foreign Appropriations said there would not be any more waivers and that he would place a hold on the treasury accounts until the military’s Supreme Council turned over power to an elected civilian government – and that’s exactly what he is proposing to do again this time.

          So it’s being treated as a revolution, just like the last regime change that brought Morsi to power with the aid of the military.

        • Taxi says:

          American,

          “If the military hadnt issued their ultimatum to Morsi the protestors would still be in the streets trying to get rid of him.”

          Man you’re so wrong on this one too. If the military hadn’t stepped in, there would have been a “bloodbath” in Egypt, propelling it fast into a sectarian civil war just like in Syria. But perhaps you’d prefer a civilian bloodbath on the (starving) streets of Egypt? Perhaps you’d like to assist the Israel/usa/oil arabs/Turkey/UK/France project that aims to turn the Arab-Spring region into a sectarian omelet.

          You really haven’t got a clue on this one, American. Your obsession with the faults of the Egyptian army is blinding you to the overall picture.

          I’ve spent a fortune on fone calls to friends in Egypt in the last five months. I visited it twice last year and once this year. I have sat through hundreds of hours of rigorous Egypt analysis on various Arab TV stations. I think I can safely say that, unlike you, I’m not relying on some textbook formula, or on western journalism either, to ascertain and define the complex and explosive situation that is Egypt today.

          “Get a grip on your emotions….no one is ”putting down” the Egyptian people or belittling their efforts.
          And dont tell me what I mean or when I am ‘dismissing’ people or calling them dimwitted.
          If that were my intention or belief I would have said it in such a way that you would have had an apocalyptic aneurysm, passed out and not been able to chastise me. LOL”

          Sounds like you’re the one having a wigout. Perhaps alcohol is involved. Which would explain your (unusual) utter pigheaded folly and your continued offensive dismissal of the Egyptian people, bordering on racism, I may add. Explains too how you would interpret a straight up debate as a ‘chastisement’. Go back upthread and re-read your comments on the Egyptian people – summed up: the Egyptian people don’t know what they’re doing, and their army is evil. There are no other points you’re making.

          I have no problem reminding you, again, that Egyptians know better than you about what is happening to them and what they want for their great nation. They are happy with their revolution and clearly you’re not. Today I called a coupla Egyptian friends and put your point of view to them. A meh and a shoulder-shrug was their uniform response to outsiders with your myopic attitude. You deserve this paltry reaction from them, I’d like to add. Why should they respect and accept any half-baked opinion from outsiders when their country is still facing a dangerous and real sectarian war?

          I tried to engage in a polite debate with you, American, cuz I really like you and I earnestly wanted your POV to be all encompassing and not just fixated on the army this and army that. I wanted you to be ahead of the curve and not stuck in some cerebral quagmire that would produce no intellectual insights. But now I accept that you prefer to remain raving in the western moshpit, twisting and turning and “LOLLING” away. So be it.

          Sorry big tough dude, but you’re laughing alone in the corner on this one.

        • American says:

          @ Taxi

          No you did not engage in polite debate with me….you accused me of belittling the ‘people’ and calling them dumb. BECAUSE I commented several times on how “I” thought they were eventually going to have to do something about the military’s place in the gov. and economics of Egypt (UNLESS THEY WANTED THE MILITARY TO MAINTAIN THE SEMI GOVERMENTAL POSITION THEY’VE ALWAYS HAD).
          IF they want to keep the military in the same role as always..let them, who cares….but if they dont want that, then as I said I hope they ‘realize’ this ….as in ‘sooner and not later’….as in a Revolt III.

          Yes we know you enjoy revolts, revolutions and the vision of wars and violent overthrows of all the demons in the ME..you have gone on about that at length on MW. And seem to look foward to the Egyptains launching revolt after revolt till they land on the right government.
          AND I seriously doubt the average struggling Egyptian is enjoying these revolutions as much as you are and hopes this one takes so they can improve their lives.

          Once again ….get a grip on your emotions and stop the personal attacks on others because their ‘opinions’ differ. You are the only one here that has set herself up as ‘the Authority’ and last word on Egypt —the rest us are expressing opinions.

        • Taxi says:

          How short your memory, American. We started this conversation on another Egypt thread and my manners were civilized, despite your constant dismissal of the Egyptian people – check my archives. You, like a bunch of others on MW, apparently cannot handle my spiritedness and resent my dynamic turn-of-phrase. Well I ain’t dumbing down for you or anybody else buddy. You’ve never been to the mideast and so you’ll always have a blindspot in your POV. See if I care anymore.

          Go now and “get a grip” yourself – on your cognitive faculty that is. And leave me in peace with my “vision of wars and violent overthrows of all the demons in the ME”.

          Good grief, American – as if your own visions are fallow and lame.

        • Sibiriak says:

          American:

          Your and Taxi’s grip with my ‘coup’ calling seems to be 1)I am not giving the Egyptian people ‘credit”, 2) I am calling them dumb 3) saying the gov over throw was wrong and 4) that people don’t have the right to overthrow their governments..

          That IS NOT what I am saying.

          I just reviewed this thread, and I have to agree–your comments have been grossly misinterpreted/distorted.

          Apparently, some folks feel that if you label the Egyptian military’s action a “coup” , you are necessarily siding with Morsi against “the Egyptian people”. It’s all about “which side are you on?”–as if there were always only two sides to an issue, and you must take one of them.

        • Sibiriak says:

          Taxi:

          The Egyptian military and it’s administrative hierarchal machination was established by General Jamal Abdul Nasser.The army’s hearth and the top tier is Nasserite to the bone, ideologically speaking.

          Evidence please.

          Are you saying that there is some “Nasserite ideology” that has remained intact since the days of Nasser, and that the Army still adheres to this old ideology, despite all the geopolitical and ideological changes that have occurred since then, including the shift to U.S. global hegemony, the Arab-state accommodations with Israel, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the rise of neoliberalism, IMF dominance etc. etc.?

