Strategic Thinkers of the Empire
As an argument against the assertion of mass ignorance of the American public, especially with respect to the true nature of the “war on terrorism” launched by their democratically elected President in response to 9-11, one might well ask the question “why”, in order to evaluate the merits of this assertion. Of course, one could also simply just deny it. In that case just stop here and don't bother reading any further. This book is not for you. Or ask why should the people be misled and kept deliberately ignorant, in order to analyze the veracity of this analogy with Plato's mythical prisoners of the cave.
So let us begin by examining the “why” questions from the eyes of the very scholars and thinkers influencing this American administration. We do not even need to rely on any evidence from any of its detractors, as one of the artifacts of arrogance of power has always been its open flaunting. This “war on terrorism” is not as tactical a response as one might think to the events of 9/11, but has behind it years of strategic thinking and planning, ever since the end of the Cold War and the demise of the balance of power left behind only one and truly global superpower, the United States of America.
In his revealing and influential book The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, the former Carter Administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (ZB), quite unabashedly analyzes the world dominance available to the United States in the post Cold War era. Published in 1997, it provides an illuminating glimpse into how America must wield its new found global station in geopolitics as the only remaining superpower with tremendous economic and military supremacy. The main thesis of the book is that America must use this surplus of military and economic muscle to control the wealth and politics in Eurasia, the key to world dominance: “it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also challenging America”, and that this opportunity for perpetuating unilateral dominance will last only a few decades as other nations will eventually catch up, and therefore America must attempt to shape the world to it's future advantage today while it still can. Explaining some of the domestic challenges America might face in this exercise of global primacy, ZB states:
“The earlier empires were built by aristocratic political elites and were in most cases ruled by essentially authoritarian or absolutist regimes. The bulk of the populations of the imperial states were either politically indifferent, ... or infected by imperialist emotions ...a quest for national glory, 'the white man's burden', 'la mission civilisatrice', not to speak of the opportunities for personal profit – all served to mobilize support for imperial adventures to sustain essentially hierarchical imperial power pyramids. The attitude of American public toward the external projection of American power has been more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in WWII largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. .... After the Cold War had ended, the emergence of the United States as the single global power did not evoke much public gloating but rather elicited an inclination toward more limited definitions of American responsibilities abroad. Public opinion polls conducted in 1995 – 1996 indicated a general public preference for 'sharing' power with others, rather than for its monopolistic exercise.” (24,25)
“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is defense spending), and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” (35,36)
“Public opinion polls suggest that only a small minority (13 percent) of Americans favor the proposition that 'as the sole remaining superpower, the US should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems'. ... Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. .... More generally, cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification. ... Mass communications have been playing a particularly important role in that regard, generating a strong revulsion against any selective use of force that entails even low levels of casualties .... In brief, the U.S. Policy goals must be un-apologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer,...” (211-215)
It does not require an interpreter to parse that language. It is brazen, insightful, and very revealing. Let us summarize some main points: The American public is not interested in building a global colonial empire, that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad, and that the public would rather share power with other nations of the world. This limits America's ability to militarily dominate other nations because the public perceives it as being at the cost of domestic social spending and loss of young blood. However there is one exception to this, that when there is a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat, the public tends to rally around the flag and will support the government in pretty much any endeavor. To sustain this support requires three additional factors: a) a high degree of doctrinal motivation (such as Communists are evil, or Islamic terrorists are out to get us); b) intellectual commitment (such as thinking about the doctrine must make it appear intellectually compelling to foster adherence); and c) patriotic gratification (such as fighting a just cause and winning with few casualties with stories of heroism and nobleness making the public feel good about their country and themselves). The modern mass media has demonstrated its immense power in shaping public opinion against war in which there are even low level deaths and sufferings. It is all summed up very succinctly in his own words: “Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.”
To be fair, ZB also argues in the book that “the ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community.” However, his view of cooperation underlies a world cooperating with America in America's own best interests. This reading is not inconsistent with the age old political truism that all nations, will only endeavor in their own best interest. No where in the entire book, does he address the morality, or indeed any issues of global, social, economic, and political injustices stemming from embarking on such an imperial conquest, as that would be too antithetical to his entire premise, that a nation like the United States of America, is entitled “to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer”, as might makes right. And the last time I visited the zoo with my kids, I saw a bigger chimpanzee beating the crap out of a smaller one.
Are these ZB's personal views? Or do they also represent the dominant thinking of the neo conservative think tanks and foundations habitating the streets of Washington DC? Or perhaps they represent an institutionalized bipartisan ideology going back to the post WWII period? Let's again use our antagonist to speak for themselves. Noam Chomsky in one of his many foreign policy studies also allowed the institutional elites to speak for themselves as follows. He quoted the State Department's George F. Kennan in the once-classified Policy Planning Study PPS 23 from 1948:
“We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population .... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction .... We should cease to talk about vague and – for the Far East – unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”*1
Wow! As far back as 1948, the US policy makers were looking at empire building dealing in “straight power concepts” and did not want to be handicapped by sentimentality about “altruism” and “world-benefaction”, “human rights” and “democratization” in order to retain the disparity in world's wealth and resources in their favor. Does that sound a wee bit like ZB's imperatives of a truly global superpower half a century later? You decide!
