The world was right about Iraq– though Israel got its ‘Clean Break’

Israel/PalestineMiddle EastUS Politics
on 60 Comments
Iraq War protest in London, from the Guardian

Iraq War protest in London, from the Guardian

In most circumstances, “We told you so” is a classless statement. But in this case, it’s justified. In 2003, in the largest global protest in human history, millions of us marched in the world’s streets, loudly proclaiming that invading Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster. Meanwhile, Israel’s neocon loyalists achieved exactly what they wanted: a perpetual nightmare of internecine conflict. While Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser dreamt up the ‘Clean Break’ war in 1996, long before the Second Intifada, surely part of the motivation to pull the trigger was revenge for Saddam Hussein’s financial support for Palestinian suicide bombers.

Owen Jones writes in The Guardian:

The catastrophic results of the Iraq invasion are often portrayed as having been impossible to predict, and only inevitable with the benefit of hindsight. If only to prevent future calamities from happening, this is a myth that needs to be dispelled. The very fact that the demonstration on that chilly February day in 2003 was the biggest Britain had ever seen, is testament to the fact that disaster seemed inevitable to so many people…

The commentators who cheered on the conflict, far from being driven from public life are still feted: still writing columns, still dispensing advice in TV studios, still hosting thinktank breakfasts…

In a way, opponents of the war were wrong. We were wrong because however disastrous we thought the consequences of the Iraq war, the reality has been worse. The US massacres in Fallujah in the immediate aftermath of the war, which helped radicalise the Sunni population, culminating in an assault on the city with white phosphorus. The beheadings, the kidnappings and hostage videos, the car bombs, the IEDs, the Sunni and Shia insurgencies, the torture declared by the UN in 2006 to be worse than that under Saddam Hussein, the bodies with their hands and feet bound and dumped in rivers, the escalating sectarian slaughter, the millions of displaced civilians, and the hundreds of thousands who died: it has been one never-ending blur of horror since 2003.

the war for oil, from Schuminweb

The war for oil, from Schuminweb

Meanwhile, Israel’s American neocon supporters got exactly what they wanted: a reshaping of the Middle East through pre-emptive warfare, imposed destabilization, and chaos. Brian Whitaker in the Guardian:

For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would not be an unfortunate side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that everything is going according to plan.

In their eyes, Iraq is just the starting point – or, as a recent presentation at the Pentagon put it, “the tactical pivot” – for re-moulding the Middle East on Israeli-American lines. 

This reverses the usual approach in international relations where stability is seen as the key to peace, and whether or not you like your neighbours, you have to find ways of living with them. No, say the hawks. If you don’t like the neighbours, get rid of them. 

The “skittles theory” of the Middle East – that one ball aimed at Iraq can knock down several regimes – has been around for some time on the wilder fringes of politics but has come to the fore in the United States on the back of the “war against terrorism”.

Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled “A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm”, it was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu. As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism …” 

The paper set out a plan by which Israel would “shape its strategic environment”, beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad. 

In 2003, a small number of voices on the liberal left and anti-neocon conservative right questioned what was, at least in large part, a war for Israel. Patrick Buchanan wrote:

Though we have given Israel $20,000 for every Jewish citizen, Israel refuses to stop building the settlements that are the cause of the Palestinian intifada… Israel suborned Jonathan Pollard to loot our secrets and refuses to return the documents, which would establish whether or not they were sold to Moscow… When Clinton tried to broker an agreement at Wye Plantation between Israel and Arafat, Bibi Netanyahu attempted to extort, as his price for signing, release of Pollard, so he could take this treasonous snake back to Israel as a national hero…

Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he [Bush II] will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives’ agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect.

 

60 Responses

  1. just
    June 14, 2014, 10:48 am

    Thanks, Matthew.

    “In 2003, in the largest global protest in human history, millions of us marched in the world’s streets, loudly proclaiming that invading Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster. Meanwhile, Israel’s neocon loyalists achieved exactly what they wanted: a perpetual nightmare of internecine conflict.”

    What does this say about our “democracies”, about our voices? For me, this is a question that every single American and member of the “coalition” needs to ask themselves. How can the wishes of one teensy little belligerent state and its loyalists prevail over the wishes and lives of millions of people?

    • Woody Tanaka
      June 14, 2014, 11:13 am

      “What does this say about our ‘democracies’, about our voices?”

      It says that we don’t have democracies or voices. We have an oligarchy, and supporters of the regime occupying Palestine is part of the oligarchy.

    • amigo
      June 14, 2014, 11:16 am

      ” How can the wishes of one teensy little belligerent state and its loyalists prevail over the wishes and lives of millions of people?” just

      Follow the money honey.

      That,s how .

      • just
        June 14, 2014, 11:46 am

        Money is part of it– a big part. So is power, hegemony, and empire.

        But to kill many Arabs/Muslims/Others including Christians and alienate millions upon millions is not/ cannot all be about money. To ignore the suffering and murder and starvation occurring in Africa can’t all be about money, either. To practice gross hypocrisy is not all about money.

        I can think of millions of excuses, but no reason. And all of the excuses are irrational at best. The excuses are antithetical to a ‘democracy’ as well– so Woody is correct, and we need to stop lying to ourselves and others. Perhaps then we will have the wherewithal and gumption to fight back against this monster.

      • amigo
        June 14, 2014, 12:24 pm

        “Money is part of it– a big part. So is power, hegemony, and empire.” just

        Money is how you buy the power.Buy Congress/the Senate/the msm /Foreign Leaders .Any means of controlling the message.

        But as you say , we must keep on fighting back until these power mongers are destroyed –totally.

    • Naftush
      June 15, 2014, 2:28 am

      Axiom fail. The teensy little belligerent state did not seek that war. Lawrence Wilkerson, a member of the US State Department’s policy planning staff and later chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, to Inter Press Service, Jan. 2007: “A large number of senior Israeli officials warned Bush administration that invasion of Iraq would be destabilizing to the region. ‘The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy – Iran is the enemy.” Seek your culprits elsewhere.

      • Walker
        June 15, 2014, 7:55 am

        Axiom fail. The teensy little belligerent state did not seek that war.

        That’s pure apologetics. Regardless of the actions of individuals, the Government of Israel DID want the US to invade. It worked very hard both directly and indirectly here to make it happen. Much of the phony “intelligence” used to egg on our aggression – such as the alleged Nigerian yellowcake – was thought to have originated in Israel.

        The Israel lobby here strongly pushed for a US attack. How often do you ever see that lobby take a firm position in opposition to the wishes of the Israeli government? How often do you ever see the US take such a drastic action in the Middle East in opposition to that lobby? Indeed, to me the only explanation for the apparent blindness of the liberal members of Congress who supported was the invasion was that the lobby wanted it.

        The Israeli public also wanted the invasion. Just prior to the invasion there were exactly two countries where a majority supported it. One was Australia, which had already committed troops to the invasion so public support was probably patriotic fervor. The other was Israel.