          Are you saying that the Egyptian military is driven by some nationalist or pan-Arabist *idealism*, and has not become a corrupt, entrenched, self-interested social institution, with deep ties to the U.S./Israel and global financial elites?

          Mubarak is seen, especially by the army, as a midget ruler next to the giant Nasser.

          So, are you saying the Egyptian army did not form a close, symbiotic alliance with Mubarak forces during the long thirty-some years of Mubarak’s rule?

          Are you saying that the during the entire Mubarak era, the military supported Mubark while silently despising him, and has now risen to again to fulfill some kind of Nassarite mission that had long laid dormant?

        • Sibiriak says:

          Taxi:

          I’ve spent a fortune on fone calls to friends in Egypt in the last five months

          Do you think that counts as any kind of objective evidence?

          Did your friends include MB members? Do you think the millions of Egyptians supporting the MB think there was NO military coup in Egypt to oust Morsi? Are MB supporters in Egypt not Egyptians?

        • Taxi says:

          Sib,

          You coulda actually answered all your own questions if only you understood the concept of realpolitik.

          You’re unaware of the enduring message of Nasser, not just in Egypt but across the Arab world?

          Is my only question to you.

          And funny enough, I already know the answer to my own question too.

        • Sibiriak says:

          Taxi,

          You’re unaware of the enduring message of Nasser, not just in Egypt but across the Arab world?

          No, I’m not unaware of that.

          My questions to you: do you really think the Egyptian military is committed to that “enduring message of Nasser”, and was it THAT commitment which drove them to depose Morsi?

          If so, please explain what that message is and how the Egyptian military is attempting to realize it; how the Egyptian military’s deep ties to the U.S., Israel, and international neoliberal financial elites, and the military’s drive to sustain their autonomous political and economic power in Egypt, reflects their commitment to Nasserite ideology.

        • Sibiriak says:

          Taxi:

          I have no problem reminding you, again, that Egyptians know better than you about what is happening to them and what they want for their great nation. They are happy with their revolution and clearly you’re not.

          You talk about “Egyptians” as if they were some undifferentiated, monolithic group.

          It seems more realistic to take analyze the various factions that make up the “Egyptian people” and try to understand the complex dynamics at work.

          For example, see:

          “In Egypt the Military is Supreme”
          by ESAM AL-AMIN

          link to counterpunch.org

          Excerpts:

          The military in Egypt has always enjoyed a privileged and autonomous status and is tacitly considered the power behind the throne. For decades, political power was concentrated in the hands of an elite yet mostly corrupt political and business class that monopolized power and looted the country’s resources.

          Was that a “Nasserite” ideology in action?

          In part because the 2011 revolutionary partners were SHARPLY DIVIDED ON IDEOLOGICAL GROUNDS, former regime loyalists, politicians, and corrupt businessmen were able to regroup and play an increasing role in the political battles that engulfed the country.

          Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP), which
          esamdominated political life for decades, was the only party in the country capable of organizing nationwide and competing with the MB. But since the public rejected the NDP (and it was banned shortly after Mubarak was deposed), it did not participate in the parliamentary elections in the fall of 2011.

          However, by June 2012, Ahmad Shafiq, Mubarak’s last Prime Minster, represented the NDP’s interests. As one of the two remaining candidates in the second round of the presidential elections, he ultimately lost by less than two percent.

          By the time the president issued his ill-advised and ill-fated constitutional decree, the opposition was not only united against Morsi and the MB but also determined to dislodge them from power. [...]

          He eventually reversed course and annulled his decree, even though the opposition rejected all his appeals for political dialogue. However, his objective of having a new constitution, which the opposition vehemently rejected, and replacing the Mubarak-appointed public prosecutor, a demand that the youth and revolutionary groups had called for, were already fulfilled.

          This single act proved to be a rallying point for all the opposition and the REMNANTS OF THE FORMER REGIME (fulool), which united under the National Salvation Front (NSF) in order to confront and defeat Morsi and the MB. They campaigned vigorously to defeat the constitution, which to their dismay, was passed by 64 percent.

          By the spring of 2013, the MB and its supporters were preparing for new parliamentary elections, which they had expected to win. Their strategy was that if they won the parliamentary elections and forced judiciary reform, they would be able to control or influence all branches of government and easily confront the deep state and institute their program.

          Sensing the danger of this scenario, NSF coordinator Dr. Mohammad ElBaradei met with Shafiq in the United Arab Emirates in March. In an interview last week, Shafiq disclosed that he and ElBaradei had agreed on an elaborate plan to depose Morsi and the MB. He also predicted that Morsi and MB officials would be arrested and tried.

          During the process, the secular opposition and the FULOOL embraced Tamarrud’s message, while the latter used the offices of the NSF and held several press conferences at the headquarters of well-known media outlets of MUBARAK LOYALISTS . There is also anecdotal evidence that the group received financial support from fulool groups.

          Meanwhile, the PRIVATE MEDIA started a well-orchestrated campaign and continuous onslaught on the MB in particular and the Islamists in general.

          The fulool and their allies within the deep state took advantage of this public discontent. Many FORMER SECURITY OFFICIALS AND WEALTHY BUSINESSMEN TIED TO THE FORMER REGIME were seen organizing and mobilizing for the June 30th protest, the day Tamarrud designated to force Morsi’s ouster.

          By July 2, the Appellate Court invalidated the appointment of the General Prosecutor appointed by Morsi and returned the Mubarak-appointed corrupt prosecutor, who was dismissed last November.

          Furthermore, in order to further muddy the political scene, the courts also ordered that Morsi’s Prime Minister, Dr. Hisham Qandil, be arrested and sentenced to one year in prison for not implementing an earlier court order given to a Mubarak-era prime minister.