Okay fine, you might say, so what? What does that have to with this White House? Wasn't ZB in a Democrat's government? And wasn't Kennan in Truman's government which was also Democrats? It's the damn Democrats who want to conquer the world, not this GOP White House, who are only responding to 9/11 and waging a war on terrorism to protect us from those nasty bearded turban wearing mullahs who attack us clean shaven! Unfortunately, there is substantial evidence to suggest that this White House has everything to do with it, not the least of which is the fact that ZB remained a faithful background advisor to both the Reagan and the first Bush Republican Administrations, and represents only the tip of the visible iceberg of strategist thinkers in Washington. There is a plethora of writings from neo conservatives and other imperial thinkers after the end of the Cold War that reflects that America is now the only superpower in the world and the main question facing it is how to preserve its Hegemony and prevent others from rising up to challenge it.
Foreign policy statements and their impact
The open doctrine of “preemptive war” adopted by the present hawkish White House as a dominant theme underlying its foreign policy since 9/11 is also very telling. According to ZB in a conversation broadcast on public television, this had always been the unstated and unadvertised prerogative of the United States even pre 9/11, but now it has become an active and overt foreign policy initiative. The White house has openly claimed for itself the right to preemptive nuclear strikes against non nuclear nations employing any of its vilest weapons of mass destruction from its vast arsenal of chemical biological, nuclear, and conventional weapons. This was first disclosed in the Los Angeles Times article by William Arkin, who revealed the contents of the White House's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that had been given to Congress for review in January 2002 and magically 'leaked' out. The White House has ordered the Pentagon to draw up war plans for the first strike use of nuclear weapons against seven states: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and the two nuclear powers Russia and China.
The NPR further calls for nuclear war-fighting plans for first strikes against 1) alleged nuclear/chemical/biological materials or facilities; 2) against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack; 3) in the event of surprising military developments; 4) intervene with nuclear weapons in wars a) between China and Taiwan, b) between Israel and Arab states, c) between Israel and Iraq, d) between North and South Korea.*2 Now why would something so sinister leak out, if not to purposely create fear? Very reminiscent of Nixon and Kissinger while loudly lamenting in the media about the terrible leaks of the Pentagon Papers and what a threat that posed to National Security, privately quite happy that those secrets of the damn Democrats were leaking out, and in some cases purposely leaked out by them, as disclosed in the Nixon tapes, and explained by Daniel Ellsberg himself in a speech that aired on Pacifica.
NSC National Security Council Strategy policy documents available openly on the White House web site now argue that best defense is an offensive war against possible enemies (mainly I suppose those rich in oil or other geostrategic value), not only wiping out the concept of détente and negotiated settlement (or is that only for nations that can hit back), but also eliminating the entire basis behind the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which had made assurances to non nuclear nations against nuclear attacks by the big five nuclear powers if they did not seek nuclear weapons, and which had helped keep in check the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. So now, the rest of the countries in the world, especially the developing nations not already under the US hegemonic protection, feeling quite insecure have scurried into a new arms race to protect themselves from America's imperialism, making the world inherently less safe.
The bellicose statements made by the President and his senior Cabinet have further set the preamble of fear and intimidation in the entire world, so essential to global conquest as the histories of past conquering civilizations will testify. The US president has put the entire world on notice that “either you are with us or with the terrorists” and identified his “axis of evil” for initiating his offensive “war on terrorism”. The Defense Secretary has warned that this “war on terrorism” will last 30 – 40 years. The Secretary of State, an experienced General, has oft repeated his formula for a winning military strategy being the use of overwhelming force against a weak opponent to minimize one's own casualties, and strike “Shock and Awe” into the enemy, such that they would give up without a fight. All these statements betray a unilateral desire to go to global and permanent war footings, unchallenged by any rivals because there aren't any.
Okay, but where is the documented evidence for policy statements by this White House about their desire for world conquest? Unless I see it in writing, I ain't believing it, you might ask.
That's a bit like what Greg Palast explained the CBS TV news told him when he had given them his investigative report on election 2000 (while the recount drama was still going on). He had discovered that Jeb Bush's state government in Florida had denied tens of thousands of legitimate voters, most of them Democrats, and most of them Black, their right to vote by using centralized computer voting lists (which was to later enable his brother to win the White House with the help of the Supreme Court of the United States). So the CBS producers called up Jeb Bush's office and asked if that was true. They replied that no, of course not, the allegation was patently false. Thus CBS did not run the story, and called up Greg Palast and told him: “I'm sorry, but your story didn't hold up” because Jeb Bush's office says so! Can you tell what is wrong with this picture?*3 The Washington Post finally ran the story in June on its front page “though they had it at hand seven months earlier when the ballots were still being counted”. By then the deal was done and the election stolen from the people of these United States, the largest democracy in the industrialized free world. Michael Moore in his book Stupid White Men collects further details of what he calls “A very American Coup” (1 – 28). At this theft of America, the cultured and sophisticated Americans seem to be least bothered, judging from President Bush's soaring approval rating. Whereas even in a developing country like Venezuela, the lowly peasants showed more courage and concern for their polity when they marched in the streets in millions to defeat the illegal coup d'état against their democratically elected president in 2002.
We might have to wait 30 years or more, until the classified documents get declassified, and historians get a chance to go over them to see what was really going on inside the White House in the early years of the twenty first century. This may even no longer be possible because of new restrictions on declassification of Presidential papers signed into law through an executive order by the current administration, along with their reluctance to honor any FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) requests – perhaps FOIA may be nullified as well if the government can prevail. But there is sufficient information available already in their foreign policy statements and foreign policy actions, along with their behavior, to know exactly what they are up to. It's not that mystical!
