| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:31 am Post subject: Israeli Traitors Running America's Invasion of Iraq |
| Forwarded (from a post made on the 'Americas' message board via www.warwithoutend.co.uk ):
Introduction.
It was the israelis in the bush administration who pushed america into the proxy zionist war against iraq. The americans appointed israelis to take control of the country's imperial administration. The american military is using israeli tactics to try and quell the iraqi insurrection. What is so shocking about america is not so much the invasion, the torture and brutal, high-tech, occupation but the scale of israeli influence over the americans. It's almost as if these days americans cannot do anything by themselves without acting under the orders of the israeli traitors operating in the bush administration.
Israelis Push Americans into War against Iraq.
There are now many commentators who have argued that america's invasion of iraq was instigated by the israelis in the bush administration. They wanted a proxy zionist war against iraq in order to protect the zionist state in palestine. For a list of these commentators please see http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26k.html
For example, "In an effort at damage control, the Israel lobby is making a concerted effort to smear whomever states the obvious: a great deal of the "intelligence" used to lie us into war came directly from Tel Aviv and was "stovepiped" into the White House by neocon White House advisors, and that, in retrospect, this war has been to the strategic advantage of one and only one nation on earth: Israel." (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel Unleashed: The real reason for the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history’ antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2933 July 5, 2004).
One of the main israeli traitors involved in duping americans into the invasion of iraq was douglas feith, "Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith is the neocon Likudnik who was tasked with cooking up the false "intelligence" that President Bush used to deceive the U.S. public into supporting an illegal invasion of Iraq. With the U.S. military now trapped in the Iraqi quagmire, Feith wants the U.S. to attack Iran." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Dangerous Delusions About Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4160 December 14, 2004).
Zionists’ Corruption of the Pentagon.
Jeffrey blankfort highlights how zionists have corrupted the american military, "It is JINSA's second mandate that demands our attention. "Under a program called ‘Send a General to Israel,' hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax-deductible contributions bankroll an annual tour of Israel by retired U.S. generals and admirals." Judging from a look at JINSA's board of advisers, at least 25 of these ex-generals and retired admirals have subsequently been recruited into the organization, as have executives from a number of the major arms manufacturers."
As Vest noted: Almost every retired officer who sits on JINSA's board of advisers or has participated in its Israel trips or signed a JINSA letter works or has worked with military contractors who do business with the Pentagon and Israel. While some keep a low profile as self-employed "consultants" and avoid mention of their clients, others are less shy about their associations. In other words, what JINSA represents can best be described as the Military-Industrial-Israeli complex."
"Looking towards the future, JINSA makes sure it is not just generals and admirals who get the grand tour. It also provides a study program in Israel for cadets and midshipmen from the Naval Academy, West Point and the Air Force Academy, from whose ranks will come the next generation of generals and admirals. It should be noted that both of these programs are in keeping with the practice of Jewish organizations and federations across the country that routinely send public officials, such as mayors, supervisors, city councilors, police chiefs, etc. - the pool from which future members of Congress are likely to arise - on all-expense paid trips to Israel, thereby virtually assuring their support for the Jewish state in the future. No base is left uncovered."
"JINSA has been "industrious and persistent," writes Vest, and has "managed to weave a number of issues - support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general - into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003).
Israeli Traitors in the Bush Administration appoint Zionists to take control of Iraq.
The israeli traitors in the bush administration appointed zionists or shabbat goys to run the iraqi imperial administration. The new pro-consul of iraq was supposed to be jay garner, a zionist. "First he (bush) was going to send Jay Garner. Then he suddenly switched off and sent Paul Bremer. I have it from insiders that in April, 2003, Jay Garner let it slip to some of his staff that his charge was to turn Iraq over to Ahmad Chalabi within six months. The staffers were shocked and some contacted the State Department to see if this was known there. It was not. So they blew the whistle on Bush with Colin Powell. I was told that Powell then made a coalition with Tony Blair and that the two of them went to Bush and got him to change his mind. The plan to put Chalabi in charge of Iraq was frankly idiotic. Chalabi had no grass roots. He was the one who had the bright idea to throw thousands of ex-Baathists into unemployment (which encouraged them to join the guerrilla resistance). This was why, as Kerry noted on Thursday night, Bush had done no real planning for the period after the war. He thought he had everything sewn up because Chalabi would handle it." (Juan Cole ‘Debate and Chalabi’ http://www.juancole.com/ October 01, 2004). "Shortly after the war began, Chalabi, despite strenuous objection from the State Department and the CIA, was airlifted with his supporters into Iraq. He immediately began plans to establish a power base in his newly liberated country. Appointed by the U.S. to a position on the Iraqi Governing Council, Chalabi assumed the role of director of its economics and finance committee. He was able to place his close relatives and other allies in key ministries and directorships of institutions dealing with Iraq's banking, finance and oil resources. The spoils of war were now within his reach. In the relatively short period of time since the fall of the Ba`ath Party regime, IILG and Zell, Goldberg have facilitated contracts in the tens, possibly hundreds of millions of dollars." (James J. Zogby ‘Chalabi, Feith and Company: A Sordid Tale’ Washington Watch http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/31/prominent-u-s-jews-israel-blamed-for-start-of-iraq-war.php 31.05.2004). One can hardly imagine anything more likely to provoke hostility amongst iraqis than putting a zionist in charge given the damage that the zionist state has inflicted on iraq in the past.