          Many were ordinary citizens alienated because of economic hardship and the lack of basic services. Many were secularists who hated Islamists and wanted to overthrow them by revolutionary means since they could not defeat them at the ballot box. Many were Christians who feared the Islamists and were tacitly encouraged by the Coptic Church to participate.

          But it was also clear than many were FULOOL AND MUBARAK REGIME LOYALISTS as the picture of the former dictator was prominently raised and hailed in Tahrir Square amid chants in his support. Many were also former and current security officials who showed up in their uniforms.

          Even two former Interior Ministers who served during the military transitional rule and former regime were leading the protests as revolutionaries, even though they were charged by the youth groups at the time with murdering their revolutionary friends and comrades. Many protesters were also thugs hired by NDP politicians and corrupt business people.

          Meanwhile, in an orchestrated manner, dozens of buildings that belonged to the MB and the FJP including their headquarters were burned down, torched, or ransacked. More than a dozen members were killed, while hundreds were wounded. Within hours, five cabinet ministers resigned and dozens of senior officials including presidential spokespersons and dozens of diplomats submitted their resignations in an attempt to collapse the state.

          After the MB and its allies saw the massive demonstrations of their opponents on June 30 they called for massive mobilization the following day, holding more than 20 huge protests across the country that also numbered in the millions. With few exceptions, THE SECULAR AND LIBERAL MEDIA IGNORED THOSE PROTESTS.

          [...]On July 1, the frustrated president addressed the nation and adamantly rejected the military’s ultimatum, as he called on his people to support his legitimacy as a democratically-elected president. Immediately after the speech, the president’s supporters, who were holding a huge rally in Giza, were attacked by thugs and snipers. Sixteen people were killed and hundreds wounded.

          as they officially announced that Morsi was removed from power, the generals surrounded themselves with several civilian and religious leaders, including the head of Al-Azhar, the Coptic Pope, ElBaradei as NSF spokesman, and representatives of Tamarrud and the Salafist Al-Noor Party. It was a brazen attempt to make it seem as if the overthrow of Morsi had broad consensus by civilian and religious leaders.

          Immediately after Sisi’s announcement, the new regime began its crackdown on the media that supported the deposed president. [...]The pro-Morsi protests across Egypt were also surrounded by the military.

          Whatever the faults of the above analysis (please read the entire article), it at least has the merit of identifying various groups and forces in Egyptian society, and does not attempt to reduce a very complex situation down to a binary opposition of “The Egyptian people” vs “the enemies of the People.”

        • seanmcbride says:

          Sibiriak — insightful set of comments on Egyptian politics which reflect my own line of thinking. Neocons, using classical imperial methods, have spent billions of American tax dollars — essentially as a bribe — to acquire substantial control of the Egyptian military, which is more a tool of the Israel lobby these days than an expression of Nasserism. Taxi is quite the romantic — but always charmingly feisty.

        • Taxi says:

          Seany,

          It ain’t business as usual between the Egyptian army and Washington/israel lately.

          Sign of this is that the Egyptian army’s ultimatum to Morsi took Washington by surprise and for a good ten days the American ambassador to Egypt was all over the place with her discombobulated statements, although she was being briefed daily by the White House, the State Department and the CIA. This tells one that there was no unified message or policy between the WH, SD or the CIA – none of them knew what the hell the Egyptian army had in mind regarding the ultimatum: did the army mean it – are they going for Marshal Law – where does that leave Camp David? They wondered and much second-gussing was taking place during the first ten days, explaining therefore, upon close study, the utter confused surprise of our government and agents at Egypt II, evidenced by the embarrassingly mixed messages that ambassador Anne Patterson was releasing to the Egyptian protestors and to Morsi’s camp.

          You could say that the Egyptian army just went rogue knowing there’d be nothing that Washington could do about it. The timing was impeccable. The premeditation to go rogue was obviously there too, discussed and agreed upon by the Egyptian army’s top inner circle.

          This is what happens when empire is on the decline: your subjects start ignoring your orders and doing their own thing for their own interest. And we will know this American decline in the mideast more tangibly once Bashar retakes his country back from the invading terrorists backed by USA/israel/oil Arabs/Turkey/France/UK. Looks like Empire’s failed projects are piling up.

          I also have it on good authority that the Egyptian army has been making (forbidden by USA) overtures to Putin: on the table for discussion is a renewed military cooperation between Russia and Egypt.

          As regards Nasser’s popularity amongst Egyptians, you don’t have to take my word for it, just go ask an Egyptian yourself. And knowing how much you love statistics and list-making, go find yourself say ten or twenty Egyptians and do a micro poll. You just may find that even though I’m soulfully romantic, as best I can, my political analysis is spun from the opposite fabric: gritty, grimy realism.

        • American says:

          Sibiriak @ July 16, 2013 at 5:05 am

          Sibiriak, thanks for that explaination for what is a very ‘complex situation.
          That is what some of us have been trying to point out about all the elements in this revolt but werent expert enough about the different Egyptian fractions to lay it out properly.

        • American says:

          @ Sibiriak

          and thanks for figuring out what I was ‘trying to say in my comments on this.

        • Nasser and Nasserism were a disaster for Egypt. Sustained neglect of vital institutions that were in place when the monarchy was overthrown.

        • Hostage says:

          Sibiriak — insightful set of comments on Egyptian politics which reflect my own line of thinking.

          You guys are still missing the elephant in the room. The only reason we are discussing the language used to describe the revolution in Egypt is because of the 1997 Leahy Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act. It doesn’t allow security forces to receive aid if they remove a democratically elected government either by coup or by decree. In other words, agreement that a coup happened is not the essential element. The law was triggered regardless because the military issued a decree that required the government to step down. Lets read it together:

          111 STAT. 2386 Public Law 105–118—Nov. 26, 1997, The “Foreign Operations, Export Financing, And Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1998″
          MILITARY COUPS
          SEC. 508. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree: Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such country if the President determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the termination of assistance a democratically elected government has taken office.