For instance, which is a more successful “war on terrorism”? Dropping 900,000 bombs on Afghanistan in search of one man they did not even catch, killing more innocent civilians than were killed in the 9/11 atrocity at the hands of Frankenstines they had themselves nurtured, and decimating a land with Depleted Uranium having a half life of 4.5 billion years that will keep on killing for generations long after the war is declared over? Or the US Government owning up to her ravage and abuse of the impoverished nation of Afghanistan and her people for three decades, in an ideological proxy war against the Soviets when these very people were referred to as “Mujahideen”, “moral equivalent of our founding fathers”, and having walked away from her sins in the past, demonstrated her true superpower greatness by helping rebuild that country and its infrastructure in fair recompense? Some argue that questions of morality aside, just the pragmatism of a mere 10% to 20% of the cost of this lifetime “war on terrorism” ending 90% terrorism in the world within a year through a humble mea culpa, makes this “war on terrorism” look awfully stupid! As it now stands, the threat of terrorism has been multiplied several folds, with two cultures and two civilizations lying in ruins! And a million more people, not having access to F16s and cruise missiles to “Shock and Awe” their enemy in return, are perhaps ready to blow themselves up in retaliation for the loss of their innocent loved ones before their very eyes! If the roles were reversed, would the American public feel any differently? Remember the American war of independence not too long ago? If these rational options weren't followed, let alone debated or even brought up in the mainstream media or in Washington or in the UN, what other rational conclusions besides perpetuation of a fraud on the American people for ulterior motives of corporate greed and world conquest can one draw about the team occupying the White House? A Martian observer looking at Earth and seeing the incredible ground swell of support for the US President in the American populace could only conclude one of two rational things, as Noam Chomsky aptly puts it: either the American public is incredibly racist and self-serving that it wants to annihilate entire Muslim civilizations because they suffered 9/11, or the American populace is incredibly indoctrinated! Every time I see the Congress and the public rise to hail the chief, it reminds me of the old newsreels of Hitler.
It is interesting to also witness the backdrop that preceded the US actions after 9-11, as history in hindsight can often provide 20-20 vision. Until the Summer of 2001, the Taliban government in Afghanistan were in the good graces of Washington. There was a Taliban delegation even visiting the US to work out the details of the oil and gas pipeline that was to pass through Afghanistan carrying the precious black gold from the oil-rich Central Asian Republics to the Indian Ocean and onwards into the coffers of American oil companies. When the recalcitrance of the turbaned warriors proved too much for the polished bean counters and empire builders from the American side, the United States representatives warned them to either accept their offer of a carpet of gold or they would be buried in a carpet of bombs. Subsequently, US representatives had informed Pakistan that military action against Afghanistan would occur by middle of October 2001. All of this is in the press reports in the public domain.
Even earlier, in the report on “Rebuilding America's Defenses” by the neoconservative “Project New American Century” (PNAC) under the tutelage of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et. al.*4, the American foreign policy agenda for the New American Century was set for the “full spectrum dominance”*5 “strategy of American preeminence for today and tomorrow” (page 17) over the entire planet in the interest of securing a very “American Peace” (page 76).
This report and the PNAC web site make a very insightful read because this Project, seeded years before 9-11, and based on an earlier even more chauvinistic preemptive imperial ideology espoused in a report at least a decade prior by Paul Wolfowitz under the stewardship of Dick Cheney when George H. W. Bush Sr. had ushered in the “Grande baille of the New World Order”, is extremely clairvoyant. It accurately predicts all the actions that America subsequently undertook after 9-11, even to the extent of spotlighting Iraq, Syria and Iran, and militarizing the world and its skies with the American military muscle. The invasion of Iraq is actively advocated to destroy the threat from “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, and indeed, whether or not Sadaam Hussain was in power. Then why should one be surprised when Donald Rumsfeld within hours of 9-11 ordered to prepare plans to attack Iraq (See further below).
Witness these prophetic statements in some detail from the chapter “Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force” in the above mentioned PNAC report. Please do note some of the instructive key phrases that realize ZB's “imperial mobilization”: “new Pearl Harbor”, “enduring military mission worthy of constant allocation of dollars and forces”, “expanding perimeter”, “American political and military operations around the world”, “American peace”, “benevolent order it secures”. Published in September 2000, a full year before 911, and four years after ZB's Grand Chessboard, Paul Wolfowitz is listed as one of the authors of this report (a detailed list of contributors to this report and to PNAC, is summarized in Exhibit A). The report states:
“As long as wars and other military operations derive their logic from political purposes, land power will remain the truly decisive form of military power. ... In sum the ability to preserve American military preeminence in the future will rest in increasing measure on the ability to operate in space militarily. ... But over the long term, maintaining control of space will inevitably require the application of force both in space and from space, including but not limited to antimissile defenses ... Cyberspace, or 'Net-War' If outerspace represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace”, and in particular the internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the internet are emerging elements of global commerce, politics and powerplay. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new “global commons”. ... there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks. Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner. Taken together, the prospects for space and “cyberspace war” represent the truly revolutionary potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure. But, it is also clear that for the U.S. Armed forces to remain preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power they must be sure that these potential future forms of warfare favor America just as today's air, land and sea warfare reflect United States military dominance. Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of constant allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn. ... Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” (pages 51-61)
“The Price of American Preeminence: The program we advocate – one that would provide America with forces to meet the strategic demands of the world's sole superpower – requires budget levels to be increased to 3.5 to 3.8 percent of the GDP... We believe it is necessary to increase slightly the personnel strength of U.S. Forces – many of the missions associated with patrolling the expanding American security perimeter are manpower-intensive, and planning for major theater wars must include for politically decisive campaigns ... Also this expanding perimeter argues for new overseas bases and forward operating locations to facilitate American political and military operations around the world. ... Keeping the American peace requires the U.S. Military to undertake a broad array of missions today and rise to very different challenges tomorrow, but there can be no retreat from these missions without compromising American leadership and the benevolent order it secures.” (pages 74-76)
And finally, the following sentences from the PNAC Statement of Principles, circa 1997, are also noteworthy for the overarching goals of the American empire (emphasis is mine):
“[...] We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world.