      • Shingo
        June 15, 2014, 6:55 pm

        Axiom fail. The teensy little belligerent state did not seek that war.

        oh really?

  2. Woody Tanaka
    June 14, 2014, 11:11 am

    Though we have given Israel $20,000 for every Jewish citizen, Israel refuses to stop building the settlements that are the cause of the Palestinian intifada… Israel suborned Jonathan Pollard to loot our secrets and refuses to return the documents, which would establish whether or not they were sold to Moscow… When Clinton tried to broker an agreement at Wye Plantation between Israel and Arafat, Bibi Netanyahu attempted to extort, as his price for signing, release of Pollard, so he could take this treasonous snake back to Israel as a national hero…

    [The US must] jettison the neoconservatives’ agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect.

    Pat Buchanan is disgustingly wrong on so many things, but in this, he is absolutely dead on right here.

  3. Palikari
    June 14, 2014, 12:02 pm

    Ok, Iraq didn’t have MDW, but the US-led coalition overthrown a bloody dictator who oppressed, massacred and gassed his own people.

    • HarryLaw
      June 14, 2014, 12:31 pm

      Palikari @ “Ok, Iraq didn’t have MDW, but the US-led coalition overthrown a bloody dictator who oppressed, massacred and gassed his own people.” The US led coalition did not have the authority to invade Iraq, since Russia, China and France vetoed any authorization, neither did they have the authority under the right to protect since that also needs the unanimous consent of the 5 veto wielding SC members, in effect what occurred was an act of aggression which some US Generals have said is the greatest Foreign policy disaster in US history, that’s true and the effects will be with us for generations, apart from the tremendous loss of life and property which are incalculable, the Kennedy Law School put the cost to the US of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at 6 Trillion Dollars and counting. Yet the Architects Bush and Blair swan around the world earning millions for their own bank accounts. Disgusting.

      • just
        June 15, 2014, 7:33 am

        You’ll not be shocked to see that the “Envoy for Peace & Chief Islamophobe” has erupted again, Harry:

        “Tony Blair has urged western governments to recognise that it needs to take an active role in the Middle East, saying the west should consider military options short of sending ground troops.

        The former prime minister said there was a huge range of options available, including air strikes and drones as used in Libya.

        Blair was speaking on UK morning TV shows after writing a lengthy essay setting out how to respond to the Iraq crisis, including his belief that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not the cause of the country’s implosion.

        ……..

        In a passionate essay published on his website, Tony Blair said it was a “bizarre” reading of the situation to argue that the US-British invasion of Iraq had allowed the growth of Sunni jihadist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis), whose fighters have swept through towns and cities north and west of Baghdad over the past week.

        “We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this. We haven’t. We can argue as to whether our policies at points have helped or not: and whether action or inaction is the best policy. But the fundamental cause of the crisis lies within the region not outside it.

        “We have to put aside the differences of the past and act now to save the future,” says Blair, adding that force may be necessary. “Where the extremists are fighting, they have to be countered hard, with force.””

        http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/tony-blair-west-intervene-iraq-isis-military-options?commentpage=1

        (PS– the commenters do not agree)

    • amigo
      June 14, 2014, 1:01 pm

      “Ok, Iraq didn’t have MDW, but the US-led coalition overthrown a bloody dictator who oppressed, massacred and gassed his own people.”PALIKARI

      And replaced him with another one.

      “The re-election of Nouri al-Maliki a month ago to a third term as Iraq’s president was a sure sign of what was coming. His recipe of more of the same state corruption and incompetence and the entrenching of Shia rule said eloquently to the country’s alienated Sunnis that there was no place for them in the new Iraq. Most Sunnis do not support the jihadists of Islam.

      http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/iraq-s-sectarian-quagmire-1.1830341

      Speaking of gassing people , does the term ,WP mean anything to you.

    • adele
      June 14, 2014, 1:08 pm

      Palikari,
      the things you don’t know about Iraq are so immense that I don’t even know where to begin. Why don’t you read up on it’s history and its peoples, their social policies and accomplishments, an oil-economy that invested in the country’s infrastructure and in it’s people.

      I will never defend Saddam Hussein, nor the violence and terror he wrought against some of the Iraqi people but to my dying breath I will oppose the atrocities that the US coalition brought to the Iraqi people, from the sanctions that created so much misery and poverty and the 1991 Gulf War bombing campaign that brought such levels of destruction that a U.N. official who visited immediately after the bombings ended reported that the massive bombing campaign of that war destroyed the country with:

      “near apocalyptic results upon the economic mechanized society,” wrote Martti Ahtisaari, U.N. Under-Secretary-General after visiting Iraq some weeks later. “Iraq has, for some time to come, been relegated to a pre-industrial age, but with all the disabliities of post-industrial dependency.”
      (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/05/23-2)

      I know it is hard for you to believe (given your ignorance and racism), but Iraq had built and was continuing to build a modern infrastructure before 1990, thanks to oil revenue. Hence the U.S. bombing coalition targeting their modern infrastructure such as electrical grid stations, water purification systems, etc., which were all pulverized.

      Saddam’s dictatorship and the violence and terror he meted should be denounced but have no doubt that it pales in comparison to what the US-led coalition did to the sovereign Iraqi nation and its people. The Iraqi people have experienced nothing but misery and fear and death over more than two decades, 99% of it caused by the U.S. and others who stood to benefit from Iraq’s suffering and disintegration. For you to even try to justify it makes you an ignorant, loathsome individual without a shred of compassion. Had anyone done this to Israel I would be weeping and protesting for no people walking on this earth should ever suffer what the Iraqis have.

      Now you need to make a printout of the ’91 UN report (http://www.un.org/depts/oip/background/reports/s22366.pdf) and bring it with you as you go back to your cave and re-start your human journey.

    • talknic
      June 14, 2014, 1:19 pm

      @ Palikari “Ok, Iraq didn’t have MDW, but the US-led coalition overthrown a bloody dictator who oppressed, massacred and gassed his own people”

      So they lied eh! Unfortunately in the process they also caused the slaughter and injuring of far more people than Saddam. Destroyed the country’s infrastructure, destroyed cities, homes, villages, destroyed livelihoods, families, unleashed total chaos that reigns to the present day. BRAVO!!

      They even lied about his capture. The photos of the site in December had a bunch of dates in the background. There are no dates in Iraq in December! Date trees don’t lie. War mongering idiots and their stupid supporters do!

    • Kris
      June 14, 2014, 1:25 pm

      Palikari, the U.S. supports bloody dictators, and doesn’t care if they oppress, massacre and gas their people, as long as the dictators serve U.S. interests.