          The amendment will require the military to hold elections and turn over power to a democratically elected civilian government. That is the only way that Morsi managed to gain control of the government from the military in the first place. Leahy was the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee for the State Department and Foreign Assistance Programs back then, and he still controls the purse strings on all of that money today. You keep claiming that the US uses that money to buy-off the military, but forget the Catch-22 provision which says that they can’t govern the country and still get it.

          I don’t know if you consider Senator Leahy a neocon or not, but he is making an awful lot of noise about the application of his amendment. Let’s review:

          Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called for an end to foreign aid for Egypt, saying that the military coup that took place today disqualifies the new government from receiving American assistance under U.S. law.

          “[O]ur law is clear: U.S. aid is cut off when a democratically elected government is deposed by military coup or decree,” Leahy said today. “As we work on the new budget, my committee also will review future aid to the Egyptian government as we wait for a clearer picture. As the world’s oldest democracy, this is a time to reaffirm our commitment to the principle that transfers of power should be by the ballot, not by force of arms.”

          Leahy took care not to sound supportive of Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, who was deposed in the midst of massive protests against his efforts to consolidate power and implement the sharia-based program of his political party, the Muslim Brotherhood.

          “[Morsi] squandered an historic opportunity, preferring to govern by fiat rather than work with other political parties to do what is best for all Egyptians,” Leahy said. “Egypt’s military leaders say they have no intent or desire to govern, and I hope they make good on their promise.”

          link to washingtonexaminer.com

          Here’s how Morsi came to prevail over the military:

          *Here’s an article which says that Senator Leahy, the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, wants to put on hold military aid to Egypt until the country commits to a democratic transition: link to washingtonpost.com

          *Here’s an article which says that Leahy, like any individual senator, has the necessary power to put a hold on the release of appropriated aid money still in the pipeline should he choose to do so. Congressional sources said the senator would rather negotiate with the State Department and reach an agreement on using the aid as a lever to ensure the Egyptian military lives up to its commitment to transfer power: See Egypt Aid Under Fire Over Power Grab link to forward.com

          *The State Department waived the restriction on funding a military coup government a few days after the Egyptian Generals lifted the travel restrictions on the 43 NGO workers it had arrested. However, Leahy said that would not prevent a hold from being placed on funds still in the pipeline or on next year’s budget:

          “I have made clear to the State Department that, despite the earlier waiver of the conditions I authored, I would not want to see the U.S. government write checks for contracts with Egypt’s military under the present uncertain circumstances,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said in a statement on Friday. Leahy wrote the law that allowed Clinton to approve money for the Egyptian government without certifying that the military government was moving to democratic transition.

          link to security.blogs.cnn.com

          *When the Generals subsequently delayed action on the Constitution and the elections, Senator Leahy threatened that the waiver wouldn’t be included in the next appropriations bill and Secretary Clinton jumped on a plane and went to Egypt. Shortly thereafter Morsi issued his own ultimatum with US backing and fired General Tantawi: Morsi fires Tantawi; expands presidential powers, In dramatic move, Egypt’s new president sacks man who served as Mubarak’s defense minister for over two decades, issues new decree granting him full legislative, executive authority link to ynetnews.com

          Why do you think this is going to take a dramatic turn and play-out differently this time?

        • gamal says:

          and yet there is no movement in Egypt to restore the Monarchy? why so?

          for many, most really, millions of Egyptians today their conditions and life chances are vastly inferior to those they enjoyed under Nasser’s regime.

          Of course Nasser came to power in a coup d’etat, swiftly and bloodlessly.

          His significance and legacy is quite complex perhaps getting a copy of Nasser 56 with famous the vignette that mentions al-sokhra, slavery, in connection to the Suez canal, my family come from near the canal zone some of our people were also taken never to heard of and no remittances hence kidnap and slavery, and Al-Karnak which shows another side of the story might help. a quote and link to his final speech below, we find him more attractive than the Gulf potentates, currently raping Egypt, and butchering Syria.

          there is a reason Umm Kulthum sang “ebka fa’anta al-amal” to him on all our behalf and that Nizar Qabbani called him the “Last Prophet”, it may not float your boat but if you dont understand his significance to us you dont know much about Egypt or the Arab world, we do not regard the lived experience of that era as a disaster.

          “I have realised from the very beginning that our success had to depend on our complete understanding of the nature of our national history in which we had lived.”
          link to panafricanperspective.com

        • Hostage says:

          His significance and legacy is quite complex

          I’ve always thought that Nasser sounded like the only adult in room sometimes when reading the conversations recorded in the Foreign Relations of the United States between our him and our own US officials. Americans still buy-in to our own government’s misleading propaganda that was generated to portray him as a hot head or communist.

        • American says:

          “You guys are still missing the elephant in the room. The only reason we are discussing the language used to describe the revolution in Egypt is because of the 1997 Leahy Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act…….Hostage

          Hostage, that may be why you’re discussing it but it’s not really the ‘sole’ reason others have discussed it. I used ,in a comment about an ‘American Lobby to oversee our government, the example of Obama violating the coup clause re Egypt. It was only an example off the top of my head to illustrate what I was talking about.
          But as far as that subject goes we are all familiar with how congress writes and amends laws and defines things however they want to define them for what ever purpose they had in mind at the time. Thats such a established ‘given it’s not even worth arguing about. If the powers that be in the US want to give aid to Egypt or any 0ther country in whatever ‘kind’ of regime change they will have or create a handy law or amendment to do that.
          What most have been doing is ‘opining’ on or ‘speculating about how it will turn out re Egyptian government.
          We spend a lot of time here speculating about a lot of things re Isr and USA and etc. so I dont know why certain noses are out of joint about the speculating over Egypt. I think all of the comments reflect concern that Egyptians get a better deal out of the next E-Gov then they’ve gotten in past governments..

