|
Much has been made
of a group of connected and powerful men that were supposed to have ushered in a “Project for a New American Century” in the late 1990s. Arising from the “New Citizenship Project” in 1997, the document was supported by notables such as William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, Francis Fukuyama, William Bennett and a host other “New Citizens” that have since come to be called the “Neocons, though I like to add a dash to give emphasis to the word “Con” in that moniker. However you spell it, this clique of influential men, elected to nothing, nonetheless decided to form a lobby in 1996 to push for the overthrow the government of Iraq. They soon urged then President Clinton to embrace a policy of regime change in Iraq, but decided that lobbying from the sidelines as outside advisors would just not serve their purposes. (The
closing segment of their letter to Clinton, with all the Neo-Con signatories, appears below.)
 |
Recognize those names? It appears these men effected regime change in more places than Iraq. I don’t know
about you, but it’s somewhat chilling to realize that all the men above were simply private citizens when they
signed that letter, and within months, after one of the most shady and bitterly contested elections in US history,
many were catapulted to positions of power all through the U.S. Government! The achievement gives the term
“bloodless coup” a new meaning, though the blood would soon flow, in American streets, and throughout the
globe as the Neo-Cons launched their agenda. The network of power they created was embraced and vitalized by long time conservative hawks such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
when they assumed power in 2000, and suddenly the Neo-Cons found themselves inside the US government, in the driver’s seat at last.
Their ideas were bold and controversial—that America should act unilaterally, outside any internationally
supported framework, to achieve its aims in the world, creating its own reality, its own history, as the single
dominant superpower on the globe. It was, of course, a policy that traditional conservatives would not normally
embrace, as they had been skillful at building international consensus, as with President Bush Sr. in the first
Gulf conflict. But the Neo-Cons could not wait. There was an urgency in their actions that seemed to be driven
by a preordained timetable, perhaps the ticking clock of energy depletion that has since come to be known as
“Peak Oil.” Many of them had connections to the oil industry, and they soon found other powerful allies in that business to energize their agenda.
Now their “project” could move forward in earnest, enhanced by the full power of the US government and its
lethal military forces. At the heart of their agenda was a strategic plan to expand and consolidate the influence
of the United States throughout the world, and a blueprint for how this might be best accomplished. Various
White Papers generated by this group laid out plans for the re-structuring of America’s military to meet the
challenges ahead, and for the inevitable deployment of US forces abroad in defense of our “interests.” To quote their own words: “As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United
States should seek to establish a network of “deployment bases” or “forward operating bases” to increase the reach of current and future forces.”
The focus of these bases and deployments was necessarily pinned on the vital Persian Gulf region, which
produces a huge percentage of our energy needs. Accordingly, documents generated by the Neo-Cons argued that the US military should strategically re-deploy from central to southeastern Europe (read Bulgaria on the
Caspian, or even Turkey), and of course to the Persian Gulf itself. “American landpower is the essential link in
the chain that translates US military Supremacy into American Geopolitical preeminence,” they wrote. Their
published reports went on to talk about our “constabulatory” duties around the world, and in the Persian Gulf and other vital spots they argued that: “U.S. security interests argue forcefully for an enduring military presence,” not
simply a light rotation of forces at times of crisis. It was a dream that required, among other things, a hefty percentage increase of our GDP dedicated to military spending.
The ideal place for this enduring presence, they argued, was Iraq. But how to justify any concerted move at
controlling that ill-fated nation? Saddam was a hated dictator, to be sure, but with a defeated army, under a
crippling 10 year regime of economic sanctions, and overflown daily by allied aircraft to deny him the use of his
airspace, he no longer posed any real threat to the U.S. or even the region as a whole. Though hobbled, he
remained bitter, uncooperative on oil deals, supportive of the Palestinian terrorists, and would therefore make a
perfect boogie man to energize the ill will of the American people. In short, Saddam was the perfect “evil” to
justify our war, but we have seen just how feeble he really was, in spite of all the fearful rhetoric that the Neo
-Cons generated to equate him with Satan. After thousands of tough man shots of Saddam firing a rifle from his
balcony and waving to his evil supporters, the one image that presented the truth was that of a scraggly hobo
pulled from a filthy hole in the ground by US forces. That was your boogie man, America, the great and powerful
Saddam. The notion that he, or his crippled nation, was ever a credible threat to the United States was pure propaganda, an absurdity that his speedy collapse underlined and proved true. This was why the issue of
WMDs was put forward as an imperative danger to America, to give this shadowy thug some real teeth and make it seem that immediate action was required to avert a catastrophe.