      For example, the U.S. was complicit in Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Iranians and the Kurds. “U.S. Gave Iraq Intel, Ignored Chemical Attacks In 1980s, Report Says,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/us-gave-iraq-intel-ignored-chemical-attacks_n_3817868.html

      Since World War II, the U.S. has undermined, subverted or violently overthrown some 60 – mostly democratically-elected and independent – governments world-wide and, replaced them with murderous corrupt dictators subservient to U.S. dictates. See “U.S. Love Affair with Murderous Dictators and Hate for Democracy,”
      http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_62550.shtml

      • adele
        June 14, 2014, 4:02 pm

        excellent points Kris, hopefully Palikari and his gang read this and begin to understand, rather than write inane words justifying war crimes.

    • Shingo
      June 14, 2014, 6:23 pm

      The US is backing a dictator in Egyot who is massacring his own people. The US for rid of Saddam because he was I longer useful. At the height of his brutality against his own people, the US were giving him the most support.

    • Kay24
      June 14, 2014, 7:41 pm

      I am sure you are smart enough to look at exactly what is happening right now in Iraq, and able to realize that there is hell over there, and that it wasn’t so bad under Hussein. Hussein was a tyrant, but he was able to keep the waring factions apart, no sectarian violence, no terrorists detonating bombs in market places and police stations, people had jobs, and let’s not forget:
      “By 16 February 2007, António Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, said that the external refugee number fleeing the war reached 2 million and that within Iraq there are an estimated 1.7 million internally displaced people.[9] [10] The refugee traffic out of the country has increased since the intensification of civil war.[9][11] wikipedia

      The US took a bad situation and made it worse. The zionist neocons, who had urged, and prodded, the Bush administration to invade Iraq, did so with far more sinister intentions than we were all made to believe. They lied, used false intelligence, and denigrated anyone who questioned, or criticized their disgusting intentions, until they shocked and awed that country, which had not been involved in 9/11 or other anti US crimes. The poor people of Iraq are now paying the price for one of the biggest blunders made in our lifetime. Right now, Saddam Hussein looks better than the chaos, violence, and high rate of massacres, and lawlessness going on over there. It seems Hussein was right when he denied having WMD’s, but we were told and assured it was ALL there.
      But of course, you must support the zionist agenda.

    • Walker
      June 15, 2014, 8:00 am

      Ok, Iraq didn’t have MDW, but the US-led coalition overthrown a bloody dictator who oppressed, massacred and gassed his own people.

      Gee, there are just two problems with this. The first is that the invasion was not sold on the basis of “liberating” Iraqis . It was sold on the premise that Saddam was an imminent threat to the US, which was completely false. Second, the invasion made Iraq worse off. It resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens; the exile of millions; and an ongoing political catastrophe and civil war which you can read about if you open your newspaper today.

  4. just
    June 14, 2014, 12:06 pm

    Ok– we had no right to go in and overthrow anybody, especially since we armed said ‘dictator’ with WMD.

    The war was based on lies, drummed up by neocons. Some of us literally HATE being lied to. A lot of us recognized the lies, others did not. Either way, the neocons went for ‘shock and awe’. All to our eternal shame.

  5. LuLu
    June 14, 2014, 12:22 pm

    A lot of the motivation is several reasons really and they are FACTS!! Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks neither did Afghanistan. However, this was planned long before 9/11, seven middle eastern countries were planned to be attacked by our evil Govt. Saddam after being an ally of the US, decided to call on all the Muslims countries to ONLY accept Gold for currency and to drop the US Dollar.. But EU and US could not swallow that. So thy called for regime change, that did not work so the invasion was planned with the media propaganda of “Democracy” “Human “Rights Issue” (This is a sad joke, if they were concerned about human rights they would not watch the Human Rights Horror of the Zionist on Palestinians)
    Than Afghanistan was for the opium and other resources that they have, if anyone is in denial of that, do the research and get the facts. Libya, Gaddafi announced the same thing years later, going to Gold Currency and he too announced that to the Arab countries. All the Sudden he was asked to step down because of human rights issues, and Libya needed democracy.
    What is probably going to happen, is all this is going to back fire and the US will be embargo on Oil and kicked out from the entire Middle East. The elite empire will come crashing down to all involved… God is watching, and allowing these events, but what I do know and believe in, is that God, punishes severely. Look at the Crusaders, how powerful they were and how badly they were defeated several times.
    The US needs to realize that Democracy in America, is not the same democracy they want in the middle east. The religious values are followed and people do not want this worldly life, they want to follow their religion and stick to the Law God ordained them too. Look at Syria, they failed… They go in destroy sovereign countries, go on a mass murdering spree, and think these people are going to forget. I love my country, but I hate my Government, because they are working for their pockets and ego and do not give a damn about humanity and respecting others rights to make their own choices on how they are running their country. I believe the approval of our Govt was extremely low, and to be honest the polls are exaggerating a bit, try 10% approve of our Govt. and those are all the big wigs who are profiting from all this. I do not see Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and others bombing us to change regime. It is sad, because the entire world lost respect for America, and when I say America, I say the Government, because people do not have a problem with the Americans, as they view us as victims too.

  6. unverified__5ilf90kd
    June 14, 2014, 1:07 pm

    You write “Israel’s American neocon supporters” “Israel’s neocon loyalists achieved exactly what they wanted”

    This article really ascribes significant blame to Israel for the Iraq war more than other articles I have read. It is a sobering thought indeed. I have also read that part of the reason why Patrick Buchanan is no longer prominent on the airways is because of his strong criticism of Israel.

    • Naftush
      June 15, 2014, 2:41 am

      I’ll say it again because the Israel-obsessed don’t get it. Israel did not push for the Iraq war. Israel’s “neocon loyalists” have been far from power for six years and can achieve nothing but argumentative punditry. And if Israel truly parcels out Pat Buchanan’s air time, he would have none.

  7. DaBakr
    June 14, 2014, 2:18 pm

    Typical garbage:
    A) as if the settlements are the cause of the violent conflict which existed long before there were any so-called ‘settlements’ and predates the WB and east Jerusalem as well.
    and
    B) presenting Israel as if it’s the only ‘winner’ of the Iraq invasion. And whats even worse? The irony of the whiners here who complain about Israel not going blithely along with Obama policy as the epitome of umbrage while back then-despite many in top echelon of Israeli military told the US that Iraq was the lesser danger to the the region as compared to Iran but still went along and backed US with loyalty in its build up and invasion of Iraq-to its own detriment.

    ‘clean break’ my A.

    • talknic
      June 14, 2014, 3:21 pm

      @ DaBakr ” as if the settlements are the cause of the violent conflict which existed long before there were any so-called ‘settlements’ and predates the WB and east Jerusalem as well”

      Israeli occupation and illegal settlement predates 1967

      1948 according to the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/2+Jerusalem+Declared+Israel-Occupied+City-+Governm.htm

      and here May 22nd 1948 according to the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT
      “areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard

      “under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel” = occupation http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art41

      Israel’s actual borders have never changed from the day they were proclaimed as “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” by the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT.