Ahmad chalabi installed his nephew into positions of power within the provisional iraqi authority, "The nephew, it turns out, is even better than his uncle - or worse, depending on where you stand. He teamed up with a well-known Israeli militant hard-line Likud party member called Mark Zell, a leader of the Gush Emunim Israeli colonists' movement. Together, the two formed a company in Iraq to work on reconstruction. For years, Zell has been a driving force behind the "acquisition" of Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to build Jewish colonies on them. He is also close friend and former business partner of none other than Douglas Feith, the U.S. undersecretary of Defense for policy who reports directly to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the man with the last word on how money is spent in Iraq. Salem and Zell called their new Iraqi company "Iraq Law International". It describes its mission, according to Al Hayat, as "a boutique investment firm specialized in the new Iraq." Zell, on the other hand, formed an American company in Washington called Goldberg & Co. Its stated goal is "to assist American companies in forming relationships with the American government in the context of projects to rebuild the new Iraq," according to Al Hayat. The newspaper and several Iraqi businessmen interviewed separately say Zell and the young Chalabi have already secured several hundred million dollars worth of projects, thanks to Feith's discreet help, in the new Iraq." (Youssef M. Ibrahim ‘Ali Baba and the Israelis’ The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040706-112131-6976r.htm July 06 2004).
Torture
Americans supposedly invaded iraq to end the cruel regime of saddam hussein. Their torture of iraqis after the invasion was bad enough but it also exposed america's dependence on the zionist state. The americans copied zionist torture methods. They employed zionists to torture iraqis.
America's Cover up of Zionists’ Use of Torture in Palestine.
"Even as far back as a decade before the first Palestinian Intifada began in 1987, the U.S. government was already very much aware and complicitous in, the 'systematic torture' of Palestinians by Israel. In 1979 U.S. Foreign Service officers serving in the Jerusalem Consulate - an unofficial Embassy responsible for dealing with the Palestinians in the 'Occupied Territories' - did their job and provided the political leaders in Washington detailed and conclusive information about the ongoing torture of Palestinians. When top officials in Washington did nothing and in fact ordered everything covered up classified State Department cables were leaked from persons inside the State Department and published by Mark Bruzonsky who at the time was Forum Editor of The Middle East Magazine in London. Bruzonsky is now the Publisher of Mid-East Realities (MiddleEast.Org)." (Rense.com ‘Israeli Torture And US Complicity’ Mid-East Realities 6.05.04).
Americans copy Israeli Torture Techniques.
The torture methods that america used to force iraqi prisoners into becoming informers are the same as those used by the zionist state against palestinians. According to Mid-East Realities, "The U.S. and Israel have been torture interconnected in the Middle East for quite a long time. Those now infamous hoods - finally infamous because of the dramatic pictures from a U.S.-run prison in Iraq - have long been used by the Israelis in prisons where Palestinians are treated far worse but the world has looked the other way for decades now." (Mid-East Realities Israeli Torture And US Complicity 6.5.04 Rense.com). Wayne Madsen has argued, "Many of the torture methods were developed by the Israelis over many years of interrogating Arab prisoners on the occupied West Bank and in Israel itself. The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel documented the types of torture meted out on Arab prisoners. Many of the tactics coincide with those contained in the Taguba report: beatings and prolonged periods handcuffed to furniture. In an article in the December 1998 issue of The Progressive, Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb reported on the treatment given to a 23-year old Palestinian held on "administrative detention." The prisoner was "cuffed behind a chair 17 hours a day for 120 days . . . [he] had his head covered with a sack, which was often dipped in urine or feces. Guards played loud music right next to his ears and frequently taunted him with threats of physical and sexual violence." If additional photos and videos document such practices, the Bush administration and the American people have, indeed, "seen nothing yet."" (Wayne Madsen ‘The Israeli Torture Template Rape, Feces and Urine-Dipped Cloth Sacks’ 10.5.2004 counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen05102004.html).
Jinsa, the israeli run lobby group, proclaims the connections between the two, "Another area where Israel may have contributed valuable know-how is on the area of information extraction from high-level prisoners. Several fringe media sources noted that American forces had utilized interrogation methods considered to be successful that were learned from Israel where physical punishment is banned by law, the same as in the U.S. This story comes from one outlet - Jane's Foreign Report of July 7, 2004 - and like the issue of the extent of Israeli training for U.S. forces, was also not deemed verifiable by the mainstream press. (Jonathan Howland, JINSA Editorial Assistant ‘Israel Assists U.S. Forces, Shares Lessons-Learned Fighting Terrorists: Fallujah Success Capitalized on IDF Know-How http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/1701/documentid/2774/history/3,2360,655,1701,2774 Dec 29, 2004).
Americans employ Zionists to Torture Iraqis.
Zionist officers showed the americans what methods could be used to transform civilians into informers. "The top Pentagon civilian officials - Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith - both Jewish and both known for their extremely close relationships with top officials in Israel and the Zionist movement, are believed to have personally authorized clandestine Mossad officials to be in Iraq working closely with U.S. military intelligence." (Rense.com ‘Israeli Torture And US Complicity’ Mid-East Realities 6.05.04).