        • @Hostage – - Nasser wasted a good deal of money etc in Yemen. Did
          Egypt no good. Notions of Arab unity were will-o-the-wisp.

          He intentionally allowed important institutions to wither.

          Blunder in 1967 too.

        • Yes, quality of life for millions of Egyptians was much higher under the monarchy.

        • gamal says:

          he was a saiidi, a poor man from a very poor upper Egypt, solid and grounded and imbued with a great conviction, his speeches and his style of communication was much appreciated by the people, he had a great command of rhetoric was a fabulous speaker and he was sincere in his devotion to the welfare of Egyptians, incorruptible, Morsi et al are not even pygmies in comparison as to the Al-Thani’s and Maktoums etc what could one say, those treacherous sons of larceny are a curse.

          He was the first Egyptian to rule Egypt, leaving aside Neguib for effect and was only ever titular, to rule Egypt for 2500 years or so, he compares rather well with our current crop of leaders, 6 million followed his coffin, he restored our dignity and gave us hope, for that alone we are grateful, if Egypt ever shakes itself free, it will only be because Nasser and that generation already broke the bonds which have been replaced with such alacrity on our minds and hands.

          He is of significance far beyond the Arab world was a key figure in Bandung and the non-aligned movement we have had no one of his stature since to speak on our behalf.

        • gamal says:

          its just worth mentioning in relation to Farouk etc that Kermit Roosevelt at the CIA backed Nasser and Neguib as is well known in Egypt because of the poor government of Farouk and his slavish reliance on the UK, the state barely functioned, surely their reports are available to you, JC, Farouk presided over a chaotic and severely corrupt system, the CIA participated in his overthrow precisely because his regime was non-functional, so what institutions did you have in mind, you better check with Doha and Riyadh what the latest line is. Anyway i believe the CIA called the operation in support of the young officers operation FF, for fat fucker this being the nickname the CIA gave Farouk that Albanian roue who did nothing for Egypt save continue our servitude to the powers and make Egypt even greater laughing stock than was strictly necessary.

          h

        • seanmcbride says:

          Taxi,

          I’ve learned quite a bit about the current Egyptian situation from you, Sibiriak and Hostage — especially regarding various points of disagreement.

          I find events in that nation to be quite confusing, don’t claim to understand them very well, and think the United States should keep its nose out of the affairs of all the nations in that region. The more we meddle, the more enemies we make.

          I do think as a matter of simple common sense that the many billions of dollars that the United States has channeled to Egypt since the 1970s has created a considerable degree of financial dependency among some (perhaps most) leaders of the Egyptian military. The American government has a great deal of leverage over the Egyptian government, and that leverage is used primarily to keep Egypt in line with regard to its policies towards Israel. The aid basically constitutes a bribe.

        • Taxi says:

          gamal,

          I met an Egyptian teen last year who could recite some of Nasser’s speeches, full length – I recorded him on my camcorder.

          I’ve never met an American teen, or an adult for that matter, including myself, who can recite a Kennedy speech in full.

          Sibrik and Sean regard Nasser as a mere name in the history books. I only hope that they discourse with more Egyptian people so they may widen their understanding of the Egyptian realm and Nasser’s profound influence, even some forty plus years after his death.

          When Nasser lost the 67 war, he made a speech where he offered his resignation and apologies for failing his people. Egyptians demonstrated en mass after the speech and absolutely refused his resignation.

          I don’t know of any western leader who’s offered their resignation because of their failures at war. No honesty or honor there. The only other leader that I know of who tried to resign due to failure at office is the first Lebanese president, post independence from the French, Mr. Bechara Khoury.

        • MRW says:

          Many of the Egyptian Army brass were educated in US Army War colleges. They’re no slouches, just like any educated there.

          Hey Taxi, I wonder if Mursii is going to go back to teaching at Northridge, if he can get out of Egypt.

        • Sibiriak says:

          Taxi:

          Sibrik and Sean regard Nasser as a mere name in the history books.

          I never said anything remotely like that.

        • Sibiriak says:

          gamal:

          [Nasser's] significance and legacy is quite complex.

          I completely agree.

        • Taxi says:

          American,

          It seems that in my genuine attempt to enlighten you, I ended up offending you. For this I apologize.

          But I still maintain that what happened in Egypt was a populist revolution.

          :-)

          Respect for your insights and the dynamic energy you bring to the fore.

        • gamal says:

          thats true Taxi your positivity is much appreciated, Cairo, Jerusalem and Damascus will of course all eventually be free, for me the real object of this revolt was the IMF and their MB acolytes, and the vilely corrupt business clique including Sawaris etc.

          Egyptians are unwilling at this point to be bought off with empty promises while they are further immisserated, so perhaps we are not ready for “Democracy”.

        • Hostage says:

          Hostage, that may be why you’re discussing it but it’s not really the ‘sole’ reason others have discussed it.

          It’s the only reason the media is peddling the coup talking point. Meanwhile you’ve failed to explain why you think Leahy has been so outspoken about the fact that the law clearly requires that foreign assistance funds be withheld and why you think he’s going to behave any differently this time than when he helped Morsi prevail over Tantawi?

          The commenters here keep talking about the fact that Morsi was democratically elected, while forgetting that he issued a decree granting himself full legislative and executive authority. He was accused of acting much like a dictator and governing by fiat.