      Israel has not since legally acquired ANY further territory. It has been illegal to acquire territory by war, ANY war, since at least 1933 http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4son

      • DaBakr
        June 14, 2014, 9:40 pm

        so stop complaining about the ‘settlements’ and just concentrate on eliminating the ‘zionist entity’ as your main goal.

      • talknic
        June 14, 2014, 10:34 pm

        @ DaBakr “so stop complaining about the ‘settlements’ and just concentrate on eliminating the ‘zionist entity’ as your main goal”

        You’re a typical ziotroll. As expected, you can’t possibly dispute what has been shown, per the Israeli Govt, so you try to deflect… A) YOU bought the subject of settlements to the table. B) I’ve never advocated ‘eliminating the zionist entity’.

        That you make false accusations which are completely against the basic tenets of the Jewish faith on behalf of the ‘Jewish’ state is really quite bizarre.

      • DaBakr
        June 15, 2014, 10:29 pm

        you support bds…you support the elimination of the Zionist state. Please tell me how this is not true and a “deflection” as I am sure you have read the bds mandate statement by barghouti. or are you a ‘chinese menu’ bds’r? a little bit from column A and a little bit from column B. Or, even more ludicrous -do you think that Israelis and other assorted Zionist don’t know what the BDS mandate calls for? Save your ‘zio-troll’ whatever that is-for somebody who cares. I have family on the line and I assume ‘troll’ is someone who has nothing better to do.

      • Shingo
        June 16, 2014, 4:06 am

        you support bds…you support the elimination of the Zionist state.

        You’re a bald faced liar who clearly can’t make a sound argument without making false accusations based on no evidence.

        I am sure you have read the bds mandate statement by barghouti. or are you a ‘chinese menu’ bds’r?

        More lies.

        1. barghouti is a not a leader or spokesman for the BDS movement
        2. barghouti has never called for the elimination of any state

        do you think that Israelis and other assorted Zionist don’t know what the BDS mandate calls for?

        Of course they do, but like yourself, they lie about it, because if you/they were honest, you/they would have to admit that BDS is a perfectly legal, moral and legitimate non violent response to Israel’s occupation and ongoing crimes against humanity. Even people like Goldberg, who adamantly oppose BDS admit they would support it if they were not out and out Zionists.

        The reason BDS freaks you racist thugs out is because you have no answer to it. Thus, the only way you are able to discredit it is to lie about it.

      • talknic
        June 16, 2014, 12:21 am

        @ DaBakr “you support bds…you support the elimination of the Zionist state”

        I support the rule of International law and the UN Charter. If it takes BDS to get a state to comply, so be it. No UN Member state has ever been eliminated through adhering to the law.

        Your rave is the typical ziopoop one expects from a ziotroll

      • Mayhem
        June 15, 2014, 8:29 am

        @Talknic, your usual legalistic gobbledegook.

        It has been illegal to acquire territory by war

        As Israel’s security has been threatened repeatedly by attacks from neighbouring states and belligerent forces within those states, Israel is obligated under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and its inherent right to self-defense to use whatever means are at its disposal to defend itself. These fundamental requirements of self-protection clearly override any categorical argument that Israel has been acquiring territory by war.
        The territory set aside for a Palestinian state following the UN Partition Plan in 1947 was abrogated by the Arabs.
        Following the 1948 War of Independence Israel was not occupying any territory, because there was no sovereign presence that existed at the time in that area. There was not much serious complaint about the illegal ‘occupation’ by the Jordanians in the bulk of that area.
        My Australian government has had the courage to steer away from the emotionally loaded word ‘occupied’ in favour of the term ‘disputed’ that truly reflects the situation.
        And as for the matter of settlements there were NONE till after 1967.

      • talknic
        June 15, 2014, 12:35 pm

        @ Mayhem “These fundamental requirements of self-protection clearly override any categorical argument that Israel has been acquiring territory by war.”

        I guess “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war …” .. was included in UNSC res 242 and subsequent UNSC resolutions just for fun. All you prove is that apologists for Israel will say anything no matter how nonsensical.

        Jewish forces have been in territory not slated for, not proclaimed as and never recognized as Israeli for over 66 years. Israel’s wars have been in other folks territory, not in Israeli territory. Which is why there are no UNSC resolutions against anyone for attacking Israel.

        Jewish forces which were according to the ISRAELI GOVT “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” were attacked in 1948 and;
        the ISRAELI GOVT claimed it occupied non-Israeli territory, May 22nd 1948 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973 and 12th Aug 1948 http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/2+Jerusalem+Declared+Israel-Occupied+City-+Governm.htm

        “The territory set aside for a Palestinian state following the UN Partition Plan in 1947 was abrogated by the Arabs.”

        Problem … Israel was proclaimed BY THE ISRAELI GOVT per UNGA res 181 “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,” and recognized as such. Whatever territory lay “outside the State of Israel” ..”in Palestine” was quite simply not Israeli.

        “Following the 1948 War of Independence Israel was not occupying any territory, because there was no sovereign presence that existed at the time in that area.”

        Strange, ISRAELI GOVT statements say Israel held territories “outside the State of Israel” ..”in Palestine” ..under military control (aka Occupation). Were they wrong? Plus the 1949 Armistice AGREEMENTS, signed by the ISRAELI GOVT tell us otherwise.

        ” There was not much serious complaint about the illegal ‘occupation’ by the Jordanians in the bulk of that area.”

        What ‘illegal occupation’ by Jordan? The Armistice AGREEMENT was signed by the ISRAELI GOVT you stupid stupid person and there are no UNSC resolutions calling Jordan’s occupation of non-Israeli territories illegal or the annexation of what was officially renamed the West Bank as being illegal.

        BTW The war of independence was over May 15th 1948 at 00:01 (ME time) when Israel’s independence came into effect according to the ISRAELI GOVT!

        You don’t believe ISRAELI GOVT statements? AMAZING!

        “My Australian government has had the courage to steer away from the …”

        Our present Australian govt is at odds with its UN obligations. No UNSC resolution uses the expression ‘disputed’ territories. Australia has a seat on the UNSC, it is obliged to adhere to and enforce if necessary UNSC resolutions.

        “And as for the matter of settlements there were NONE till after 1967.”

        Wrong. There were no UNSC resolutions condemning Israel for actions taken before it became a UN member state. However, for 65 years Israelis have been settling in territories that were, according to the ISRAELI GOVT May 22nd 1948 “outside the state of Israel” ..”in Palestine”, none of which have ever been legally annexed to Israel.

        Now however as a UN member state, if Israel attempts to unilaterally annex ANY non-Israeli territory acquired by war, it must be condemned by the UNSC. Israel must now negotiate an agreement with Palestine in order to legally acquire ANY territory not proclaimed as Israeli on May 15th 1948. Without an agreement, Israel will still be required to adhere to the law, withdraw, take all its citizens, pay reparations. The Jewish state would be sent bankrupt.