"According to a political appointee within the Bush administration and U.S. intelligence sources, the interrogators at Abu Ghraib included a number of Arabic-speaking Israelis who also helped U.S. interrogators develop the "R2I" (Resistance to Interrogation) techniques. Although it is still largely undocumented if any of the contractor named in the report of General Antonio Taguba were associated with the Israeli military or intelligence services, it is noteworthy that one, John Israel, who was identified in the report as being employed by both CACI International of Arlington, Virginia, and Titan, Inc., of San Diego, may not have even been a U.S. citizen. In fact, the Taguba report does reference the presence of non-U.S. and non-Iraqi interrogators at Abu Ghraib. The report states, "In general, US civilian contract personnel (Titan Corporation, CACI, etc), third country nationals, and local contractors do not appear to be properly supervised within the detention facility at Abu Ghraib." When Rumsfeld had problems answering McCain's question, Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, the Deputy Commander of the U.S. Central Command, said there were 37 contract interrogators used in Abu Ghraib. The two named contractors, CACI and Titan, have close ties to the Israeli military and technology communities. Last January 14, after Provost Marshal General of the Army, Major General Donald Ryder, had already uncovered abuse at Abu Ghraib, CACI's President and CEO, Dr. J.P. (Jack) London was receiving the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah's Albert Einstein Technology award at the Jerusalem City Hall, with right-wing Likud politician Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski in attendance. Oddly, CACI waited until February 2 to publicly announce the award in a press release. CACI has also received grants from U.S.-Israeli bi-national foundations. Titan also has had close connections to Israeli interests. After his stint as CIA Director, James Woolsey served as a Titan director. Woolsey is an architect of America's Iraq policy and the chief proponent of and lobbyist for Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. An adviser to the neo-conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs, Project for the New American Century, Center for Security Policy, Freedom House, and Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, Woolsey is close to Stephen Cambone, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, a key person in the chain of command who would have not only known about the torture tactics used by U.S. and Israeli interrogators in Iraq but who would have also approved them. Cambone was associated with the Project for the New American Century and is viewed as a member of Rumsfeld's neo-conservative "cabal" within the Pentagon." (Wayne Madsen ‘The Israeli Torture Template Rape, Feces and Urine-Dipped Cloth Sacks’ 10.5.2004 counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen05102004.html).
Americans invoke Israel as means of Torture.
Given the widespread hatred amongst iraqis for the zionist state in palestine, it was not surprising that symbols of the hated zionist state could be used as a means of blackmailing iraqi prisoners, "The Guardian notes that the American Civil Liberties Union acquired documents about the treatment of Guantanamo Bay prisoners that suggest that torture was used, and that it was actually authorized by President Bush. The documents also reveal that one torture technique was to wrap a prisoner in an Israeli flag. I'm puzzled by that one (my readers, incidentally, allege that the New York Times omitted to mention this particular technique, which was reported by the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post). My guess is that the prisoners' pictures were taken while wrapped in the Israeli flag, as a way of humiliating and possibly blackmailing them. You just have to scratch your head and wonder if the Bush administration is determined gradually to give supporting evidence for every single one of the anti-American stereotypes current in the Muslim world." (Juan Cole ‘Press Roundup for Wednesday 12/22’ http://www.juancole.com/ December 22nd 2004).
Israelis in the Bush administration who gave permission for the use of these torture tactics.
According to seymour hersh, "The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld's decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America's prospects in the war on terror. According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon's operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld's long-standing desire to wrest control of America's clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A. Rumsfeld … authorized the establishment of a highly secret program that was given blanket advance approval to kill or capture and, if possible, interrogate "high value" targets in the Bush Administration's war on terror. A special-access program, or sap—subject to the Defense Department's most stringent level of security - was set up, with an office in a secure area of the Pentagon. The program would recruit operatives and acquire the necessary equipment, including aircraft, and would keep its activities under wraps." (Seymour M Hersh ‘The Gray Zone’ The New Yorker 15.05.2004 (DMY) http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact).
Americans and Zionists dismiss the Geneva Convention.
"Taguba's report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels. The picture he draws of Abu Ghraib is one in which Army regulations and the Geneva conventions were routinely violated, and in which much of the day-to-day management of the prisoners was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units and civilian contract employees. Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority." (Seymour M Hersh ‘Torture at Abu Ghraib The New Yorker 1.05.2004 (DMY) http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact).
"The United States has now matched Israel in its contempt for international law as the US has now declared to the world that it will no longer abide by the ABM treaty, nor by the Comprehensive Test Ban, put into place under Clinton, nor by the Chemical Weapons Treaty. It has rejected the Kyoto Accords, and also the Protocol to the Biological Weapons Conventions which was written to strengthen compliance with that treaty. And it has said that it will not honor the procedures of the recently formed International Criminal Court. The US repeatedly threatened the UN with irrelevancy in its run-up to the Iraq invasion. The administration has promulgated the new strategic doctrine that the United States will arrogate the right to pre-emptively attack any state which, in its view, might threaten its security at some indeterminate time in the indefinite future, which also happens to be a long standing Israeli military doctrine. That's what the Iraq war is about. This arrogant principle is a challenge to the very foundation of the United Nations and its prohibition against the non defensive use of force. The Bush administration and a strong viable and effective regime of international law cannot co-exist." (William James Martin ‘The Dogma of Richard Perle Zionism and Legal Skepticism’ Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/martin07012004.html July 1, 2004).