[...] We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
[...] we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.”
And of course, included is the traditional disingenuousness that must always accompany such goals for the lay public's consumption, as logically, the two cannot be reconciled with each other (try to reconcile them yourself as you read through this book):
“[...] we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;”
Here is a brief excerpt from where the term Full Spectrum Dominance originated. It is the title of Chapter 3 of the Department of Defense strategy document Joint Vision 2020, released in June 2000:
'The label full spectrum dominance implies that US forces are able to conduct prompt, sustained, and synchronized operations with combinations of forces tailored to specific situations and with access to and freedom to operate in all domains – space, sea, land, air, and information. Additionally, given the global nature of our interests and obligations, the United States must maintain its overseas presence forces and the ability to rapidly project power worldwide in order to achieve full spectrum dominance.'*5
And what did ZB predict about this? Restating ZB's shrewd articulation from the Grand Chessboard:
“[...] the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being.
[...] as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.
[...] the U.S. Policy goals must be un-apologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer.”
Wow! ZB said the same thing that Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld et. al., the most powerful people running the American Government today, as well as the American military Strategic Planning high command, the Department of Defense, publicly stated in 1997 – 2000, way before any 911.*6
Even Tony Blair openly hinted at the facade that launched this fictitious “war on terrorism” when he commented to the Commons Liaison Committee something to the effect that there was no way the public would have consented to suddenly launching a campaign against Afghanistan except for 9-11. This too was reported on publicly.
Thus the failure of the armed-to-the-teeth United States in preventing 9-11 despite all the forewarnings, and their deliberate invasion of two defenseless and war-ravaged nations, ostensibly in retaliation or preemption of another 9-11, when even the CIA could not come up with any plausible linkage between Iraq and 9-11 as testified by CIA Director George Tenet to Congress, can only lead a rational person to conclude what?
You be the judge of that!
And based on your response, also try to counter the most illustrious of all voices of American conscience, who the New York Times calls “arguably the most important intellectual alive”, Noam Chomsky's observation mentioned earlier, as well as my own after having lived among the American peoples for almost a quarter century and reaching the same lamentable conclusions, that either the American public is very self-serving, or highly indoctrinated.
Foreign policy miscalculations and their impact
The following foreign policy miscalculations further betray the imperial thinking of the rogues in Washington, provided one isn't indoctrinated enough to still be able to connect dots.
One of these was the final UN security council vote to go to war which was never submitted, because the US could not get the majority of the members to sign on to its agenda for war as they weren't convinced by any of the evidence that had been provided thus far to incriminate Iraq. The UN security council did not meekly oblige with a legal cover for the adventure as anticipated, by not acceding to a unanimous vote thus leaving only 4 out of the 15 members in the Security Council in favor of the war and dashing the hopes of this second Bush administration from achieving what the first Bush administration did, namely “the use of multilateral instrument to carry out a unilateral war” (see Phyllis Bennis below). The US went to war anyway, making it an illegal war according to the rules of the UN charter. Why go to this war despite it being an illegal war with no support from the rest of the world? Being against all international norms, why shouldn't America, its leaders, and its generals be tried for war crimes against humanity? And why aren't the political leaders worried about this? In fact their public statements of “Shock and Awe” a civilian population are no less criminal than Hitler's Holocaust. Why issue such incriminating policy remarks that can come to haunt them in any war crime court? Furthermore, does not signing on to the World Court, and claiming exemption for Americans from being charged for war crimes, now start to make more sense? I am just connecting the dots here, you the astute reader can judge for yourself!
Another miscalculation occurred when the facade of the “coalition of the willing”, was exposed to be the “coalition of the coerced” with only UK, Australia, Spain, and Hungary being the really willing. Many of the rest are small powerless or impoverished nations browbeaten into acquiescence by economic bribes (such as the newly freed countries of new Europe excited to be joining NATO), or threats of withholding US aid and loans from the IMF and World Bank (the client-states). According to a Gallup Poll, there was never a public support for war higher than 11% in any European country (as noted by Arundhati Roy in a speech). Most major countries in the world (as determined by GDP times their population size) did not even participate in this fraudulent unilateral war. Even the major US client-state Turkey, despite its economic down turn and its pending application to the European Union, turned down a bribe of approx. $27 billion (give or take a few) and allowed the will of 90% of its populace to prevail through its democratically elected parliament and finally said “NO” to the US in letting it open a northern front on Iraq through its Kurdish territories. You can judge the fraud of this coalition yourself. Just look at the countries in the coalition of the willing; some Americans might be hard pressed to even name the continents some are in! And there is also ample precedent behind this coercion – the threat that was overheard by everyone in the UN on an open microphone, made to Yemen in the first Gulf War when it had cast a dissenting 'no' to the final Security Council vote authorizing war: “that will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast.” Within days, the US cut off its $70 million aid package to Yemen, one of the most impoverished nations.*7 The question arises that why have this obsession for a coalition in the first place? Why seek this cover of legality, even if a flimsy one is all they can get? Why did George Bush Sr. also endeavor in this attempt in the first war on Iraq? Could perhaps domestic consumption have anything to do with it? Does this fetish for “legal cover” ring a bell in anyone?