Many have also seen in the Neo-Con writings the blueprint for a new American Empire aimed at dominating the
world’s energy system and the financial markets that underlie it. It should be no surprise, then, that when they
came to power in the hotly contested 2000 election, the Neo-Cons set out to realize their agenda, needing only
“some catalyzing event akin to another Pearl Harbor” to assure the support of the American people. Many have
seen 9-11 as that event, whether they subscribe to the official explanation of that attack, or some permutation of
the other theories that have emerged in recent years, all arguing that the official findings concerning 9-11 are
deeply flawed and at times completely unbelievable. Stories have circulated about the demolition of the World
Trade Center, the strange paucity of evidence to support the allegation that an airliner ever struck the Pentagon,
and the suggestion that even that little band of heroes on Flight 93, now carefully depicted in numerous media stories and docudramas, were actually shot down by the Air Force.
These conspiracy theories aside, the fact remains that 9-11 provided exactly what the Neo-Cons needed to
move forward their plan for a radical shift of US geomilitary power into the Gulf region, and the subsequent “War
On Terror” that President Bush so eagerly embraced became the glidepath for the military deployments envisioned by Neo-Con planners years before 9-11. Who needs a nefarious explanation for 9-11, argued a close
associate of mine, when the bald fact was that the real conspiracy was now in high gear, active and apparent all
through the US government, as one key post after another was being occupied by the very same men who first filled the ranks of the Neo-Con think tankers, paper writers and lobbyists!
With the fall of Saddam, the blueprint of the Neo-Cons finally had their long sought base in the heart of the
Persian Gulf. (The Saudis, ever skittish about US troops on their soil, were asking us to leave.) Not only could
the US project tremendous power into the region, but they could also void all the oil development contracts Saddam had given to France, Germany, Russia and China, re-installing the US and UK as the sole developers
of oil there. The Oil Ministry was the first, and only, building secured in Baghdad after the fall, and soon work
started to link Iraq’s vast Rumalia oil field to port terminals in Kuwait. As for WMDs, the primary reason the Neo
-Cons asserted for the war, they were neither used by Saddam to prevent his fall, nor were they found anywhere
in his country after an intense three year search. The neo “con” job that became the rush to war in Iraq has been
roundly exposed as great fraud perpetrated upon the American people to gain their support. It was clearly planned long before 9-11, and was the stated intention of these men from the very first meeting they held in
1996. Just thinking back on all those months, where tension was ratcheted up over the supposed WMD issue in Iraq, makes one cringe now. But how soon we forget the incredible propaganda machine they used to stampede
us into this war. You can see it still operating at full tilt today as they look to their next objective—Iran.
Take a peek at FOX news, (and please, just a peek). You will see daily images of Iranian forces marching
through Tehran like jack-booted Nazis or Soviets on parade before the Kremlin. It’s incredible to watch how this
media channel, masquerading as a news outlet, basically serves as the government’s primary mass media tool,
our very own PRAVDA. President Bush is presented in the most complimentary light, and “experts,” many of
them signatories of the Neo-Con papers, are trotted to the microphones to explain away the enormous failures
of his policy, not to mention the egregious extension of his power into what many critics now call the “Imperial
Presidency.” The War in Iraq is presumed to be either “won” or proceeding wonderfully. Patriotism is used as a
flail to excoriate anyone who dares say otherwise. Sean Hannity regularly beats Alan Colmes about the head
and shoulders as he reiterates the day’s Neo-Con talking points. But worse than all of this is the attempt at
subliminal image manipulation that goes on all the time on this station, intending to rivet home assertions that have been proven entirely false, presenting them as de facto truth. Such activity is deliberate
misinformation—but that is being gentle, it is really the presentation of downright lies as truth, all in the
furtherance of the Neo-Con agenda. More than any other media organization, FOX News was primarily used to “prepare the American people” for what the Neo-Cons were planning. (Read the rest of the sidebar for some glaring examples of FOX propaganda > > >).