Americans adopt Israeli Constitution for Iraq.
The israelis in the bush administration employed zionists in order to help iraqis draw up a provisional constitution for their country.
The electoral system used to elect a constitutional assembly in iraq was based upon that of the zionist state in palestine, "The success or failure of the political process in Iraq anyway has nothing to do with yearning for democracy. It has to do with the frankly stupid policies implemented by the Bush administration in Iraq. If the whole enterprise goes bad, it won't be because the Iraqis couldn't live up to Mr. Langley's ideals. It will be because the Americans, especially the Neoconservatives, crafted a ridiculous electoral system based on that of Israel." (Juan Cole ‘Elections in Iraq will be Held on Schedule, But with What Result?’ http://www.juancole.com/ November 28, 2004).
Zionists Sabotage America's Post Invasion Planning.
In the early days after the invasion, commentators frequently pointed out that the americans did not seem to have any planning for the post-war political and industrial reconstruction of the country – even though bush proclaimed the invasion was to bring freedom and democracy to the iraqi people. As it turns out, the american state department had done the necessary planning – it was just ignored by the zionists in the bush administration because they do not want iraq to become industrially advanced and prosperous which would enable the country to rebuild its armed forces. These zionists prefer iraq to remain in a state of chaos and disorder than to become a stable, orderly, and civilized country that might one day turn against the zionist state. At the end of the day, they prefer iraqis to fight each other rather than fight the zionist state.
Jim lobe has pointed out that it was zionists in the bush administration who sabotaged post war development in iraq. "It was his (douglas feith) office that created shortly after 9/11 the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans (OSP), which re-assessed 12 years of raw intelligence and the Arab press to find evidence of ties between the regime of former Iraq President Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist group. The OSP then ''stovepiped'' that information, unvetted by professional intelligence analysts, straight to Vice President Dick Cheney's office for use by the White House. Similarly, it was Feith's office, along with the Defense Policy Group (DPG), whose members Feith appointed, that served as the point of entry and influence for Iraqi National Congress (INC) chief Ahmed Chalabi and his ''defectors'' who provided phony intelligence about Hussein's vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It was Feith's office that was charged with planning the post-war occupation and reconstruction process, and, in so doing, effectively excluded input from Iraqi experts from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and even from the Iraqi-American community, who had participated in a mammoth project that anticipated most of the problems occupation authorities have since encountered." (Jim Lobe ‘Soon to Be Losing Feith?’ antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2614 20.05.2004).
This view is supported by jon basil utley, "I should note that Feith, in his key policy planning position over the Pentagon, is also widely reported as the author of the plan to dismiss all the Iraqi soldiers and government officials, which has contributed so much to the chaos in Iraq. The book also says he blocked the State Department's planning for a civil administration to be ready right after the war. Correspondent Jim Lobe notes that Feith's former law partner is an attorney for Likud settlers on the West Bank. Many experts think that he promotes Sharon's wants, namely that Iraq be debilitated by chaos as a way of keeping it weak." (Jon Basil Utley ‘The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order’ Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/utley/?articleid=2951 July 8, 2004). Justin raimondo has joined the chorus, "Feith headed up the "Office of Special Plans," the lie factory that churned out "intelligence" cooked to neocon specifications. Feith's office was also put in charge of post-war planning, and it was he who rejected carefully prepared studies made by the CIA and the State Department, whose analysts foresaw many of the problems and pitfalls that are killing American soldiers in increasing numbers." (Justin Raimondo ‘The Neoconning of America: Neoconservatives under fire – and it's David Brooks to the barricades!’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j010704.html January 7, 2004).
Jim lobe has also argued that, "The OSP also excluded many top Mideast experts from the State Department from playing any role in the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq." (Jim Lobe ‘Feith is the Answer’ Inter Press News Service Agency http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=20952 Nov 5 2003).
Zionists’ Disband the Iraqi Military.
After the invasion of iraq, the most critical decision feith made was disbanding the iraqi military and police - a decision carried out by the coalition provisional authority. This was almost the cpa's first act and was one which, more than any other, shaped the course of events to the present time. It was one thing to try and carry out the debaathification of the iraqi military and police – it was quite another matter to disband the military and police in their entirety. This decision gave an enormous boost to the iraqi insurgency movement. Firstly, because many of the iraqis with military/police training were then free to use their skills to liberate their country from the zionist- american occupiers. And, secondly, the message that this sent out to every iraqi was that the zionists in the american administration were intent on keeping iraq defenceless against any military threat from its neighbours or the zionist state – something which many iraqis found repellant and humiliating and drove them into active or at the very least passive support for the nationalist cause.