        • gamal says:

          “He was accused of acting much like a dictator and governing by fiat.”

          given that Morsi was in a tough spot, his hubris was astonishing and he managed to lose everyone, even many erstwhile supporters, was he arrogating these powers to himself so that he could storm the states institutions on behalf of the long suffering people, all indications are that this was not the case, for various reasons the MB is very far from finished, despite all this, those to right of Morsi in the Islamic movements however have made such fools of themselves i doubt they could raise 10k votes right now in the whole nation.

          when Morsi in a vain attempt to ape Nasser’s frugality, declared that since he took office not one cent had gone int0 his own pocket, the people chanted “Mr President it’s just the same for us”.

          Egyptians are politically quite sophisticated, and are not buying into the policy paralysis and subservience (to “western” interests) of the elite.

  12. Krauss says:

    The neoconservatives were never really that intellectually powerful. On closer inspection, their theories were easily debunked and crushed.

    So why have they sticked around? People are so naive about this question.
    Money.

    There’s plenty of bigoted right-wing cash that burns for Israel. So they bought up all the newspapers and magazines on the right, and the Jewish angle is their “liberal” brethren like Bill Keller or Jeffrey Goldberg, Chait and so on. Even Leslie Gelb, who is trying to reform himself as a mildmannered man, belongs in the same club.

    Behind them? All wall of right-wing Zionist cash. And there’s a ton of ethnic networking too, look at a place like The New Republic for one(even today).
    One of my favourite of contemporary moments was when that WASPy facebook yuppie bought TNR. The neocons at Commentary were openly whining about a goy buying TNR and their first, spine-deep, instinct was to ask: yes, but what about Israel?

    People have to understand this is the overriding theme for many in the media, whether left or right. WASPs are atomized. They have no ethnic agenda, but they do have a passive preference for their own kin(like all ethnic groups).

    Asians are mostly concerned about their domestic status(or lack of it, culturally speaking).

    The reason why you have written about the Jewish angle, aside from the fact that this is by and large a Jewish site(with non-Jewish visitors), is because it’s such a crucial piece to the puzzle to the rise of the neocons, as they got cross-party support. It’s not just Jewish journalists and editors. It’s also Jewish money, it has to be said, behind these publications. People like Martin Peretz or Sam Zell(who owns the Chicago Tribune) or Mortimer Zuckerman of the NY Daily News. Even the liberal Jewish owners of the NYC and their genteel Zionism which is rarely the first to get onboard but grumbles and usually accept the orders anyway(sort of like J Street).

    There’s no major mystery with the neocons, no cultural watershed moment. I know it doesn’t appeal to your romanticism, Phil, but it’s actually pretty brutal in it’s directness: the neocons can continue to fuck up and fuck up. It won’t matter. So long as the owners of the media broadly support their agenda it will not matter much. They may not get what they want, all the time, but they’ll retain their influence.

    Again, money. Not the power of ideas(because their’s are easily debunked).

    • Philip Weiss says:

      I agree, but it’s also too reductive for me. It’s a synergy of ideas and money. That ideas can be debunked has never stopped anyone. Lots of bad ideas have had plenty of power. Shabtai Zvi. Zionism. Neoconservatism

      • Krauss says:

        Zionism may be a bad idea, Philip, but it had the allure of it’s time. It came of being as anti-Semitism was rising swiftly. You yourself admitted that you might have been a Zionist at a time.
        So Zionism is a bad example to your point.
        Even if it was pushed by a small core, it had a long-term grass roots appeal to the Jewish masses, especially as violence in Europe escalated.

        Also, it’s only in hindsight most people can say it’s a bad idea(very few were so foresighted as Hannah Arendt). So I disagree with you there.

        Neoconservatism, on the other hand, was never a good idea, and it faced a lot of resistance as a result. Remember the 90s purges of the paleo-cons and the Arabists?
        There was just never a lot of support for Neoconservatism because people understood it stood for shedding American lives in the Middle East, and many also understood it was usually not for America but for Israel. But even mentioning this became “ANTISEMITISM!”.
        Again, a recurrent but underreported theme. And as always, “liberal” journalists joined in the witch hunt for any critic.

        I looked at the archives of the 90s purges and what is remarkable is to the extent that the neocons could count on major liberal support. The neocons could never win a fight inside the Republican party without two groups: other liberal journalists(usually, but not always, Jewish) and truckloads of cash from people who bought up all the major publications on the right and just outright purged people who thought otherwise.

        What I am saying is that sometimes, some ideas do win prominence because of their inherent appeal in the times they exist in, and Zionism in the mid-1900s was such an idea.

        But neoconservatism in the 80s and especially 90s was not such an idea. There was a lot of resistance.

        Neoconservatism was never a grassroots movement like Zionism was. It was a top-down idea foisted on the conservative movement from above, by the magazine publishers and their editors and they found a lot of resistance so they just went on successive purges and they also found a lot of support from “liberal” journalists and editors and publishers(like Martin Peretz, Mort Zuckerman and so on).

        Remember Tom Friedman’s quip that if he had isolated 50 people before the Iraq war, it wouldn’t have happened?
        That was a remark precisely on this point: it was never a grassroots movement because it never found the appeal of the masses. That’s why they pushed Islamophobia, to sell it to the grassroots. But when it comes down to it, even most Republicans don’t want to go to war against, say, Syria.

        So my point to you is this: sometimes ideas do flourish on their appeal, but this is always a grassroots issue. Sometimes they are imposed, and as a result, need very heavy financial support and brutal purges to even stand a chance to survive.

        One does not negate the other, Phil. And Zionism was a bad example, as previously explained.

    • The original neocons largely were connected to US Sen. Henry M. Jackson of Washington. Their object was to employ US power to protect and strengthen Israel. Often the original neocons were former Trotskyites.

  13. seafoid says:

    The neocons are just the elite opinion formers fronting for the people who run the US.
    And they haven’t changed .