It’s so transparent! If you look at the coverage today, and point to the places where our media FOXes are
demonizing another nation or leader, (like Venezuela or Iran) a curious consistency will emerge—they are all oil
states outside the control of the US. According to FOX, these states are now both said to be ruled by madmen,
dangerous and unstable dictatorships that do nothing else but sit about and plan “evil.” We seldom hear a word
these days about that most neglected of all evil dictators, Kim Jong-il, the leader of an oppressive communist
state that has successfully flouted the Nuclear nonproliferation regime and actively exported this technology,
and the missiles to use it, to other nations. We don’t see old Kim demonized daily on FOX, or get treated to
images of party controlled mass marches in North Korea, backed by long rumbling columns of aging ex-Soviet tanks. First things first. Kim has no oil, and FOX is most likely busy receiving faxes from the White House
press office so they can be sure they get the administration’s position correct each day—and right now the
administration is obsessed with the new “the grave and serious threat” posed by Iran’s mullahs, not to mention the rapidly unraveling occupation of Iraq. Now FOX will have one of its very own inside the White House Press
office, as Bush just hired one of their news anchors for his new Press Secretary!
 This sort of obviously slanted and bias edited information is what you get
when a conservative corporation, owned by a wealthy, conservative man, (Rupert Murdoch), takes over a news organization. The coverage on FOX is
outrageous, the commentary dim witted at best, downright ignorant at worst. And the station has the temerity to pose as presenting a “fair and balanced”
view of the world, with entire segments presided over by demagogues claiming to hold sway in a “no spin zone.” FOX news is perhaps the premier
example of the information con job that first sold us the war in Iraq, and as such it bears as much responsibility as any other institution for the disaster
we now have there. FOX seems to want to couch everything in the Middle East as a struggle between god-fearing Christian democracy and the
evildoers of Islam. (No more Russian evildoers these days. Even the Chinese aren’t much thought of as
“commies” any longer. It doesn’t pay to bite the hand that feeds you, and China buys up $1.67 billion in US
national debt each day, and keeps Wal-Mart afloat with legions of textile and light manufacturing workers who earn about forty cents per hour. That’s a whopping $16 bucks a week, or $64 dollars per month).
Americans come home from a long day at work, trying to make ends meet on twenty times that, and think
themselves poor. Then they get treated to FOX News, selling yet more of the Neo-Con agenda, until something like the attack on the Golden Mosque of Samarrah shocks them with news that is difficult to spin, or swarm
away with helicopter assault troops. It’s one thing to trot out commentators to blame it all on dissident Iraqis or
infiltrating Iranians, but the message underlying the images we see is as powerful as anything the editors at FOX could dream up, and it tells us that Iraq is a slowly boiling kettle of chaos, and clearly the most
spectacular American foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam debacle. Any Western reporter who has covered
that war on the scene will now tell you the same thing—that Iraq is now a far more dangerous country than it
was in the first year of the war, that conditions have deteriorated dramatically, that no real progress has been
made in the rebuilding effort, and that the terrorists and insurgents are stronger than ever. No one with any
intellectual integrity, on either side of the political spectrum, is out there arguing that the US operation in Iraq is
prevailing as planned—no one except the media moguls on FOX news, that is, but they have long since proved
they have no intellectual integrity. The Neo-Cons controlling the war were so arrogantly certain that they could
simply knock off Saddam and run his regime to ground that their hubris resulted in this staggering failure we now see in Iraq.
Try as they might, FOX can’t put lipstick on this pig with video editing tricks, and image flashes of Bush on his
aircraft carrier and the choking dust of 9-11. Nor can their ex-news anchor salvage this sagging president’s
image once he takes over the White House Press office. Sure, they can fool some of the people, some of the
time, (about 30% it seems), but the vast majority of Americans have now seen through the propaganda, the flag
waving, the “our boys” false patriotism, to the real truth of what is going on in Iraq: a bungled invasion, a
mismanaged occupation, a lost war—all the colossal failure of the Neo-Cons. Even old architects of U.S. power
projection like Zibigniew Brezezinski have seen the light. Last Sunday on CNN he said: “The U.S. cannot
continue plundering and blundering into an uncertain future in Iraq.” He further stated an old maxim from the
Vietnam days: “If the insurgents aren’t losing, they are winning.” Few would argue that the insurgents are losing in Iraq.