The disbanding of the iraqi military was clearly a political decision to appease the zionist state in palestine. It was a decision made by zionists in the american administration to benefit the zionist state. It was a strikingly inept decision militarily because it led to a huge popular rebellion against the american occupation of iraq. However, it is a good example of the fatal consequences for americans of zionist domination over the american government. In effect, zionists in the american government implemented a policy which was politically advantageous to the zionist state whilst militarily endangering the lives of american troops. According to juan cole, "It was these Washington Institute for Near East Policy and AIPAC-linked US Likud backers in the Defense Department who had the Iraqi army dissolved as soon as Saddam was overthrown. This step threw Iraq into chaos and led to the deaths of nearly a thousand US servicemen so far, since an Iraq without an army would inevitably depend on the US military." (Juan Cole ‘Israeli Spy in Pentagon Linked to AIPAC’ http://www.juancole.com/ August 28, 2004). There could be little more clear cut line of responsibility - zionists are responsible for killing americans. (Cole has pointed out that in the 1980s, AIPAC set up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as a pro-Israeli alternative to the Brookings Institution, which it perceived to be insufficiently supportive of Israel).
Zionists Sabotaging Humanitarian Assistance to Iraq.
"Interference by the Pentagon delivered a massive blow to efforts to provide humanitarian relief for Iraq after last year's war, according to two US aid experts who struggled with the conflict's chaotic aftermath. The traditional American response to humanitarian emergencies and natural disasters abroad is carried out by the State Department's US Agency for International Development (USAID) and Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). In the months leading up to the war, these agencies trained up an 80-person team specially for Iraq, many of them with long expertise in emergencies, says the commentary, published by Frederick Burkle and Eric Noji in Saturday's Lancet. But that initiative was hamstrung by the Pentagon which, breaking with tradition, decided to set up its own humanitarian planning team, say the authors. As confusion mounted between the rival State Department and Pentagon relief initiatives, the US government decided to give overall administrative control to the Department of Defense's team - by now named the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA). Meanwhile, the ORHA team that was rushed to Baghdad was mainly staffed by policy wonks, it says. They had little field experience in relief operations, many were ignorant of functions, charter and capabilities of UN agencies, Red Cross organisations or NGOs, and they simply created another unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Many of these (non-governmental) agencies distanced themselves, fearful that their reputation for neutrality would be compromised on the ground if they had to work with occupying troops, say Burkle and Noji. "The situation was further complicated by the fact that the (Pentagon) humanitarian planning team, citing secrecy, refused to disclose crucial information needed for planning not only to international relief organisations but also to other US military, government and civilian agencies working on humanitarian relief," they add." (Pentagon meddling crippled post-war humanitarian aid for Iraq: US experts’ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&ncid=723&e=10&u=/afp/20041007/wl_afp/iraq_health_us Oct 7 2004).
Contd.
Zionists Controlling the Reconstruction of Iraq.
The chalabis were close allies of the zionists, "In come the new Ali Babas: Israelis teaming up with the Chalabis and the neo-conservative businessmen cabal that runs the Pentagon, holding the purse to reconstruct Iraq. The arrival of the Israelis in Iraq is being orchestrated by one Salem Chalabi, 41, the executive director of the tribunal before which Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz and other former Iraqi regime officials appeared last Thursday. He also happens to be the nephew of the now widely discredited Ahmed Chalabi, once the Pentagon's favorite boy for the leadership of Iraq who has since fallen out of favor but still has his tentacles all over Iraq. The nephew, it turns out, is even better than his uncle - or worse, depending on where you stand. He teamed up with a well-known Israeli militant hard-line Likud party member called Mark Zell, a leader of the Gush Emunim Israeli colonists' movement. Together, the two formed a company in Iraq to work on reconstruction. For years, Zell has been a driving force behind the "acquisition" of Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to build Jewish colonies on them. He is also close friend and former business partner of none other than Douglas Feith, the U.S. undersecretary of Defense for policy who reports directly to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the man with the last word on how money is spent in Iraq. Salem and Zell called their new Iraqi company "Iraq Law International". It describes its mission, according to Al Hayat, as "a boutique investment firm specialized in the new Iraq." Zell, on the other hand, formed an American company in Washington called Goldberg & Co. Its stated goal is "to assist American companies in forming relationships with the American government in the context of projects to rebuild the new Iraq," according to Al Hayat. The newspaper and several Iraqi businessmen interviewed separately say Zell and the young Chalabi have already secured several hundred million dollars worth of projects, thanks to Feith's discreet help, in the new Iraq." (Youssef M. Ibrahim ‘Ali Baba and the Israelis’ The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040706-112131-6976r.htm July 06 2004).
The americans also relied on the U.S. Agency for International Development to help bring about the reconstruction of iraq, "Still, it's not easy determining why the biggest power plant in Iraq's largest city seems to be such a low priority. Baghdad is still beset by blackouts, and so much of America's success or failure depends on power: the economy can't recover without it. The next logical place to ask is the U.S. Agency for International Development, which gave Bechtel the contract last April. Questioned by NEWSWEEK about Daura, USAID chief Andrew Natsios referred to a priority list drawn up by a coordinating committee under the Coalition Provisional Authority - the chief occupying power - and said he didn't know where Daura was on it. His aide said the CPA would know. No, Natsios said, he thought Bechtel would know. But Bechtel's Menaker responded: "We perform the work tasked to us by USAID. We don't make decisions on priorities. USAID and CPA make those decisions." Some CPA officials concede privately that the problem stems from the lack of preparation before the war. "It always comes back to the same thing: no plan," says one CPA staffer." (Rod Nordland and Michael Hirsh ‘ $87 Billion Money Pit’ Newsweek http://www.msnbc.com/news/985304.asp 3.11.2003). It ought to be noted that usaid also has offices in the zionist state in palestine so perhaps its iraqi offices were staffed by zionist loving people from the zionist state.