      • Walker
        June 15, 2014, 1:34 pm

        As Israel’s security has been threatened repeatedly by attacks . . .

        Israel itself started most of the wars it’s been involved in. This is a simple matter of historical record obscured by decades of empty propaganda such as your post.

      • Shingo
        June 15, 2014, 6:53 pm

        As Israel’s security has been threatened repeatedly by attacks from neighbouring states and belligerent forces within those states, Israel is obligated under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and its inherent right to self-defense to use whatever means are at its disposal to defend itself.

        What a load of rubbish.

        The preamble of UNSC242 states unequivocally that it is illegal to seize land in war time and hang on to it. What’s more, we have at least 2 former Israeli prime ministers on record admitting that Israel was the aggressor in 1067.

        These fundamental requirements of self-protection clearly override any categorical argument that Israel has been acquiring territory by war.

        Where did you read that, the back of a cereal box or did you just make it up?

        The territory set aside for a Palestinian state following the UN Partition Plan in 1947 was abrogated by the Arabs.

        No, it was stolen by Israel because they wanted it.

        Following the 1948 War of Independence Israel was not occupying any territory, because there was no sovereign presence that existed at the time in that area.

        Rubbish. According to the government of Israel, it was occupying territory outside it’s own declared borders.

        There was not much serious complaint about the illegal ‘occupation’ by the Jordanians in the bulk of that area.

        That’s because they immediately held a referendum which approved of their presence.

        My Australian government has had the courage to steer away from the emotionally loaded word ‘occupied’ in favour of the term ‘disputed’ that truly reflects the situation.

        That’s funny. My Australian government has always referred to East Jerusalem as being occupied. The Abbot government has been caught lying about this fact, when it tried to claim it was always Australian foreign policy to refer to East Jerusalem as disputed, when it was revealed that until Brandeis made his announcement, the Australian government always recognized East Jerusalem as occupied territory.

        Abbot has made himself into a laughing stock both in Australia and abroad and his messianic zealotry is likely to cost Australian farmers a lot of export revenue as 18 Arab countries boycott Australian produce.

        This policy has led to a storm of outrage and controversy in Australia.

        And as for the matter of settlements there were NONE till after 1967.

        They just stolen homes outright without rebuilding them.

      • just
        June 15, 2014, 7:10 pm

        Shingo, I feel sorry for the unfortunate Australians who will suffer b/c of this government’s profoundly stupid pronouncements wrt Jerusalem. I’m interested to see how they can ‘unring that bell’, or if they’ll even try.

        However, it would be good for America if the same threatened boycott happened here because of our interminable support for the Apartheid state. Perhaps THAT would shake/wake up average Americans and their Congresspersons out of their complicit slumber and their own ‘messianic zealotry’.

      • Shingo
        June 15, 2014, 7:41 pm

        Shingo, I feel sorry for the unfortunate Australians who will suffer b/c of this government’s profoundly stupid move wrt Jerusalem.

        Bring it on I say. The more the Israeli lobby is exposed as a destructive influence to the interests of the country the better.

      • DaBakr
        June 15, 2014, 10:31 pm

        Does talnikc know how many current members in ‘good standing’ of the U[seless]N[othing] have acquired territory through war? I have to wonder.

      • talknic
        June 16, 2014, 12:15 am

        @ DaBakr “Does talnikc know how many current members in ‘good standing’ of the U[seless]N[othing] have acquired territory through war? I have to wonder.”

        Poor BaBakr. Trying to use a USELESS argument. Why are Israel’s apologist propagandamongers so utterly stupid?

        Start naming UN members who have acquired territory through war since 1945 …

        BTW is that the same U[seless]N[othing] to which Israel belongs?

      • Shingo
        June 16, 2014, 3:57 am

        Does talnikc know how many current members in ‘good standing’ of the U[seless]N[othing] have acquired territory through war?

        Such as?

    • Shingo
      June 14, 2014, 6:31 pm

      A) before the settlements there was the ethnic cleansing of Palestiniams and theft of their land, as well as mass mirder

      B) you are right. The other state that benefitted from Saddam’s overthrow was Iran

    • Feathers
      June 14, 2014, 8:25 pm

      re:

      Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled “A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm”, it was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu. As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism …”

      The paper set out a plan by which Israel would “shape its strategic environment”, beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad.

      “Roots” is, perhaps, botanically inexact.
      Try to untangle and identify these roots in which A Clean Break is entwined:

      “[This Conference was convened]. . . to focus public attention on the grave threat that international terrorism poses to all democratic societies, to study the real nature of today’s terrorism, and to propose measures for combatting and defeating the international terror movements.

      Over the last decade terrorist activities grew tenfold and the arsenal available to terrorists has greatly improved. The current threat promises to become intolerable when terrorists gain access–as they show every sign of doing–to weapons of mass destruction, or when they gain control of whole peoples and governments and establish themselves as de facto terrorist states.

      It was the intolerable spectacle of legitimization of terror groups and the frequent capitulation to their demands that made the . . . Conference so necessary. The United Nations has proven itself to be hopelessly incapable of dealing with the problem. The Western governments themselves have too often tried to make their separate deals, fearing that a full-fledged battle against terrorists and their supporters could have negative political consequences.

      In the face of such paralysis, pusillanimity and impotence, the . . .Conference was convened to begin the formation of an anti-terror alliance in which all the democracies of the West must join.”

      – – –
      The ellipses takes the place of these words:

      The Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism was convened by The Jonathan Institute on July 2-5, 1979 . . .

      The passage is from the Foreward to International Terrorism: Challenge and Response, and was penned by the volume’s editor, Benjamin Netanyahu.

      The date and venue for the Conference is highly significant and provides an insight into the psychological dynamic behind the GWOT to this day. The Conference took place on the third anniversary of the death of Jonathan Netanyahu in the Israeli raid on Entebbe, July 4, 1976 — coinciding not coincidentally with the 200th anniversary of American independence.

      Jonathan Netanyahu’s death — “martyrdom,” in the eyes of his doting father, Benzion, forever changed and marked–one might say distorted– Bibi’s life.

      Among the Conference’s participants were, in addition to Benzion and Benjamin Netanyahu:
      Shimon Peres
      Sen. Henry Jackson
      Menachem Begin
      Richard Pipes
      Sen. John Danforth
      Rep. Jack Kemp
      George Will
      Norman Podhoretz
      Midge Decter
      Ben Wattenberg
      Lane Kirkland
      Ambassador George Bush

      • Naftush
        June 15, 2014, 2:47 am

        Except that the Israeli Government demonstratively refrained from adopting the IASPS paper and its contents. Somehow you forgot to mention that.

      • amigo
        June 15, 2014, 7:39 am

        “Except that the Israeli Government demonstratively refrained from adopting the IASPS paper and its contents.” naftush

        Source please.

        Somehow , you forgot to mention that.