    The Nazis lost a war. The plutocrats sail on.

    • @seafoid – - The truth about the neocons is actually rather more sinister.

      They pretend to be “conservatives” but are nothing of the sort.

  14. Dan Crowther says:

    It’s looking more and more like “neoconservatism” was really just the vessel – just the host; it’s not that neoconservatism is dead, it’s that it’s no longer needed, and it should be said, with it’s mission accomplished. The fact that their rhetoric is now in bad taste only speaks towards the movements adoption into the mainstream, we’ve got a much more brutal policy wrapped in “liberal” language; the neocons were needed to publicly declare the Imperialist era – they did, and now they can move on to other tasks, and we should all be terrified about their next iteration. Phil’s head is in the clouds.

  15. Brooks is channeling his inner Gen. William Westmoreland –

    The Oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does the Westerner. Life is cheap in the Orient.

  16. Blank State says:

    “Such statements are widely considered offensive in modern American culture”

    Actually, your statement should read “Such statements are widely considered offensive in the modern American culture that I expose myself to.” Plying my trade in Central California , which has an extremely conservative population, the kind of venom Brooks spits out is not only popular and acceptable, but is commonplace.

    “But he doesn’t have that anymore; in fact he has damaged himself, irrevocably”

    You gotta be kidding me. You turned on the news lately? It ain’t Brooks being skewered by the media. Its Morsi and Snowden. You’re dreaming, Phil. The average American can’t even tell you who Brooks is, and, really, couldn’t care less.

    The neopukes are about to be resurrected, Phil. Who the hell do you think is stirring the pot in Syria and Egypt? Bugs Bunny?

  17. tontitonti says:

    Anyone else feeling claustrophobic about the suggestions for a replacement at DHS for Napolitano?

    Joe Lieberman?

    Ray Kelly?

    Jane Harman?

    Why not just turn the choice over to Mossad.

    link to firstread.nbcnews.com

    • Krauss says:

      Wow.

      Almost every one on that list is either a democratic neocon or a Republican.
      But I doubt if that list is accurate. It’s very hard for me to imagine Obama seriously contemplating Ray Kelley for the post, especially with the drama surrounding stop and frisk.

      But maybe he thinks it would be an easier sail in the senate?
      Even so, if that is Obama’s shortlist then the guy is more disastrous than I had previously imagined.

      But I’m willing to chalk this up to incompetent speculation on the part of NBC until we see some hard proof.

  18. i am reminded of the teacher in “up the down staircase” who receives a love letter from a student and answers it by correcting its spelling and grammar. God damn the neoconservatives, as in god, noun, damn, verb. or forget the sentence and go with the phrase: goddamn which means goddamned neoconservatives.

  19. Daniel Rich says:

    Off topic!

    Q: This is surely how establishments work: they maintain a system of rewards and punishments and secrets so that no one steps out of line…

    R: And the difference with Mondoweiss’ moderation policy is…?

    Say something wrong – you’re punished [not published or banned]

    Say something right – your rewarded [your comment's online]

    Which moderator torpedoes what comment or commenter? – a secret

    A pot and kettle gambit, imho.

  20. ziusudra says:

    It seems strange to me that a human being can be termed a mutt.
    Mankind was miscegenized before leaving Africa 60/70K yrs. ago!
    If this kidergarden lable can be applied then most certainly for the
    idiotic, pathetic, myoptic, solipsistic terminology of ‘jewishness’!
    Worl Jewry is comprised of the most varied Euro/Khazarian + ME
    ethnicities!
    World Jewry included the most numerous amounts of languages!
    World Jewry included the most numerous of eating customs!
    World Jewry included the most numerous of clothing customs!
    What’s ‘Jewish’ about World Jewry? Nothing, but Judaism!
    Laughable is also that even in clothing customs, they collectively swear by the Yarmulka! The custom & ethymology go back to the Tartars! They wore These ‘cappis’ in respect of their Kings which the Khazariansadopted honouring their King Bulan in 740AD!
    They brought this custom to Europe in the 12th C where the Sephardi also accepted it, later in the ME, it was accepted by the Mizrahi after 1492!
    ziusudra
    PS Mr Brooks can call World Jewry Mutts !

  21. MHughes976 says:

    Wasn’t the term ‘neoconservative’ originally used for academics who claimed, in the aftermath of the Vietnam debacle, that though they had or had once had sympathy with left-wing and socialist ideas they they gave priority to winning, perhaps at all costs, the Cold War? Those attitudes would have brought in a lot of money from military-industrial sources. The centrality of the ME to their view of life emerged as time went on.

    • seanmcbride says:

      MHughes976,

      Wasn’t the term ‘neoconservative’ originally used for academics who claimed, in the aftermath of the Vietnam debacle, that though they had or had once had sympathy with left-wing and socialist ideas they they gave priority to winning, perhaps at all costs, the Cold War? Those attitudes would have brought in a lot of money from military-industrial sources. The centrality of the ME to their view of life emerged as time went on.

      I think you have this backwards: neoconservative godfathers Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol were arguing in favor of the Vietnam War long before it ended, on the grounds that it was good for Israeli strategic interests.

      Google [neoconservatives vietnam israel]

      Neoconservatism has always been all about Israel and nothing but Israel, although some neocons have attempted to conceal their agenda by hiding behind other issues. Commentary archives tell the tale.