Finally, a slightly more cumbersome tactical miscalculation was the triggering of a new arms race amongst the have-not nations. North Korea, not quite comprehending why it was suddenly made part of the “axis of evil”, withdrew from NPT and openly stated that it possesses nuclear weapons, and will attack if provoked or threatened in any way, including impositions of sanctions. And the US, in accordance with its strategic plans, attacked with its full imperial might, the inherently weak and defenseless Iraq, while attempting to engage North Korea in diplomacy, thus sending a strong message to the entire world that the US, like any school yard bully, only picks on the defenseless, and implying to the weaker nation they had better arm themselves. If the mightiest power on Earth that spends over $400 billion a year on defense, and has sufficient weapons of mass destruction to set this entire solar system ablaze, can feel threatened by a weakened and disarmed foe like Iraq, and the US public can buy that farce and support this invasion, then what about the rest of the world? Would it be very surprising that they should consider arming themselves with deterrence too, because America only picks on toothless paper tigers? A single nuclear bomb is the greatest equalizer in the world. There is hardly a difference between having a few and a few hundred, the advantage of having a few thousand seemingly such an ill thought out use of a nation's resources when social spending cuts is making class sizes double because teachers are being laid off. Unless of course one recalls the warnings of Eisenhower about the military-industrial complex! Hence witness that the White House wants to build more nuclear bombs, its arsenal of some 10,000 plus not being sufficient!
The prescient fears of Robert Oppenheimer, the conscionable bomb-maker (what a nonsequitur), labeled a traitor when he expressed his vision for “a world that is united, and a world in which a war will not occur”, and his concern that either no one should possess a nuclear bomb or every nation should (or will) possess one to deter war, might finally become a reality! But perhaps not the kind he had envisaged.
This duplicity between Iraq and N. Korea created a slight public relations headache to explain the hypocrisy. But the US is seemingly unperturbed about the real boondoggle of a ready to fight North Korea. Why unnecessarily take on this headache of North Korea now? And all North Korea really seeks is a terminal peace treaty anyway. But the US does not want to make peace just yet. Is it perhaps because North Korea is their insurance policy on future threat pretexts? US must feel that they can contain North Korea easily, otherwise if US really felt any danger, they would rush to make peace. So the entire world is now at the mercy of accurate threat perceptions by the White House and North Korea about each other! Making it a very safe world indeed! Why create this situation needlessly?
The addition of North Korea into the “axis of evil”, since it has real teeth and can bite back but is of no obvious geostrategic significance and no oil under its soil, some surmise may initially have been a tactical error, a last minute hasty addition, as claimed by the President's then speechwriter David Frum. He was asked to come up with a justification to attack Iraq, for the President's State of the Union address.*8 But Frum does not say who chose North Korea in the “axis of evil”, only that it was added at the last minute. So whether or not it was indeed a tactical error is open to speculation, and to first order, its impact seems not to have been well anticipated. Or had it?
A deeper analysis shows a purposeful pattern of creating fear in the world about America's raw military power and her willingness to use that might, and is consistent with other actions taken by the White House that have needlessly also raised the fear factor of the empire in the world. It is doubtful that there is anything accidental about anything the White House says or does. It may not appear to work sometimes, and may cause some headaches, but there are deep thinkers behind the scenes planing the American imperial empire. It is a display of purposeful naked aggression, like we saw the dark Emperor make in Star Wars. It is not coincidental that the militarization of space in the Reagan era was actually called Star Wars. Most people at the time thought it was about laser gadgetry and such. But the choice of names and other Freudian slips betray the psycho-historical hand of Hari Seldon and his invisible band of “Second Foundationers” running amok in Washington, but working for Daarth Vaider instead of Luke Skywalker. Isaac Asimov sure seems to have had a keen understanding of power and behind the scenes manipulation,*9 as George Lucas' prophetic cineo-drama is being reenacted once again on the global stage. It is not a conspiracy theory, but empirical evidence for ZB's American hegemony model of creating a “direct external threat” to rally the people for imperial mobilization.
History has demonstrated time and again that the best weapon to prevent others from fighting your tyrannical imperialism is to instill the fear of god in all your perceived enemies. Display your naked brute force and no moral compunction about using it. It is also what animals do. It is also what the ordinary school yard bully does. This show of force has often temporarily subdued others from rising up to challenge the aggressor, especially if the aggressor is overwhelmingly powerful. And always, contrary to all the grandiose plans of all the emperors in the history of the world, there has always been a Luke Skywalker, many Luke Skywalkers; a Moses to every Pharaoh, a Nelson to every Napoleon, a Churchill to every Hitler, and an America to every Germany! Sometimes it takes a tyrant to defeat another tyrant, just as it took the Nazi's to bring down the colonial British Empire. And “If America fights Hitler, we will become Hitler”, says the famous insightful quote in history by
Thomas Merton, who observed this truism way back in 1936. But the misery endured by ordinary humanity in the course of rising up to tyranny has made history grotesque; the oppressor grotesque; and the oppressed's revenge grotesque. The real victims of war aren't the innocent ones who are dead, as grotesque as their slaughter may have been, they are mercifully spared the agony of their conqueror's loss of humanity.