    • Feathers
      June 14, 2014, 9:03 pm

      As to the ” ‘clean break’ ” in DaBakr’s “A.”, and the comment:

      “The irony of the whiners here who complain about Israel not going blithely along with Obama policy as the epitome of umbrage while back then-despite many in top echelon of Israeli military told the US that Iraq was the lesser danger to the the region as compared to Iran but still went along and backed US with loyalty in its build up and invasion of Iraq-to its own detriment.

      http://www.c-span.org/video/?172612-1/israeli-perspective-conflict-iraq

      Anyone who doubts, or seeks to obfuscate the position of Israel’s leaders and, according to Benjamin Netanyahu, “the majority of Israelis,” must confront the words straight from the horse’s ‘A.’, er, mouth, that horse taking the shape of
      Benjamin Netanyahu in an appearance before a US Congressional committee on Sept 12, 2002, where he urged the Committee and the US Congress to stand behind George W. Bush who that morning had spoken at the United Nations and indicated his intention to wage war on Iraq.
      (That’s Ron Dermer, “Bibi’s Brain”, behind Netanyahu’s left shoulder)

      • DaBakr
        June 15, 2014, 10:43 pm

        yes dear feathers-that was my point. behind the scenes many high placed Israeli military planners warned that weakening Iraq was the wrong move and would only serve to strengthen Iran. Ironically-the same group of Israelis that explained back in the 80s that arming Saddam against Iran was a mistake. Iran -up until that point was not a belligerent to Israel.
        So-against its own best interests Israel backed W in his quest to take out an “evil” dictator and install a “friendly” regime. Once Israel backed Bush it couldn’t very well back-stab his admin. Not only was Israel required to stay out of the conflict but also required to shut up about it too. (maybe some would say with a degree of truth that the same money obsessed arms merchants both in the US and Israel-and everywhere else- stood to gain but where in the world don’t arms merchants feed off of war?)
        So-when folks on MW wonder why some Israelis feel that they have been loyal allies of the US-even when it has been wrong-you should understand that the appreciation of the US has very little limitations among Israelis. Though-with the Obama administration I can see for the first time a real desire-not just a threat-to shift alliances and spread its technological necessities further then the sphere of US influence. And-I am not against the US using its pocketbook as a cudgel against Israel as I think it would be in our best interest

  8. Citizen
    June 14, 2014, 4:02 pm

    Seems to me the neocons and/or Zionists won, because whether the current Iraq regime beats back ASIS or not, Iraq is split, hence much weaker. Divide and conquer. Israel remains the lone winner.

    • Kay24
      June 14, 2014, 7:54 pm

      I would not call Israel a winner. Right now Israel is fighting a different battle. One that is slowly costing them the support they have enjoyed from the rest of the world for years, like BDS, which has made it loose millions, calls for boycotts from universities, churches, and even the EU, has refused to import goods and poultry from the illegal settlements. The support and sympathy they were able to whip up, is slowly but obviously, eroding.
      They are desperate, although you see the false bravado here sometimes. Bibi had mentioned BDS 18 times in one of his speeches recently for good reason, he must be terrified it is gaining ground.
      Take a look at the number of calls for boycotts from churches, academia, and even artists and entertainers:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycotts_of_Israel#List_of_disinvestment_campaigns_and_product_boycotts

      No, Israel is not a winner, it is losing, and soon it will get worse. You know the phrase – what goes around, comes around!

    • DaBakr
      June 15, 2014, 10:47 pm

      you really must learn to differentiate between what you think of as ‘neo-cons’, ala Richard Perle (who I believe has recanted his ‘neo’ support. And got his thesis originally from Jean Kirkpatrick..since I don;t like when a woman is slighted for her original idea) and Zionists. The two may overlap but they are not one and the same. Most Israelis I know are too cynical to be a ‘neocon’ anyway.

      • Shingo
        June 16, 2014, 4:11 am

        you really must learn to differentiate between what you think of as ‘neo-cons’, ala Richard Perle (who I believe has recanted his ‘neo’ support.)

        No, he did not. He only half heartedly admitted he and the nescons were wrong about Iraq…sorta. Nice try.

        And got his thesis originally from Jean Kirkpatrick.

        No, he and the neocons got their thesis from Irving Kristol, like all the others.

        Most Israelis I know are too cynical to be a ‘neocon’ anyway.

        You don’t get more cynical that neocons. Neocons came up with the idea of the noble lie and the belief that the masses are too stupid to know what’s best for them. Just like most Israelis.

        .since I don;t like when a woman is slighted for her original idea) and Zionists.

  9. DICKERSON3870
    June 14, 2014, 8:06 pm

    RE “In 2003, in the largest global protest in human history, millions of us marched in the world’s streets, loudly proclaiming that invading Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster. Meanwhile, Israel’s neocon loyalists achieved exactly what they wanted: a perpetual nightmare of internecine conflict.~ Matthew Taylor

    FROM “RATIONALE FOR THE IRAQI WAR” AT WIKIPEDIA.COM:

    [EXCERPTS] The rationale for the Iraq War (i.e. the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent hostilities) has been a contentious issue since the Bush administration began actively pressing for military intervention in Iraq in late 2001. The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was articulated by a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress known as the Iraq Resolution.
    The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove “a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world”.=[1] Additional reasons have been suggested: “to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it.”
    [2] For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was “the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations”.[3] . . .

    . . . ■ The Neoconservative Rationale
    Two respected conservatives, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, argue in their 2004 book, “America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order,”[104] that long-standing neoconservative beliefs and the neoconservatives’ ascension to power underlie the origins of the Iraq War, but the neoconservatives chose to obscure their rationale for that war.

    Neoconservative Foreign Policy
    The authors describe the neoconservatives as a “political interest group” [104]:9 and do not believe there was any conspiracy. Instead, the authors accuse the neo-conservatives of not openly stating their rationale for the war, understating the scope of what they wanted to accomplish, and minimizing what it would cost to secure Iraq:

    The evidence is already at hand that the prime advocates of the Iraq war – notably the neo-conservatives who had been advocating this course since the end of the first Gulf War – did not level with the American people. They offered the image of a “cakewalk,” keeping quiet about the true dimensions of their objectives, which involved a vast project for reengineering the political, cultural, economic, and religious face of the Middle East: Iraq at the beginning, with Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to follow. Instead of putting this case to the American people and seeking their support, they spun a web of deception with a reason “du jour” being offered other than the truth. Wolfowitz would later acknowledge that Iraq’s supposed supply of WMD had never been the most compelling case for war: “For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.” [104]:202

    Partly based on views that Paul Wolfowitz presented in an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Halper and Clarke interpret the “neoconservative unspoken agenda” in the following way:

    The Middle East is a region of great strategic interest to the U.S. The security of Israel is a core commitment of the U.S. and access to Middle East energy resources is a vital strategic interest. Yet the region is highly unstable and successive attempts at intervention by past American administrations have come to nothing. Our friends in Israel tell us that the Palestinian intifada is exacting an insupportable economic and human burden. Our friends in Saudi Arabia tell us that they are sitting on a fundamentalist powder keg. The status quo is not an option. Imaginative new approaches are needed. The unelected governments comprising the Arab League must be persuaded to reform, to embrace democratic pluralism, by force if necessary. The second step will be a reinvigoration of the peace process.[104]:22

    In discussing the neoconservatives beliefs the authors interpret the “fatal neo-conservative flaw” as “conceptual overreach and the absence of pragmatism.” [104]:22.