While it is heartening to see men like Brezezinski reaching a moment of clarity like this, one that any clear
thinking person should be able to see, the Neo-Cons are still hard bent to continue their agenda while they hold
the reins of power. The damage these men have already done to our nation is incalculable. I would go so far as
to say it borders on treason itself, a sinister betrayal of the values that built this great country, of our Constitution, and a betrayal of the American people, not to mention the Iraqis they claim to be liberating.
They told us Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction—they were wrong. They said Iraq was a dire threat to
America—they were wrong. They told us the Iraqis would welcome us with jubilation—they were wrong. They
said their invasion would fight terrorism—instead it has spawned hundreds of new terror cells and trained a
whole new generation of jihadis against the West. They said they would bring democracy to Iraq—instead they
have deliberately courted sectarian violence with a divide and conquer policy. They said Iraq’s oil would pay for
the invasion many times over—instead we have sunk hundreds of billions of dollars into the war effort, about
$227 million per day. They said their plan would stabilize the region, but now the threat of civil strife in Iraq,
backed by regional power interference, is more dire than ever. They said their plan would weaken Iran, but it has
strengthened the Iranian position in the region immensely. They said the world would be safer, that we would be
safer, they were oh so very wrong...and so is FOX News. One day they will wake up and find that their fervor for
ideological positions held by a dwindling minority of Americans is, well, bad for business. Only four states now
view Bush favorably, and with very slight majorities: Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Nebraska. Together they represent just under 2% of the population. The other 98% live in states with clear Bush disapproval ratings.
Wake up Mr. Murdoch. Wake up FOX. You’re selling your corn to the wrong audience.
Grave Mistakes in Iraq
If you wanted to make a case for how not to occupy a foreign country, you have only to look at the Neo-Con
record in Iraq. The first glimmering of their incompetence was the chaos of the looting, which really set an
alarming example for all that would soon unfold. It demonstrated that the US did not have anywhere near the number of troops in Iraq to adequately provide security and impose order there.
 On V-E Day after WWII, Eisenhower had sixty-one U.S. divisions comprising over one and
a half million men in Germany, and a total force in Europe numbering over three million. (And the Russians had over a million men in Germany as well.) This is why the Nazi plan
for its dread SS “Werewolves” to fight a guerilla war against the allies completely failed. The US had only three divisions in Iraq, numbering just 10% of the occupation force
Eisenhower used to pacify Germany. When matched against Iraq’s regular army divisions, and dramatically augmented by US Air power, this small invading corps was more than
enough to win the conventional military battle. Yet when asked to occupy a nation the size of Germany, secure its cities, provide order and prepare the way for a new democratic
civilian government, the force was perhaps five times too small. General Shinseki tried to tell the Neo-Cons that
before they invaded, and he was vilified by one of the principle planners for the war, Paul Wolfowitz, who said the
general’s estimates were “wildly off the mark.” So much for the wisdom of Wolfowitz. I find it odd how these
men can make such egregious errors of judgment and planning, rely on flimsy, fabricated intelligence, fail to
foresee and account for outcomes they were clearly warned about by real experts, and their reward is to move
to positions of even greater power and influence. Perhaps Mr. Wolfowitz will have better luck juggling numbers in his new post as head of the World Bank.
The moment Iraq fell into chaos, with all secular power swept away by the U.S. Army, the only remaining
centers of control and order were the clerics. In short, the fact that the U.S. was unable to quickly impose order
meant that the position of the clerics was dramatically enhanced. Aside from wielding moral and religious
authority, they also became a nexus for sectarian cadres that quickly recruited a host of armed militias. In the
early days, the U.S. avoided conflict with the Shi’ites at places like Karbalah when they realized the
tremendous power of clerics like Al Sistani. The greybeards, older and more respected clerics, seemed able to
control their younger firebrand brethren like Muqtada al Sadr, and the U.S. acquiesced. The insurgency seemed
to be principally mounted by the disaffected Sunnis, but behind the scenes, the Shi’ites were quietly
consolidating their power, growing their militias, and positioning themselves to dominate the political process
that the US wanted to stage there. It is no surprise, then, that the election saw heavy Shi’ite turnout and
representation in the new “government,” but by allowing representation along sectarian lines, the US was setting
up the conflict we now see unfolding in Iraq—civil war, sectarian war, call it what you will. It’s one side killing the other, and the body count continues to rise.