America's Military Tactics.
Americans adopt Israeli Military Tactics to Quosh Iraqi Freedom Fighters.
The tactics adopted by the american army in trying to suppress the revolt in fallujah were no different from those used by the zionist army in suppressing the palestinians. What the zionists did in jenin in 2002 was virtually copied by the americans in fallujah in 2004. Both armies simply demolished the cities where the rebels were supposed to be hiding out. Both used bulldozers as machines of war. "When Sharon tries to prevent Palestinian statehood, Iraqis remember that his closest ally is represented in Iraq by an army which most of them regard as occupiers. When US forces learn their guerrilla warfare techniques from the Israelis - when they bomb houses from the air, when they abuse prisoners, when they even erect razor-wire round recalcitrant villages - is it surprising that Iraqis treat the Americans as surrogate Israelis?" (Robert Fisk ‘In This Mire Of Death, Lies And Atrocities, We Glimpse The Ghost Of Vietnam’ http://globalecho.org/view_article.php?aid=2750 December 28th 2004).
Jinsa proclaims the help that the zionist army has been providing for the american army, "Some of Israel's most valued contributions to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) were its advice on erecting and manning roadblocks and checkpoints, and techniques for tracking suspected terrorist using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). More specific assistance has reportedly come in the form of aerial surveillance equipment, decoy drones, and the use of armored construction equipment to clear booby-trapped structures, according to Reuters, December 12, 2003. In Fallujah, Israeli mine-clearing and wall-breaching methods were employed. Opening holes in walls allows U.S. troops to bypass explosive devices on booby-trapped doors. It is also used to create paths through adjoining buildings limiting soldiers’ exposure to enemy fire in narrow alleyways and on open streets." (Jonathan Howland, JINSA Editorial Assistant ‘Israel Assists U.S. Forces, Shares Lessons-Learned Fighting Terrorists: Fallujah Success Capitalized on IDF Know-How http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/1701/documentid/2774/history/3,2360,655,1701,2774 Dec 29, 2004).
Isn't it a little strange that america is learning occupation techniques from the zionist state's occupation of palestine when it supposedly invaded iraq in order to liberate iraqis from a brutal dictator?
American Army trained in the Zionist State.
"Army and Marine Corps forces that battled terrorist insurgents in the Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Mosul employed urban warfare tactics gleaned from the combat experience of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). In the last two years, hundreds of U.S. military personnel have trained in the Negev desert at Israel's Adam counter insurgency urban warfare training facility. Meanwhile, the U.S. military has completed the construction of a number of simulated Arab villages at the U.S. Army's Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Fort Polk, Louisiana. In a letter to Army Magazine in July 2003, Brig. Gen. Michael Vane - Deputy Chief of Staff at the U.S. Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) - wrote that U.S. officers had recently "traveled to Israel to glean lessons learned from their [Israeli] counterterrorist operations in urban areas." Later, an unnamed U.S. official told the World Tribune, November 10, 2004, "We have learned a lot regarding urban warfare tactics in the Middle East from our allies - yes, this includes Israel. IDF soldiers train at the Adam counter insurgency urban warfare training facility in Israel. At the JRTC, the U.S. Army simulates everything from local government meetings, religious protests, and mobs angry over an absence of electrical power or water, and attacks by insurgents, according to the Associated Press (AP), February 14, 2004. The Department of Defense predicts that by 2010, 75 percent of the world's population will live in or around urban centers, making urban warfare training a priority for the military. In 2003, the fringe media reported that Israeli commandos were training U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The story, apparently lacking sufficient sources, was not picked up by the mainstream media. AP, however, reported on December 13, that a large TRADOC delegation visited Israel that year. Anonymous sources said the focus of the meeting was urban warfare tactics learned from the IDF incursions into Jenin and the Gaza Strip in 2002. Israeli officials issued a statement declining to comment on "ongoing strategic cooperation between the U.S. and the Israeli military." (Jonathan Howland, JINSA Editorial Assistant ‘Israel Assists U.S. Forces, Shares Lessons-Learned Fighting Terrorists: Fallujah Success Capitalized on IDF Know-How http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/1701/documentid/2774/history/3,2360,655,1701,2774 Dec 29, 2004).
Israelis Help Americans to Demolish Fallujah.