    Opportunity to Act
    The attack on 9/11 provided the opportunity the neo-conservatives had been waiting for to act on their beliefs:

    In the tumultous days following 9/11, the neo-conservatives were ready with a detailed, plausible blueprint for the nation’s response. They were not troubled that their plan had been in preparation for over a decade for different reasons, in a different context, and in relation to different countries and, as such, did not in any way represent a direct response to the events themselves. They were motivated only to ensure its adoption.
    … Thus, unlike Pearl Harbor in 1941 or the 1948 collapse of British power in the eastern Mediterranean …, the nation was not provided a policy that responded directly to the crisis at hand. Instead, the neo-conservatives succeeded in having their preexisting agenda adopted – one that, as we show below in terms of its terrorism fighting qualities, leaves the nation more dangerously exposed to terrorism and brings numerous deleterious consequences in other fields…Hijack may be a harsh word, but there is no better description for what occurred.[104]:138–139

    Ultimate Rationale
    On page 309, Halper and Clarke address the question, “Why has this proposed policy not been fully detailed by the administration?”:

    The answer is found in their suspicion that Americans would be unwilling, if they knew the real agenda, to restructure the Middle East, to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars and countless lives in such an unprecedented undertaking. Leaving aside the fallacy of believing that outsiders can restructure local cultures, the methods chosen to do so have brought, as have seen, little but disapproval and isolation and a region no less combustible than at the neo-conservative point of entry. Were they to reveal their true agenda, not only would it be rejected as fantastic and impossible, but the neo-conservatives would find themselves out of office.[104]:309

    Key Players Enabling Action
    Finally, the authors argue that neoconservative foreign policy could not have been enacted if key neoconservatives had not been in positions of power and influence at the time of 9/11; these individuals included the following:

    Chief of Staff to Vice-President I. Lewis Libby; Special Advisor to the President, Elliott Abrams; Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul D. Wolfowitz; State Department officials John R. Bolton and David Wurmser … Richard Perle and Eliott A. Cohen on the Defense Policy Board . . . [more key players]

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

    • DICKERSON3870
      June 15, 2014, 7:23 am

      P.S. IN THE SAME VEIN, ALSO SEE: “Whose War?” ~ by Patrick J. Buchanan, TheAmericanConservative.com, March 24, 2003
      A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

      [EXCERPTS] The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers … that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”
      Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. . .

      . . . ■ The Neoconservatives
      Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980. . .

      Beating the War Drums
      When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer America’s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic “rogue states” that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.
      The War Party’s plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance of 9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked meal in front of him. Bush dug into it.

      Before introducing the script-writers of America’s future wars, consider the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what happened after that fateful day.
      On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN that we were in “a struggle between good and evil,” that the Congress must declare war on “militant Islam,” and that “overwhelming force” must be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack. Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osama’s terrorists. How did Bennett know which nations must be smashed before he had any idea who attacked us?
      The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list, calling for U.S. air strikes on “terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt.” Yet, not one of Bennett’s six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with 9/11.
      On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, “Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan.” Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the War Cabinet, while “attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain … Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.”
      On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, “will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”
      Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.
      President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The “Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the Palestinian enclave.”
      Nasty as some of these regimes and groups might be, what had they done to the United States? . . .
      . . . In “The War Against the Terror Masters”, he [ex-Pentagon official Michael Ledeen] identifies the exact regimes America must destroy:

      First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.

      Rejecting stability as “an unworthy American mission,” Ledeen goes on to define America’s authentic “historic mission”:

      Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. … [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

      Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled with any concept of true conservatism.
      To the Weekly Standard, Ledeen’s enemies list was too restrictive. We must not only declare war on terror networks and states that harbor terrorists, said the Standard, we should launch wars on “any group or government inclined to support or sustain others like them in the future.”
      Robert Kagan and William Kristol were giddy with excitement at the prospect of Armageddon. The coming war “is going to spread and engulf a number of countries. … It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. … [I]t is possible that the demise of some ‘moderate’ Arab regimes may be just round the corner.”
      Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristol’s Standard, rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is George W. Bush’s mission “to fight World War IV—the war against militant Islam.” By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘“friends” of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority. Bush must reject the “timorous counsels” of the “incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell,” wrote Podhoretz, and “find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated” Islamic world. As the war against al-Qaeda required that we destroy the Taliban, Podhoretz wrote,

      We may willy-nilly find ourselves forced … to topple five or six or seven more tyrannies in the Islamic world (including that other sponsor of terrorism, Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority). I can even [imagine] the turmoil of this war leading to some new species of an imperial mission for America, whose purpose would be to oversee the emergence of successor governments in the region more amenable to reform and modernization than the despotisms now in place. … I can also envisage the establishment of some kind of American protectorate over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as we more and more come to wonder why 7,000 princes should go on being permitted to exert so much leverage over us and everyone else.

      Podhoretz credits Eliot Cohen with the phrase “World War IV.” Bush was shortly thereafter seen carrying about a gift copy of Cohen’s book that celebrates civilian mastery of the military in times of war, as exhibited by such leaders as Winston Churchill and David Ben Gurion.
      A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction thus includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and “militant Islam.”
      Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?
      Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.
      Indeed, Sharon has been everywhere the echo of his acolytes in America. In February 2003, Sharon told a delegation of Congressmen that, after Saddam’s regime is destroyed, it is of “vital importance” that the United States disarm Iran, Syria, and Libya.
      “We have a great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after” the war on Iraq, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Conference of Major American Jewish Organizations.
      After U.S. troops enter Baghdad, the United States must generate “political, economic, diplomatic pressure” on Tehran, Mofaz admonished the American Jews. . .
      . . . On July 10, 2002, Perle invited a former aide to Lyndon LaRouche named Laurent Murawiec to address the Defense Policy Board. In a briefing that startled Henry Kissinger, Murawiec named Saudi Arabia as “the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” of the United States.
      Washington should give Riyadh an ultimatum, he said. Either you Saudis “prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including the Saudi intelligence services,” and end all propaganda against Israel, or we invade your country, seize your oil fields, and occupy Mecca.
      In closing his PowerPoint presentation, Murawiec offered a “Grand Strategy for the Middle East.” “Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize.” . . .

      . . . The neocons seek American empire, and Sharonites seek hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely. And though neocons insist that it was Sept. 11 that made the case for war on Iraq and militant Islam, the origins of their war plans go back far before.