 This happened, I must stress, because three U.S. Army divisions could not hope to
control a country the size of Iraq and impose order in that strife torn nation. Would Eisenhower have done things this way? Certainly not. MacArthur occupied Japan with a
force of 350,000 troops, and another 50,000 Commonwealth forces— almost three times the size of the U.S. commitment to Iraq. One of his first orders was mandatory disarmament of the Japanese population, even extending to the surrender and roundup of
ritual swords! By contrast, Iraq was a vast conventional weapons depot for years, and remains so today.
Had the US reconstituted the Iraqi Army, utilized its command structure, assured its soldiers would remain employed and paid, and used them to rebuild the country, things might have been
different. They got it wrong when they disbanded the Iraqi army for fear of its Ba’athist roots. The Old Iraqi army
was the single institution representing secular power in Iraq—one that knew the culture and language, was a
visible force for control and authority, and one that could have been brought into partnership with the U.S., finally
free of the yoke of Saddam. Instead of working with this army, the Neo-Con “planners” let it disintegrate.
Virtually overnight there were tens of thousands of militarily trained young men with no job, no salary, and a seething grudge against both the old government and the new occupiers who put them in this condition.
Thousands joined the insurgency. They had the training, and knew exactly where to find the weapons they might need in hundreds of munitions depots scattered all over the country. These depots were not secured by
US troops, and they were roundly looted. The result was an armed, effective insurgency virtually overnight, and
you can thank the Neo-Cons for that one as well. The next three years were spent trying to build a new Iraqi army, and resulted in a single battalion that was deemed by US generals as “combat ready.” The notion that the
US can simply turn the seething instability of Iraq over to this force now is crazy. Without the US Army as
referee the Iraqi forces would soon disintegrate again, or even begin battling one another by joining one sectarian camp or another. Now these rival factions hold the power that the Iraqi army once held.
The American forces, scattered about the country in battalion sized encampments, soon became embroiled in a
guerilla war with the Sunnis, Ba’athists and anyone else who had a beef with America. Foreign fighters were
crossing the open borders by the busload as early as April 2003. Reviewing my VCR tape recordings of the invasion, I saw segments where a pretty blonde reporter assigned to report from Jordan was interviewing scores
of young Jordanian and Palestinian men who were crowding into busses bound for Baghdad. “We are going to
fight the occupation!” they said, and so they were. It was well over a year before major operations were mounted
to try and prevent this kind of infiltration from Jordan and Syria, and it has had only limited effectiveness. By
contrast, when the Russians signaled they wanted to move in to Japan’s northern islands after the war, MacArthur clamped down hard and prevented this divisive outside influence. He did not want Japan divided
between spheres of influence as Germany was. But in Iraq, by removing the common denominator of secular
power, the U.S. exacerbated the ethnic and sectarian divisions, all heavily infiltrated by terrorist cells and grudge fighters from outside the country.
 The US force on the ground simply failed to control the borders, and so now we have a
massive terrorist training ground in Iraq, with hundreds of new home brewed insurgent groups, large armed militias under the control of religious leaders, intense al-Qaeda
operational capabilities, cross training of one group by another, as ex Taliban fighters move in and out of the country, learning new urban guerilla techniques to take back home. And
none of this was there before we came. It was all allowed to blossom, like dandelions in the Devil’s Garden, as I argued so many months ago. Where do you think all these armed and
newly trained fighters will go when the U.S. finally leaves Iraq? Do you think they will all just close up shop with no more U.S. convoys to ambush? I pity the shaky governments in
places like Syria, Jordan and especially Saudi Arabia. The vast jihadi training camp George Bush set up in Iraq will serve as an enduring threat to regional stability for decades. Is this
what the president means by “fighting terrorism?”
The insurgency started as a resistance force against the US Army, then it morphed into a terror fest, with
kidnappings, beheadings and car bombs being the order of the day. Now, however, they’ve gotten over all that.