The americans used israelis in the fight to demolish fallujah, "It has become clear that Israel played a major role in the battle for Fallujah, despite the American concern to conceal this fact. What news leaked of officers, soldiers, and even rabbis of dual citizenships that took part in the battles, some of which were killed by the resistance's bullets, is only the tip of the iceberg. The killing of an Israeli officer in Fallujah exposed the existence of a large number of officers, snipers, and paratroopers in Iraq. Based on Israeli press statistics, Israel currently has no fewer than 1,000 officers and soldiers scattered around the American units working in Iraq. In addition, 37 rabbis are operating within the American troops, which leads to believe that the real number is greater; since Ha'aretz admitted that others are concealing their Jewish identities, which makes them self-driven Israeli citizens." (Rashid Khashana ‘Israel's Battle in Fallujah’ http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/OPED/11-2004/Article-20041122-611bf698-c0a8-10ed-002f-992445bfcb5c/story.html November 22nd 2004).
Americans adopt Zionists’ Palestinianization Policy.
Pictures of the american military bombing and destroying iraqi homes in an effort to root out so-called iraqi terrorists/moslem fundamentalists are all too reminiscent of zionists’ invasions of palestinian areas. In the latter case, the zionist military does not merely try to exterminate palestinian terrorists, it also aims at destroying palestinian homes, businesses, and infrastructure, to force as many palestinians as possible into poverty. It also tries to destroy the spirits of the palestinian people so that with nothing left in palestine they are forced into exile. The oppressive tactics used by the american military in iraq are copied from the zionists’ tactics for the oppression of palestinians just as the torture methods used by the american military at guantanamo bay and iraq have been copied from the zionists’ torture of palestinians. The american military, corrupted by the zionists in the bush administration, has become as diabolically evil as its zionist chums.
The americans are reducing iraq to rubble in the same way as the zionists are reducing palestine to rubble. The americans have adopted the zionists’ palestinianization tactic in iraq.
Kurt nimmo has concluded, "I also believe it is no mistake U.S. "military planners" are using what are essentially Israeli tactics in Iraq .. "(Kurt Nimmo ‘Iraqi Suicide Bombings: the Strausscons and Likudites Sowing Chaos’ http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=433 November 23, 2004).
Pepe escobar has concluded, "As for the Iraqi "model", the crucial point is that the Americans managed to turn Iraq into a replica of Palestine - the same ghastly litany of occupation, suicide bombings, streams of refugees and death and destruction. Not only was the Iraq war entirely based on neo-con lies: these lies led, among other disasters, to Iraq's infrastructure being completely destroyed and the US alienating the Muslim world. Fallujah and Baghdad are replicas of Gaza and the West Bank." (Pepe Escobar ‘The Roving Eye: Evildoers, here we come’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL17Ak01.html December 17th 2004).
Whilst the american invasion and occupation of iraq seems to be an entirely american operation, it is almost entirely being run either by israelis or along israeli lines.
The Zionist Assassination of Yassin leads to the Deaths of Four Americans and the Seige of Fallujah.
On march 25th 2004 the zionist state assassinated hamas's spiritual leader, sheikh ahmed yassin. This led to rioting in iraq in which brutish troops were hurt. <a href="../../ZVideos/TF26/Zionistassasination.mov">See channel five news report on the incident.</a> (The video clip is - 1mb and 31 seconds long). Here is a concrete evidence that what the zionist government does in palestine is leading to the endangerment of american and brutish troops in iraq.
Iraqi nationalists responded to the zionist state's assassination of yassin by kidnapping four american security guards working in iraqi. According to juan cole, "There is increasing evidence that the brutal attack on the American security guards in Fallujah, and the desecration of their bodies, was the work of Islamists seeking vengeance for the Israeli murder of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Leaflets found at the scene said the operation was in the name of Yassin. al-Hayat reports in its Friday edition that responsibility for the attack has been taken by a group called Phalanges of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The group said the deaths were a "gift to the Palestinian people." You put yourself in the shoes of an American military commander in Fallujah. He treats with the local clan leaders and Sunni clergy. He tries to get them on the side of the US. He faces hostility, but he is making some progress. And then Ariel Sharon sends US-made helicopter gunships to Gaza and has them fire missiles at people coming out of a mosque, killing 8 and wounding 24. One of the dead is a half-blind paraplegic Islamist named Sheikh Yassin. He could have easily been arrested, and had been in the 1990s. But he was incinerated in a piece of state terror instead. And all of a sudden the people of Fallujah in Iraq are pointing their fingers at the American troops and saying, 'you did this. You gave Sharon the green light.' And all the commander's hard work in building bridges collapses over night. And four US security personnel are dead, and 5 US troops are dead, and the fighting flares up. Thanks, Prime Minister Sharon. Thank you very much." (Juan Cole ‘Deaths of Americans in Fallujah: In revenge for Sharon's Murder of Sheikh Yassin?’ http://www.juancole.com/ 2.04.2004).
The slaughter, and hideous mutilation, of four americans led to the american army invading fallujah causing the loss of many innocent iraqi civilians and a few american troops. Rachelle marshall has stated, "A few days later, after four American security guards were killed in Fallujah and their bodies burned by a crowd, Marines responded by laying siege to the city. When Iraqis fought back, U.S. warplanes dropped 500-pound bombs on houses where the gunmen were thought to be hiding, Apache helicopters fired missiles into residential neighborhoods, and AC-130 gunships strafed the streets. An American soldier said he saw a helicopter fire a missile at a man holding a slingshot; a woman hanging laundry was killed along with several relatives when a missile destroyed their house; a severely wounded woman arrived at a hospital still holding a white flag." (Rachelle Marshall ‘The Fact Behind the Fictions: the U.S. and Israel Plan Permanent Occupations’ Washington Report on Middle East Affairs June 2004, pages 6-8).