As Plato had observed: “Only the dead have seen the end of war”. Those who died, died as humans. Those who lived through it, may die as animals. Just see what Ariel Sharon, the famous “man of peace” is doing to the innocent Palestinian civilians, many of them children, and what the suicide bombers are doing back to the Israeli civilians, some of them also innocent children! Despite what Shakespeare notes in Macbeth: “Yet I have known those which have walked in their sleep who have died holily in their beds.”, they still died as predatory beasts despite their delusions, despite their Nobel Peace prizes, and despite all their accolades from a mesmerized world. “Battle not with monsters lest ye become one; for when you look into the Abyss, the Abyss looks into you” has some empirical reality behind it, as so profoundly noted by Nietzsche, and similarly observed by W.H. AUDEN in his poem “September 1, 1939”:
“I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do Evil in return.”
The New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges brings this realization full circle into the twenty first century in his very insightful and personal “War is a Force that gives us Meaning”. A must read for every thinking and conscionable American being fed the false flag of patriotism, as they are shown on mainstream television only carefully screened “surgical strikes” on “targets”, and dead children are merely labeled “collateral damage” and kept hidden from view. The hijacking of television as an omnipresent source of public education and political enlightenment in America, now having acquired the singular dubious distinction of the most unrecognized theft in history of a public commons. The remarkable thing is that this theft has occurred in plain sight of the mainstream audience, but they are apparently immune to it like the best behaved “prisoners of the cave”. The Peoples in these United States have been so deliberately primed with the spirit of war and “patriotic gratification” for ostensibly the ultimate battle between 'good and evil' with magical mantras like “either you are with us or with the terrorists”, especially when the goodly peoples suffer no casualties in their own homes and of their own loved ones, that indeed, 'war has become the force that gives these civilized barbarians any meaning to their vacuous shop-till-you-drop lives'!
However, returning to Frum, note that his explicit testimony in his essay about his being asked to come up with a pretext to attack Iraq, is consistent with other facts, including that within hours of 9/11, Rumsfeld is said to have ordered making plans to attack Iraq, and as late as 1997 some strategist were arguing to make “Baghdad look like Hiroshima with Shock and Awe”. Frum's eyewitness testimony lays to rest any doubt that the entire drama enacted in the UN over several months was indeed a hoax, as the renowned and award winning journalist Robert Fisk had boldly pointed out as far back as October 2002, when the UN drama was just unfolding. Fisk had clearly stated, as I recall hearing him on Pacifica in an interview to Dennis Bernstein in his Flashpoints news program, that when the discrediting of the UN inspection team starts appearing in the New York Times (implying in the press), that's when we will know that the US is about to attack Iraq! And he stated that when he told this to some American journalists, they were astounded at his pronouncement! Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector who led the inspection team in Iraq, his report subsequently being scorned by the US in order to commence its pre-planned slaughter on Iraq, now openly warns other countries that if you are offered UN inspections, you must understand that it's a prelude to war! He says that he was duped! Tariq Ali reported this in a speech that I attended on May 8, 2003 (the 2003 Sanford S. Elberg Lecture in International Studies, Institute of International Studies, Sibley Auditorium, Bechtel Center, UC Berkeley), but I haven't been able to locate Blix's own statements. No one else seems to have been duped in the rest of the world except in the US, even George Tenet stated before Congress that Iraq posed no threat to the US, nor was there any link established between 9/11 and Baghdad, and nor were there any Iraqi hijackers on board, that it was all a pretext for something far more insidious was clear to most people. So I am not sure that it isn't entirely disingenuous for the learned UN inspection team leader to now claim that he was “duped”, if he did indeed say it in that context as reported by Tariq Ali, the famous author of Clash of Fundamentalisms.
The real purpose behind the UN drama of course was domestic consumption and cover of legality. What is wrong with the Americans that they always refuse to ask the obvious? Is it all that Ritalin and Friends on television numbing their brains? The idea that if the UN says so then sanctions against a civilian population are justified, if the UN says so then disarming a nation is justified, if the UN says so then somehow bombing a country that did nothing to you would be justified! Since the country is such a sheep, this seeking of legal cover from the UN works well for domestic consumption. It is also too close to Hitler's obsession with cover of legality as he rose to power. These guys seem to have studied their Nazi History well. The Pentagon strategist who prepare battle plans study Nazi history very carefully to extract valuable lessons for their current thinking, according to Daniel Ellsberg who himself worked for the Rand Corporation and the Pentagon in the 1960s making strategic war plans.
Not a random foreign policy
Some detractors of this White House persist in arguing that these new power brokers are ill informed, random in their foreign policy decisions, and don't know what they are doing. They allege that Rumsfeld et. al and the strategist goading them on are all armchair warriors. Unfortunately, while it may seem like this, the evidence speaks otherwise. The strategist are very seasoned warriors and global thinkers. George Bush Senior has presided over the strategic pulse of this nation at least since the Ford Administration when he became the director of CIA, through his Vice Presidency in the Reagan Administration when he presided over the implosion of the Soviet Union. His own Presidency in which he oversaw the first destruction of Iraq that he himself had carefully cultivated and built up during Reagan Administration. And his legacy being continued through the two Clinton Administrations, as we note the sanctions regime on Iraq, and Bosnian ethnic cleansing at the hands of Slovadan Milosovic being presided over on Clinton's watch. Heartless brutes like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright saying that the death of up to a million Iraqis, including babies, due to the American led UN imposed sanctions was “we think the price is worth it”, and Clinton himself showing remarkable restraint for years as Bosnian Muslim women were raped and pillaged until the 'feared' Muslim expansion in the heartland of Europe was contained.