It’s Shi’ite militias, operating through the Sadr controlled Iraqi Interior ministry, at war with Sunni militias, who
moved to Baghdad in great numbers when the US Army got heavy handed in Anbar province. And thence came
the “civil war” that we hear all this talk about now. It is underway even as I write, not something about to happen.
Over 1300 dead bodies turned up in Baghdad after the Golden Mosque attack in Samarrah, hand-cuffed and
shot in the back of the head, execution style. No, it’s not al-Qaeda’s work. It’s Shi’ite death squads exacting
revenge on the Sunnis. And this will go on and on until they tire of the killing or one side prevails. The US is
powerless to do anything to stop it. They’ll have to hunker down on their new bases and see about possibly
protecting the oil. Occasionally they might swarm out to one city or another for a shakedown, but the Iraqis
know one thing quite clearly. The man with the gun holds the power in Iraq. They have been taught that over
painful generations under Saddam. They know one other fact: who is most likely to be holding a gun in Iraq five
years from now, the US Army or the insurgents, the militias? The logic of this is inescapable, even if the editors of FOX News remain oblivious.
The “facts on the ground” are these: In the south most cities are now controlled by Shi’ite forces, including
their militias, who have infiltrated all the key security, police and government positions. Many of these groups
are closely allied with Iran, so in effect, Iran is slowly achieving de facto control of the south. In Basra, for
example, the British, in spite of their much touted anti-insurgency capability after years of fighting the IRA, have
been unable to assert any real authority. They’ve now pulled out of the city to bases in the south screening the
vital Rumalia oil fields. The same can be said of vast segments of Baghdad, particularly Sadr City, a huge
ghetto holding some 10% of Iraq’s population that is now completely controlled by Muqtada al Sadr and his
militias. US forces are warned to keep out and no longer enter the area. Again, Iran has strong influence in this
region through Sadr. In the north the ex Kurdish Peshmurga have joined the army but they are pledged to the
control of Kirkuk and its surrounding oil fields. And Operation Swarmer and others aside, the US really has no
control of places like Samarrah, Fallujah, Ramadi and other key cities of the West. The moment our troops
leave the area it slowly reverts to Sunni insurgent control, or becomes yet another vortex of instability as rebels
begin battling the Shi’ite Iraqi army battalion left there as garrison—and this just sets up the conditions to keep the civil strife going.
These are the facts, and you can add to that the appalling reality that most Iraqis now believe they were better off under Saddam! They had stability, water, electricity, and there was order enforced by the Ba’athists. No,
they couldn’t do the purple fingered vote thing, but the could go out to buy food for their family with a reasonable
chance of returning alive. That is not so today. And as for the oil…Iraqi production is now at an all time low. So
they got it wrong—the Neo-Cons. Every one of you out there who bought into their specious, short sighted and
FOX news pumped arguments about Iraq got it wrong as well. And what did the U.S. gain, if anything, from this debacle in Iraq?
It is said that to the victors go the spoils, or in this case, the oils, but that is also a case of extreme Neo-Con
failure. You would think these ex-oil company execs would at least know how to reap the fruits of their victory in
all that black gold, but even that has been mismanaged from the start. The Neo-Cons made a greedy mistake
when they voided all outside contracts to Iraqi oil, forcing out the French, Russians, Chinese and others, and
ceded the development rights to US companies alone. Now try and find outside support for the redevelopment
effort in Iraq, or for the occupation and pacification of that beleaguered country. And this has also forced them
into a cozy relationship, by necessity, with Iran to vie for oil and gas contracts there--precisely the axis Bush is
now trying to face down in the UN over the same specious arguments about nukes that sent us to war in Iraq.
By attempting to control the region with it’s “coalition of the willing” that failed to include any major regional or
world power, the U.S. assured international isolation for its vital nation building effort in Iraq. The UN made a two
week showing, and fled after their first minister there was blown up. From that point on the US was pretty much
alone with the entire mess. So, true to form, the Neo-Cons brought in ex-oil company executives to run the Iraqi
oil ministry, and Paul Bremer to lay down the occupation law in his 100 edicts, exempting them from Iraqi law
and ceding over long term development rights to the oil. And while US companies rubbed their hands in profits
from the sumptuous no-bid contracts, they had to hire on thousands of mercenary security men to protect their operations. For all their greedy efforts, where’s the damn oil? Production in Iraq has now fallen well below figures
Saddam was pumping, (from 2.7 million barrels per day to 1.1). So much for Neo-Con planning and efficiency.
