Source for article: Ha'aretz (Israeli newspaper):
The author has talked to the Jewish neocons who by scamming America have forced it to attack Iraq. These are candid views, unvarnished, given by these great (in a historical context, they ARE great - their ideology and efficient methods of influencing the political Beltway world to bend to their will is amazing, and has never happened before in world history).
So - without further preamble... The article and my analysis.
White man's burden
By Ari Shavit
This is Ari, stating the obvious. There is no disputing this; he states the following as a preamble to the article, where he states historical fact.
Later on, he interviews the neocons themselves.
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.
Let me repeat that: "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. "
a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.
"Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer" - quick, find somebody not Jewish in that list.
The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend to read reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the success of the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall).
Yada yada - this is a key sentence - "The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli"
Has America bitten off more than it can chew? Bill Kristol says no. True, the press is very negative, but when you examine the facts in the field you see that there is no terrorism, no mass destruction, no attacks on Israel.
"True, the press is very negative, but when you examine the facts in the field you see (...) no attacks on Israel."
This is not taken out of context, this is one of the main reasons why this "American" neocon decided to push America into war with Iraq. This is what William Kristol is all about.
What is the war about? I ask. (...) But at a deeper level it is a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East. It is a war that is intended to change the political culture of the entire region.
To change radically the cultural and political dynamics that creates such people. And the way to fight the chaos is to create a new world order that will be based on freedom and human rights - and to be ready to use force in order to consolidate this new world.
"To change radically the cultural and political dynamics (...) to create a new world order".
So that, really, is what the war is about. It is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to create a new Middle East.
Got that Americans? This is about creating a new world order - and to make the Middle East safer for Israel.
Does this moral vision mean that after Iraq will come the turns of Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
Kristol says that he is at odds with the administration on the question of Saudi Arabia. But his opinion is that it is impossible to let Saudi Arabia just continue what it is doing. It is impossible to accept the anti-Americanism it is disseminating. The fanatic Wahhabism that Saudi Arabia engenders is undermining the stability of the entire region. It's the same with Egypt, he says: we mustn't accept the status quo there. For Egypt, too, the horizon has to be liberal democracy.
Iraq was supposed to be the first step. Syria, Iran and other countries were supposed to be pressured to change their political systems to fit the new "American" -err, sorry - the New World Order paradigm.
Is this going to turn into a second Vietnam? Charles Krauthammer says no. There is no similarity to Vietnam. Unlike in the 1960s, there is no anti-establishment subculture in the United States now.
Meaning we, Americans, are too stupified, fat and lazy and too absorbed watching American Idiot errr Idol to notice that our sons and daughters die or come back maimed, without legs, eyes - to make Israel safe in the Middle East. For the New World Order.
And unlike in the 1960s, Americans are not deterred from making sacrifices. That is the sea-change that took place here on September 11, 2001. Since that morning, Americans have understood that if they don't act now and if weapons of mass destruction reach extremist terrorist organizations, millions of Americans will die. Therefore, because they understand that those others want to kill them by the millions, the Americans prefer to take to the field of battle and fight, rather than sit idly by and die at home.
Notice that Charles never gets into polemics about WHY those foreign (Saudi, by the way, not Iraqi) terrorists did stage the operation on 9/11.
Within a few weeks after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, he had singled out Baghdad in his columns as an essential target.
Let me repeat that: "Within a few weeks after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, he had singled out Baghdad in his columns as an essential target." It is as if 9/11 provided the perfect excuse to "take out" Iraq... and then Syria, Iran and other Arab countries... again, to keep Israel safe and implement the new paradigm of the New World Order.
What is the war about? It's about three different issues. First of all, this is a war for disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. That's the basis, the self-evident cause, and it is also sufficient cause in itself
So this war, Charles admits, is based on a LIE, as the UN and its inspectors on the ground in Iraq repeatedly told America that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, and no program to produce them. Anybody who saw Powell's pathetic display at the UN, with his childish drawings of supposed trucks driving across the Iraqi desert to produce WMD is a fool. No one at the UN believed Powell, and no one in the world believed him either.
Here are the drawings:
If looking at them you do not laugh, I don't know - there is no hope for you. The idea of a gigantic truck driving across the desert, while in the trailer the eeeeeevil Iraqi scientist carefully, oh so carefully mixed beakers and lab containers containing extremely dangerous compounds - one jolt and he is dead... Meanwhile, the truck of doom (tm) drives full speed across the desert, which is not exactly flat....
Powell's pathetic "performance" at the UN was designed as two things:
1) For consumption for pathetically stupid Americans as justification for the Iraq war
2) For the rest of the world, to say to them: Look! We know it's bullshit! But we are gonna attack anyway!
Anyways, back to the article...