      • seanmcbride says:

        Midge Decter (Norman Podhoretz’s wife) on the neoconservative rationale behind supporting the aggressive exercise of American military power:

        Decter once wrote while criticizing politicians whom she felt were not sufficiently supportive of Israel that, “In a world full of ambiguities and puzzlements, one thing is absolutely easy both to define and locate: that is the Jewish interest. The continued security—and in those happy places where the term applies, well-being—of the Jews, worldwide, rests with a strong, vital, prosperous, self-confident United States” (cited in Mark Gerson, Neoconservative Vision, p. 165).

        link to rightweb.irc-online.org

        And:

        Describing the sharp neoconservative reaction to perceived anti-Semitism in the United Nations following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the conservative scholars Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke argue that a consensus gradually emerged among key neoconservatives like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Irving Kristol, and Podhoretz that “America and Israel … shared a common ideological struggle against common enemies. The 1970s saw the vague consensus of neoconservatism … wrap itself tightly around the belief that America must have a self-assured and robust elite, which must be willing to employ U.S. power promptly and resolutely, if need be, and prepared to stand up to the USSR along with its anti-American and anti-Semitic allies at the UN and beyond” (Halper and Clarke, America Alone, p. 60).

        For the neocons, it always comes back to Israel and “the Jewish interest” (as they define it).

        • And the so-called “anti-semitic allies” at the UN often were primarily interested in an end to the occupation of WB, Gaza, Sinai and Golan.

        • And consider how much damage the Israel lobby has done to the US the past decade or so. Trillions of dollars squandered on ill-considered military adventures in the Middle East.

      • Bravo. Core programme of the neocons from day one: “strengthen” Israel, using American financial, diplomatic and military power. And do everything possible to conceal core programme from American people.

        • seanmcbride says:

          This is the Irving Kristol quote that nails it:

          Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.

          Source: Congress Bi-Weekly (1973), published by the American Jewish Congress.

          One can find hundreds (or thousands) of similar statements from leading neoconservatives. But they are quick to accuse anyone of antisemitism who quotes their own words back to them.

        • @seanmcbride – - Bravo. Yes, the sad truth is that the Israel lobby has become an advocate of grotesque squandering on “defence”, by the US, year after year after year. To “protect” Israel. No matter how much damage is done to the American people.

          Concealing this fact from the American people is a key element of current Aipac progamme.

        • MHughes976 says:

          Thanks for information!

        • MHughes976 – - One cannot but be morbidly fascinated by the success enjoyed by neocons, in concealing from the American public they want grotesquely high levels of spending on “defence”, not to protect the US, but to enable Israel to continue its illegal colonisation programme in the West Bank.

        • seanmcbride says:

          James Canning said:

          One cannot but be morbidly fascinated by the success enjoyed by neocons, in concealing from the American public they want grotesquely high levels of spending on “defence”, not to protect the US, but to enable Israel to continue its illegal colonisation programme in the West Bank.

          What the neocons discovered quite some time ago is that they can speak the truth to one another about their real agenda and core values in their small journals and salons while lying shamelessly to the American public in the mainstream media outlets which they control and dominate — they know that the vast majority of Americans will never bother reading publications like Commentary and are easily taken in by misleading, dishonest, manipulative and tawdry propaganda about “freedom,” “democracy,” “the Judeo-Christian tradition,” etc.

          Republicans in particular seem to be especially susceptible to having the wool pulled over their eyes and being taken to the cleaners (George W. Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz are good examples).

          But there is no law in America prohibiting smarter people from leading less smart people up the garden path (like lambs to the slaughter, one might say, certainly in Iraq) — it’s power politics, pure and simple, with the spoils going to the more cunning. One wonders if Republicans will ever figure out how they’ve been played and exploited to promote an ideological and political agenda that is directly contrary to their own best interests and values.

        • Citizen says:

          RE: “… they know that the vast majority of Americans will never bother reading publications like Commentary and are easily taken in by misleading, dishonest, manipulative and tawdry propaganda about “freedom,” “democracy,” “the Judeo-Christian tradition,” etc.”

          I wish this was not true, but it is true. It seems the biggest audience in CableTV news-infotainment is FOX’s. There, the neocons are trotted out constantly to explain any breaking issues, and they are treated like gods of wisdom. Anybody who actually know their crazed history has to be in despair over present and future of America.

        • Bravo, SeanMcBride.

          Coopting the Republicans has been a key element of Aipac et al subversion of national security of the American people.

        • Hostage says:

          It seems the biggest audience in CableTV news-infotainment is FOX’s.

          I watch Fox news all the time. That doesn’t mean that I agree with its positions, I just like to keep up with the latest talking points. For much the same reason, I deliberately get spammed by the Hasbara Fellowship, the Jewish National Fund, et al.

  22. David Brooks is indeed an idiot if he thinks the US should try to turn Syria into the killing fields of Vietnam.

    Vicious stupidity.

    • mcohen says:

      Vicious stupidity indeed

      how are you going to attack israel straight on,what with all those eyes in the skies
      no chance
      instead you do it sneaky sneaky
      have a bullsh*t “arab spring” ……bring the armies up to speed fighting “rebels”
      Have egypt deploy to the sinai /israel border chasing “rebels”
      Have hezbollah pretend they are druze so they can move up to golan border.

      but somewhere along the way the plan has gone wrong because israel also sneaky sneaky

      now thats what brooks means about irans vietnam
      You cannot fight sneaky sneaky with conventional forces,as in vietnam ,you have to fight with the snakey snakey forces ,which is a 70/30 combo like mccrystal in afg.no wonder israel is cutting the military spending budget ,they do not need tanks because they are obsolete against kornets
      what you need is snakey snakey and millions of missiles ,not big ones but little ones with big warheads and drones to fire them
      all this and more was learnt in the 2006 training exercise

      • Hezbollah has little interest in attacking Israel.

        I think Brooks was making the false claim that the US would benefit from a long bloody war in Syria that drained money etc from Iran.

        David Brooks seems to have ZERO concern about catastrophe for art, architecture, etc etc etc in Syria.

  23. A former British ambassador to Syria, Andrew Green, got it right (in comments in the Spectator 18 May): “Few people with serious knowledge of Syria sought regime change. The likely outcome was what we have: chaos.”