Now the prodigal son, though dyslexic and somewhat intelligence challenged (see his profile further on), but surrounded by seasoned high IQ professionals, and image makers like Karl Rove, has taken over. ZB has remained among the master advisors throughout many of these administrations, and has already claimed the honor of being the mastermind behind the downfall of the Soviet empire by handing the Soviets their own Vietnam!. Perhaps Bush Sr. and ZB might have competing claims to it, perhaps they might share the next Nobel Peace prize! Even George Bush Jr., during his run for the US Presidency and afterwards, when asked how he was planing to run foreign affairs and be an effective commander-in-chief because he didn't seem to know much about the world, said that yes, “I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with foreign policy”, but “That's dependent upon the military advisors that would be advising me”, and “That depends upon my advisors and the people who know a heck of a lot more about the subject than I do”, and finally, “A key to foreign policy is to rely on reliance.” A candid moment of truth.*10
This entire administration and their strategist are the remnants of the Cold War warriors of the past decades, not the least of whom is the current and very experienced Secretary of State General Colin Powell whose political machinations extend at least as far back as the Reagan administration if not further. He was the National Security Advisor to Reagan since 1987, and oversaw the first attack on Iraq for Bush Sr. as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff. And when not making military battle plans, he lends his expertise to making corporate battle plans on the boards of several corporations. His son is the present Chairman of the very powerful FCC that controls media alliances and monopolies, and who at one point as a member of the FCC was responsible for overseeing the AOL – Time Warner merger, while Colin Powell sat on the board of AOL! His image as a 'moderate' and unwilling soldier only dutifully obliged to follow his commander-in-chief in 'Shock and Awe' of civilian populations, in complete contravention of all Geneva Conventions to which the US is a signatory hence breaking both international law and US law, and in willful ignorance of the lessons of Nuremberg trials that following orders is not an excuse for war crimes, is a carefully crafted Machiavellian image for some future Presidency of the United States. After all, the present front runners will need replacement once they have been used up. Donald Rumsfeld is his evil twin in this good cop bad cop style carefully cultivated persona, and comes in a close second in battlefield planning. He had been the Defense Secretary for President Ford, and was Ronald Reagan's key envoy to Iraq to normalize relations with the butcher of Halabja and America's strategic proxy war partner against Iran to contain its Islamic revolution from spreading into the adjacent oily client-states of the United States.
Final anecdotal evidence that lends further credence to this analysis of seasoned warriors at the helm, was obtained during the aforementioned public talk by Tariq Ali, the famed antiwar activist from the UK. Speaking quite candidly he enlightened the audience with two anecdotal points that he was privy to, and which substantiates the above thesis of determined planners deliberately following a well defined course of action, not to be underestimated for their apparent randomness, or the “mule” making the world laugh.*11
First point is with respect to North Korea. While publicly debating one of the advisors to Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defense, who was taking very hawkish positions during the debate, Tariq Ali asked her privately after the debate if she would enlighten him about North Korea. Apparently the two had known each other since the 1970s, and she used to read his “New Left Review” before she came over on the side of the emperor. She candidly told him that it is not about North Korea at all. But about South Korea. South Korea wants to get its hands on North's nuclear weapons through rapprochement between the two nations, and the specter of China and combined Korea, two of the three giants in the industrial triad in the Pacific Rim being nuclear armed, would motivate the third member of the triad, Japan to also seek nuclear weapons, and that would change the dynamics of global hegemony in Asia to the detriment of the US. According to Tariq Ali, and also quite plainly obvious to anyone willing to spend 5 minutes on the world map looking at where America has its bases (of the 189 member states of the UN, 121 have a US military base), China is in the gun-sights of the American imperial planners as the main threat to American hegemony in the coming years. One might still wonder what was the rush to add North Korea into the axis of evil now, why not just take on one challenge at a time, it's not like the two antipodes are rushing into an headlong embrace tomorrow – unless the intent is indeed to put the fear of god in all potential near and long term foes that: don't you dare even twitch without our permission!
China's cautious approach to the present US takeover of the world bespeaks their centuries old wisdom in dealing with a foe who is far ahead, while they catch up. China's defense budget is approx. $40 billion, about a tenth of US defense spending, and is second largest in the world after the US. But it is not the amount of money spent that necessarily determines military prowess, as China so convincingly demonstrated a few years ago when a US stealth bomber was shot down over Yugoslavia. Contrary to denials from the Pentagon, the story published in many places excited the imagination of many third world scientists when they heard how a simple low tech solution could bring down a billion dollar high tech bird that was decades in development with the American tax payers hard earned money. Whether or not it is true that this is how the plane was downed is besides the point, because the science behind it is certainly plausible. Apparently, Chinese scientists noticed a very subtle electromagnetic interference in the ubiquitous television signals blanketing the earth when one of these supersonic birds flew by. They strung thousands of Intel 486 microprocessor based jelly bean networked boxes each connected to an ordinary television antenna, with sophisticated triangulation and prediction software running on them that they developed, and it could predict with accuracy enough the flight path and next coordinates of the radar-invisible bird as it soared at heights and speed unimaginable to the lay person, and were able to shoot one down!