The americans’ seige of fallujah was called off only when it was realized that the price of invading the city would have been completely out of proportion to the initial reasons for the invasion. However, here was a clear cut example of the spiral of violence starting off with the zionists in palestine and then ending up in iraq leading to the loss of iraqi and american lives. | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 12:22 pm Post subject: Zionist (Israel first) Neocon Traitors Pushed Iraq War for I |
| Zionist (Israel first) Neocon Traitors Pushed Iraq War for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/01/06/iraq-a-war-for-israel.php
US Planning to Attack Iran for Israel as Well:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/01/17/u-s-conducting-secret-missions-inside-iran.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neoconservatism is a Jewish Movement
http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whose War?
http://www.amconmag.com
March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative
Whose War?
A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interest.
by Patrick J. Buchanan
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. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.
Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’” Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.” (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)
David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: “Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. ... Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It's just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left.”
Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: “In London ... one finds Britain's finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the ‘neoconservative’ (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy.”
Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine “has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of ... Ariel Sharon and the ‘neoconservative war party.’”
Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that “members of the Bush team have been doing Israel's bidding and, by extension, exhibiting ‘dual loyalties.’” Kaplan thunders:
The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be.
What is going on here? Slate's Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: “Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card.”
What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.
Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.
And this time the boys have cried “wolf” once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan's own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus:
And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. … These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation's founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
“If Stanley Hoffman can say this,” asks Kaus, “why can't Chris Matthews?” Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party.
In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, “The Likudniks are really in charge now.” Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.)
Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a “special closeness” to the Bushites, Kaiser writes, “For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies.” And a valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in Sharon's interest, is it in America's interest?
This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, “Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.”
We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.
Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.
They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's good for Israel is good for America.
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.
A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a think tank than an Abrams tank.
Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.).
All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.
Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.
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?
The War Party seemed desperate to get a Middle East war going before America had second thoughts. Tom Donnelly of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) called for an immediate invasion of Iraq. “Nor need the attack await the deployment of half a million troops. … [T]he larger challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is over,” he wrote.
Donnelly was echoed by Jonah Goldberg of National Review: “The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.”
Goldberg endorsed “the Ledeen Doctrine” of ex-Pentagon official Michael Ledeen, which Goldberg described thus: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.” (When the French ambassador in London, at a dinner party, asked why we should risk World War III over some “shitty little country”—meaning Israel—Goldberg's magazine was not amused.)
Ledeen, however, is less frivolous. In The War Against the Terror Masters, he 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.
Are the neoconservatives concerned about a war on Iraq bringing down friendly Arab governments? Not at all. They would welcome it.
“Mubarak is no great shakes,” says Richard Perle of the President of Egypt. “Surely we can do better than Mubarak.” Asked about the possibility that a war on Iraq—which he predicted would be a “cakewalk”—might upend governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, former UN ambassador Ken Adelman told Joshua Micah Marshall of Washington Monthly, “All the better if you ask me.”
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.” Leaked reports of Murawiec's briefing did not indicate if anyone raised the question of how the Islamic world might respond to U.S. troops tramping around the grounds of the Great Mosque.
What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.
Washington Times editor at large Arnaud de Borchgrave calls this the “Bush-Sharon Doctrine.” “Washington's ‘Likudniks,’” he writes, “have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Bush was sworn into office.”
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.”
Though the Wolfowitz Memo was denounced and dismissed in 1992, it became American policy in the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on Sept. 21, 2002. Washington Post reporter Tim Reich describes it as a “watershed in U.S. foreign policy” that “reverses the fundamental principles that have guided successive Presidents for more than 50 years: containment and deterrence.”
Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, writes of the NSS that he marvels at “its fusion of breathtaking utopianism with barely disguised machtpolitik. It reads as if it were the product not of sober, ostensibly conservative Republicans but of an unlikely collaboration between Woodrow Wilson and the elder Field Marshal von Moltke.”
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:
[T]he president has no intention of allowing any nation to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. … Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of 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.
Yet, if Bush cannot deliver Sharon there can be no peace. And if there is no peace in the Mideast there is no security for us, ever—for there will be no end to terror. As most every diplomat and journalist who travels to the region will relate, America's failure to be even-handed, our failure to rein in Sharon, our failure to condemn Israel's excesses, and our moral complicity in Israel's looting of Palestinian lands and denial of their right to self-determination sustains the anti-Americanism in the Islamic world in which terrorists and terrorism breed.
Let us conclude. The Israeli people are America's friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and destroyed. And we must honor this commitment.
But U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail. Moreover, we do not view the Sharon regime as “America's best friend.”
Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has been Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government in an act of national cravenness.
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. Likud has dragged our good name through the mud and blood of Ramallah, ignored Bush's requests to restrain itself, and sold U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on F-16 technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israel's sale of our AWACS system.
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.
Do the Brits, our closest allies, behave like this?
Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he 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.
March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