They can’t even extract the single thing they most desired from Iraq, its oil. What they have done, however, is
build that network of US military bases in Iraq they were slavering over. There are thirty or more bases, about 12
envisioned to be permanent places where the US can either maintain that “enduring military presence” the New Citizens were writing about, or use for rapid deployment should they ever have the need.
Iraq, you see, was just Phase I of the con job. Now that the bases are established there, the Neo-Cons can look
to project power over their real rival in the region, Iran. Even though the American people now broadly oppose the
occupation and war in Iraq, Bush has no real plan to ever leave under his watch. He stated as much in a recent
press conference—that withdrawal of U.S. troops “is a matter for future presidents to decide.”
Back To Iran - With a brief stop in Damascus along the way
 With that kind of blind stubbornness
to encourage them, the Neo-Cons are now thumbing through the same old tattered play book with eyes on Iran, only this time we’ve got the bases nicely armed and bristling with Air Force fighters
to go after the Mullahs, a little payback for knocking off our old boy the Shah. The recent “flare-up” between Israel and Hezbollah has thrown fresh fuel on the
Neo-Con fire, and they are clamoring for a more vigorous and expanded war. The disproportionate reaction by Israel to the capture of three soldiers appeared
to deliberately invite the conflict. You don’t knock down 50 bridges, bomb railways, airports, terminals, roads, ports, fuel depots, power stations and gasoline stations in reprisal for the
loss of three soldiers. A more reasonable response would have been to send in special forces to capture three
of the enemy, but reason does not prevail. Now Israel has a nice little shooting war with the world’s premier
terrorist organization, Hezbollah. The rocket attacks into Israel came after the Israeli bombing, I might add, but
that’s a minor point to the Neo-Cons. That was intended. Israel knew Hezbollah had these weapons, and that
they would use them. That was all part of the deal. The neo-cons are now out in a full court press to ignite their
long sought war against Iran and Syria. Newt Gingrich characterizes it as “The beginning of World War III.”
 Word is that the US sent a back channel message to Iran through Germany
that they would attack if no solution was reached in the security council within a month of referral. The Security Council just made its demand that
Iran stand down its enrichment programs “within 30 days.” I have little doubt that FOX will be working overtime to further demonize Iran and link them to
9/11 and all other terrorist movements during this grace period. The fighting in Lebanon is a dream come true for this agenda. It’s crunch time for the Neo
-Cons. It’s now or never with Iran and Syria in their thinking, and we are entering one of the most dangerous periods in recent years. Vice President
Cheney has reportedly already set up a hair trigger strike, involving tactical nukes, to be launched in response to another 9/11 type terrorist attack here in the US. (Link to story here) Only time will tell if this reporting is true. And a
movie is scheduled to debut in August that will pull those heart strings of US patriotism and valor right as things heat up in the Middle East. But if this war
does widen, it will be sheer madness with all that flammable oil at stake.
Yes, the old “Iran is making nukes” line has worn thin. The neo-cons have been huddling to come up with
something new. The new fighting in Lebanon is just the ticket! They realize they can't produce any fake yellow
cake from Nigeria, mobile weapons labs, bio-crop duster drones or anything else Condi Rice can take to the UN
in a new pack of lies. The US will get no traction in the UN for a Chapter 7 use of force. Economic sanctions
will not matter. Some other way of demonizing Iran and painting them as an imminent "threat" had to be found.
The long simmering battle between Hezbollah and Israel, born from the 1980s invasion and 16 year occupation of southern Lebanon by Israel, is just the thing. It allows the neocons to carp about the fact that Iran is
supplying, arming and supporting Hezbollah, (which is true). But they will conveniently overlook the fact that the
F-15s and F-16s Israel flies, the M-109 SPG Howitzers we see pounding Lebanon, the M-113 troop carriers, and
the missiles and ammunition itself, all come to Israel courtesy of the US. America can freely arm aggressive states, who violate the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and produce 200+ warheads... But no one else is
allowed to arm a rival group or state, or to engage in any nuclear program that allows it to build a weapon. The
US vigorously protests North Korea's missile testing, levying threats and speaking of grave consequences.