Lets let Charlie Krauthammer (what a name - the Hammer of Doom for Germans...) speak:
But beyond that, the war in Iraq is being fought to replace the demonic deal America cut with the Arab world decades ago. That deal said: you will send us oil and we will not intervene in your internal affairs. Send us oil and we will not demand from you what we are demanding of Chile, the Philippines, Korea and South Africa.
It is interesting what he says here, because he is telling the goddamn 100% truth. The deal was: you give us, the USA, oil, at decent prices, and we will stay out of your internal affairs, and even help you out.
I also like how he characterizes America's deal with Arabs as "demonic". I guess America's support of Israel is godly...?
The example of Chile shows what happens when America gets involved in the affairs of a sovereign nation which gets uppity and thinks it can decide its own fate without our, American, "help":
"US intervention in Chilean politics and support to opponents of Allende, including support for an assasination, has been documented by the declassification in 1998 of documents concerning the Project FUBELT operations, although its exact nature is still controversial. General Augusto Pinochet took over and established an anti-communist military dictatorship which lasted until 1990."
"While fatalities due to battle during the coup might have been relatively small, tens of thousands of people were arrested during the coup and held in the National Stadium. This was because the plans for the coup called for the arrest of every man, woman and child on the streets the morning of September 11. Of these approximately 40,000 to 50,000 perfunctory arrests, several hundred individuals would later be detained, questioned, tortured, and in some cases murdered."
Caption: American supported democratic (ha ha) government in Chile, 1973.
See what happens when you niggers don't want to play ball with us, the "force of good in the world", USA? That is why the Arabs did a deal with the USA - we will play ball with you, we will give you cheap oil and you will not do to us what you did to Chile (and countless other countries).
Now, Charles Krauthammer (gotta love that name) is saying: that deal is over! We, the pro-Israel neocons are now in control in USA now, and your free ride is over, Arabs. We are coming for you, because, of course, 9/11 changed everything.
Wait, American Goy, that's not exactly what Charlie said...? One line down in the article:
That deal effectively expired on September 11, 2001, Krauthammer says
Uh huh, he just said it.
However, according to the Jewish-American columnist, the present war has a further importance. If Iraq does become pro-Western and if it becomes the focus of American influence, that will be of immense geopolitical importance. An American presence in Iraq will project power across the region. It will suffuse the rebels in Iran with courage and strength, and it will deter and restrain Syria. It will accelerate the processes of change that the Middle East must undergo.
Can he be more blatant here? "Jewish-American columnist: (...) An American presence in Iraq will project power across the region. (...) will suffuse the rebels in Iran with courage and strength, and it will deter and restrain Syria"
Interesting - America does not, or used to, not give a shit about Syria or the rebels in Iran, just like it does not give a shit about the civil war in Sri Lanka. But now, somehow, these enemies of Israel became America's enemies.
And a war that is at bottom a war of choice. A war that wants to utilize massive force in order to establish a new order.
Ahh that New World Order quote again.
Tom Friedman, The New York Times columnist, did not oppose the war. On the contrary. He too was severely shaken by September 11, he too wants to understand where these desperate fanatics are coming from who hate America more than they love their own lives.
Could it be because America is effectively Israel's big brother and protector? Could it be that after seeing, on Arab TV, pictures of Israeli soldiers and tanks shooting and killing rock throwing Arab kids in Gaza and West Bank, you think this affected the Arab mindset a wee bit? Perhaps America's unconditional support of Israel makes America an ally of Israel and the enemy of Arabs, who are Israel's enemies - effectively making us a combatant? A participant in the Arab-Israeli conflict that has gone on for decades? We have taken side in the Arab-Israeli conflict - the Iraq War 2 has made it official even to the dumbest moslem, in Syria, in Egypt, in Indonesia...
The status quo is terminal. And therefore it is urgent to foment a reform in the Arab world.
No need to reform or even talk about Israeli behaviour in the Gaza strip (now withdrawn) and the West Bank. No need to talk about that at all. It is ALL the fault of the Arab world, and by god (err Yahveh, actually) we will give those eye-rabs democracy and happiness brought to them by American cluster bombs and napalm.
What George Bush did, Friedman says, is to show us a splendid mahogany table: the new democratic Iraq. But when you turn the table over, you see that it has only one leg. This war is resting on one leg.
An apt analogy, Friedman. Tell me - how does a table stand on one leg?
And now, the most important paragraph of the whole article.
Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.
"Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war?
It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says.
It's the war the neoconservatives marketed.
Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it.
Oh boy, did they sell it.
So this is not a war that the masses demanded.
This is a war of an elite."
"I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened."
Immediately, Friedman retracts this statement. He realizes he told the truth - he said to much.
Still, it's not all that simple, Friedman retracts. It's not some fantasy the neoconservatives invented. It's not that 25 people hijacked America.
Ha ha, I was just kidding. This nation was not hijacked by 25 neocon scam artists working for a foreign power - this is all a joke. I have to go now..... exit stage, left...