      “Securing the Realm”
      The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop Jackson, who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing classified information from the National Security Council with the Israeli Embassy. In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974, Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, “Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests.” In 1983, the New York Times reported that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.
      In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy:

      Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.

      In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish “the principle of preemption,” has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.
      In his own 1997 paper, “A Strategy for Israel,” Feith pressed Israel to re-occupy “the areas under Palestinian Authority control,” though “the price in blood would be high.”

      Wurmser, as a resident scholar at AEI, drafted joint war plans for Israel and the United States “to fatally strike the centers of radicalism in the Middle East. Israel and the United States should … broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would establish the recognition that fighting either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”
      He urged both nations to be on the lookout for a crisis, for as he wrote, “Crises can be opportunities.” Wurmser published his U.S.-Israeli war plan on Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9/11.
      About the Perle-Feith-Wurmser cabal, author Michael Lind writes:

      The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief concern of many such “neo-conservatives” is the power and reputation of Israel.

      Right down the smokestack.
      Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the Perle-Sharon line. According to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz, in late February,

      U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials … that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.

      On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the “aim of American foreign policy” and to use military action because “diplomacy is failing.” Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would “offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.” Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds.

      The Wolfowitz Doctrine
      In 1992, a startling document was leaked from the office of Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. Barton Gellman of the Washington Post called it a “classified blueprint intended to help ‘set the nation’s direction for the next century.’” The Wolfowitz Memo called for a permanent U.S. military presence on six continents to deter all “potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” Containment, the victorious strategy of the Cold War, was to give way to an ambitious new strategy designed to “establish and protect a new order.” . . .
      . . . In confronting America’s adversaries, the paper declares, “We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively.” It warns any nation that seeks to acquire power to rival the United States that it will be courting war with the United States . . .
      . . . America must reconcile herself to an era of “nation-building on a grand scale, and with no exit strategy,” Robert Kagan instructs.? But this Pax Americana the neocons envision bids fair to usher us into a time of what Harry Elmer Barnes called “permanent war for permanent peace.”

      The Munich Card
      As President Bush was warned on Sept. 20, 2001, that he will be indicted for “a decisive surrender” in the war on terror should he fail to attack Iraq, he is also on notice that pressure on Israel is forbidden. For as the neoconservatives have played the anti-Semitic card, they will not hesitate to play the Munich card as well. A year ago, when Bush called on Sharon to pull out of the West Bank, Sharon fired back that he would not let anyone do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain had done to the Czechs. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy immediately backed up Ariel Sharon:

      With each passing day, Washington appears to view its principal Middle Eastern ally’s conduct as inconvenient—in much the same way London and Paris came to see Czechoslovakia’s resistance to Hitler’s offers of peace in exchange for Czech lands.

      When former U.S. NATO commander Gen. George Jouwlan said the United States may have to impose a peace on Israel and the Palestinians, he, too, faced the charge of appeasement. Wrote Gaffney,

      They would, presumably, go beyond Britain and France’s sell-out of an ally at Munich in 1938. The “impose a peace” school is apparently prepared to have us play the role of Hitler’s Wehrmacht as well, seizing and turning over to Yasser Arafat the contemporary Sudetenland: the West Bank and Gaza Strip and perhaps part of Jerusalem as well.

      Podhoretz agreed Sharon was right in the substance of what he said but called it politically unwise to use the Munich analogy.
      President Bush is on notice: Should he pressure Israel to trade land for peace, the Oslo formula in which his father and Yitzak Rabin believed, he will, as was his father, be denounced as an anti-Semite and a Munich-style appeaser by both Israelis and their neoconservatives allies inside his own Big Tent. . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whose-war/

  10. Dutch
    June 14, 2014, 9:36 pm

    Iraq had no WMD’s when the coalition of the willing attacked. But when the coalition left again, large parts of Iraq were covered with depleted uranium. It’s everywhere: the desert wind carries it, food and ground water are poisoned. Experts talk about ‘nuclear warfare’ to describe the damage. Iraq is doomed for millions of years.

    John Pilger is one of very few journalists on the story. The MSM are only interested in non-existing WMD’s.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/26/iraqis-cant-turn-backs-on-deadly-legacy/print

    • just
      June 14, 2014, 10:00 pm

      All true, Dutch.

      Some people still “don’t do body counts”. It is an unforgivable and ongoing tragedy that few want to talk about, much less remember. Helen Caldicott (and others) warned about this after the first ‘Gulf War’ and what we had unleashed then~ she and others were ignored.

      The winds/waters, etc. don’t only flow into Iraq, either………

      (I mention Dr. Caldicott b/c she helped to enlighten me quite a long while ago.)

  11. dbroncos
    June 15, 2014, 12:21 am

    The authors of the ‘Clean Break’ nonsense didn’t count on a grass roots movement that is now undermining the legitimacy of Zionism to a greater extent than Saddam ever could. They figured they had the peoples of the West in their hip pocket. However, far from mobilizing “every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism” the attacks on 9/11 and the follow on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have gone a long way towards losing Western support for Zionism.

  12. HarryLaw
    June 15, 2014, 5:59 am

    If someone suggested to Hillary Clinton or John [I sang like a canary] McQaeda that the government inject 6 Trillion dollars into the US economy to fix the crumbling infrastructure, education and general well being of ordinary US citizens, they would laugh at you. But they happily squandered [according to the Kennedy Law School] 6 Trillion dollars on two losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And for those who don’t know what 6 Trillion dollars looks like here is just 1 Trillion. http://www.dailycognition.com/index.php/2009/03/25/what-1-trillion-dollars-looks-like-in-dollar-bills.html

  13. amigo
    June 15, 2014, 7:58 am

    While a measly $1 million looked a little unimpressive, $100 million is a little more respectable.

    It fits neatly on a standard pallet…

    Thanks for the link Harry.Very enlightening.

    Just think, depending on whom you ask , it would appear the USA taxpayer has given between 1.5 and 2.0 pallets of money to Israel since circa 1949.

    “http://www.wrmea.org/congress-and-us-aid-to-israel/494-congress-a-us-aid-to-israel/11203-u-s-aid-to-israel.html”

    On the bright side , transporting the cash is far less expensive these days if Electronic transfers are utilized.

  14. James Canning
    June 15, 2014, 1:58 pm

    As a side note, Tony Blair bypassed Britain’s normal way of decision-making at Downing Street, to help GW Bush carry out his idiotic invasion of Iraq.

  15. Mooser
    September 27, 2014, 12:46 pm

    You know, as personally embarrassing as I find the trolls are, absolutely mortifying,(remember, I can hear them as well as read them, ouch) they sure provoke excellent responses from the commentors.
    Isn’t it funny how critics (I think that would be fair) of Zionist intransigence know more, much more, about the situation than Israel’s supporters? And everything the supporters know is wrong, too. I wonder why that is?

Leave a Reply