Three days later India launches a missile test with nary a whisper of protest from anyone. And India is another nation who violated the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to produce nuclear weapons.
This is the duplicity and two faced nature of US foreign policy that has always infuriated the Muslim world.
Justice for our friends only. Weapons by the ton for our friends only. Nukes for nations who cooperate with us,
but no one else. The implicit underlying meaning is that the things the US and Israel does are inherently "good"
and the things their rivals and opponents do are inherently "evil." This assertion has about as much credibility
as the blatant statement by Bush that: "we do not torture." Over 1 billion Muslims have seen the injustice and
the lies for too long. Their hearts are hardening. They are being driven into the arms of their more radical
brothers. In the end, the old logic of protest will remain true: no justice, no peace, and we will be fighting a
population almost four times greater than our own, who will be forced to fight us asymmetrically, with the tactic
of "terror" for the next 50 years. After that, the oil will not matter any longer, and we will leave them to their
deserts. But I doubt if they will ever leave us in peace because of the war and greed we have shown them for generations. In the near term, a new Neo-Con inspired war in the Middle East will have severe consequences.
Suppose Al Qaeda decides that attacking the America over here is just not productive? All it will do is give Bush
and the Neo-Cons more fuel for their fire and swing back all those middle ground voters into an America first
policy of reprisal and continued war. Attacking U.S. soil may make for spectacular press, but it won’t really have
the desired effect, or even cause us much harm. New York has shaken off 9-11 and the stock market is humming near 11,000 again. But if Osama’s boys were to strike Saudi Arabia, strike at the oil terminals and
refineries the West depends on for its lifeline of oil, just imagine the chaos. CNN, a station that has some level
of sanity and competence in its presentation of the news, recently aired a special documentary examining this
possibility called “We Were Warned.” Aside from demonstrating our vulnerability should the Persian Gulf erupt
into wider conflict, it also showed some amazing footage of how Brazil has virtually reached energy independence through cultivating ethanol from sugar cane. Over 80% of all autos there are flex fuel cars that can
use either gasoline or ethanol. If only America has such foresight and determination! We could say goodbye to
the Saudis and the Gulf forever, and produce all the energy we need here—but we have a leadership clique all beholden to the powerful oil companies, and their game remains in the Gulf.
 Well, if it isn’t obvious that the entire Neo-Con job in selling the war in Iraq was
a sham, that the occupation there has been a disaster, and that we have dramatically increased and strengthened radical Islam and resultant terrorism
by our presence there—then you’ve been watching too much FOX news. This time the Neo-Cons, (and with Libby’s indictment the term starts to take on new
meaning), are going through the same song and dance over Iran that we heard for so many months before the war in Iraq. It’s the WMD thing again, with this
underlying chorus about democracy, as if we were now somehow a model to be envied and emulated throughout the world. Can you imagine what the Pacific would be like if China acted on the
world stage as we do, flouting the will of the UN, invading countries it defines as “evil,” positioning its military
forces in an ever tightening circle around targeted nations, threatening the use of its nuclear arsenal to make
sure it achieves its aims? These are the strong armed, self-serving, self-righteous tactics of the Neo-Cons, and
they have led this nation on a ruinous path, trashing our political and moral credibility, bankrupting our treasury,
killing tens of thousands of innocents, and maiming the U.S. Army in the process, their weapon of choice.
The incredible instability in Iraq after three years has finally demonstrated the failure of the Neo-Con agenda.
Their plans for the domination of the Middle East, (including Iran and Saudi Arabia) are now in a shambles. If
they press forward and try their heavy handed tactics on Iran, they will reap chaos as the result. What have they
given us, these spawns of the conservative think tanks, funded by oil barons? Has the price of gasoline gone up
or down because of their misadventures? Is the Middle East a more secure place now than it was before their
invasion? Is America’s position in the world more secure, more respected? Are we safer here at home? And who
can replace that most precious of all things they spent in their corporate serving wars, the blood of our young
men and women, the missing legs, arms, eyes of our soldiers as they come home, (hidden from public view), to heal from all those IEDs that we’ve been watching these last three years...
Why…it’s enough to make you want to invite the whole Neo-Con fraternity out to a hunting trip with Vice President Cheney.
Article By: John Schettler - April 1, 2006 - Updated July 17, 2006
|