The second anecdotal point brought up by Tariq Ali, is about Iraq. Apparently, four editors from the Guardian “unofficially” met with the British Prime Minister Tony Blair after the blitzkrieg over Iraq had ended and Sadaam had disappeared, and asked him: ~“Mr. Prime Minister, may we ask where are the famous weapons of mass destruction?” Tony Blair, as dramatized by Tariq Ali, simply stared at them and said: ~“you don't get it do you, it's about Syria and Iran, [not about Iraq,] now we don't have to bomb them because they will acquiesce”. This has not been published in the Guardian because it was “off the record”, but according to Tariq Ali, word gets around quickly in journalist circles.
White House dream team assembled
Let's look a bit more closely at this White House, where we seem to have a perfect team assembled for world conquest:
George W. Bush Jr.
We have a born-again fundamentalist Evangelical Christian war mongering US President as plainly evidenced by his foreign policy actions, who according to Nelson Mandela, is a president “who cannot think properly”, who says that Jesus was his favorite philosopher and then calls Ariel Sharon, an indicted war criminal, “a man of peace” and his mentor, a Phillips/Yale/Harvard educated privileged person who is largely ignorant and quite incoherent on almost any subject despite his pedigree “More and more of our imports come from overseas.” – but transforms into a fiery orator speaking from the heart when he is pouring vengeance on the enemy “Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.”, who easily jokes about democracy “If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator”, and who was reinvented from the ashes of a failed presidency before 9/11 into a great statesman and moral leader by the “Co-President” and war-addicted master kingmaker Karl Rove.*12
George Bush's factual biography Fortunate Son by J. H. Hatfield offers a revealing glimpse into the kind of person who is now the most powerful Alexander in the history of the world, the thirteen pages of cartoons alone at the beginning of this book summarize his life quite succinctly. His other image makers are also hard at work pulling overtime to make him look presidential, as the “MBA President” and CEO of America, in Team Bush – leadership lessons from the Bush White House by Donald F. Kettl. It is quite incredulous that the explanation for Bush's poor performance at Yale University is deftly spinned as the big picture person who was actually busy “studying the students” during his partying binges! I must hide this book from my kids because they might one day argue the same case – I sure dread that day. But perhaps I shouldn't worry because this argument only works if one is President of the United States, and not for anyone else? In his public letter to George W. Bush in Stupid White Men, Michael Moore after rehearsing Bush's public factual history, ends as follows: “In short, you've been a drunk, a thief, a possible felon, an unconvicted deserter, and a cry baby.” If the American public accepts this man as their savior from the terrorists of the world, as they seem to be doing by the shovel full, it sets new standards for marketing Teflon coatings, a patentable asset for globalization! I hope I did not speak too soon!
He is either Magnifico*13, or a figure head CEO of an administration of highly ambitious and seasoned ideologues. They exhibit few moral compunctions as evidenced by their own foreign policy statements, with deep connections to corporate interests and oil.
But worse than that, and unfortunately so for the American nation and the rest of the world, he is a religious fanatic President of the most powerful country on Earth, who very likely imagines himself the latter day “Richard the Lionhearted” in his rare moments of reflection. He deeply feels the fundamentalist religious urge to “Crusade” against the Islamic “evil-doers” who dared to hit America with another “Pearl Harbor”. A self proclaimed born-again Christian who intimately shares in the belief system of the extreme right-wing Evangelical Christians, along with his highest ranking law enforcement officer, John Ashcroft. They entertain the most shocking and obnoxious set of beliefs, more apropos to call “doomsday seeking” (See discussion of Evangelical Christians further on). The “Compassionate Conservatives” as they like to call themselves, was the nom de guerre of George Bush during the 2000 election battle.
When Bush initially called the “war on terrorism” a “Crusade”, or when one of the invasion plans was initially named operation “Infinite Justice”, most skeptics thought it was just a slip of tongue by an ignoramus, and accidental. But it is exactly what George Bush perceived he was doing, waging a crusade of infinite justice against the Muslims, a charge handed him he believes, directly by god: “Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done”.
This also perhaps sheds light on why he magically becomes so eloquent when heaping vengeance on the enemy like an ordained minister, or latter day Richard the Lionhearted, when under almost all other circumstances, he appears to be searching for answers in a script, and becomes incoherent when he can't find them. And it also partially explains why he takes so warmly to Ariel Sharon, calling him a “man of peace” – a peace in which the Evangelical Christians expect to be the only victors, and Sharon is helping them realize it by making their Biblical Prophesy come even more true by conquering all of Palestine. Quite incredible! And monumentally criminal.
It is a monumental crime because as the President of the United States of America, George Bush had sworn to uphold the Constitution during his inauguration. With the constitutional separation of church and state, to use the American state's vast military and economic prowess and its unrivaled superpower status in the world, to inflict these personal self-deluded religious beliefs on the rest of the planet with criminal “Shock and Awe” of defenseless innocent civilian populations, is not only a constitutional crime against the American nation, but a more consequential and monumental war crime on Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. A war crime no less horrific than what Hitler visited upon many nations of Europe laboring under similar self delusions of the “right” of the “superior race” to exterminate the “lesser” Jews, and to bring enlightenment to the world by conquering it for the Lebensraum of his own Germanic peoples.
We have a Vice President who was the CEO of Halliburton – the largest oil services company in the world whose accounting irregularities are off limits from scrutiny, nor the role of its CEO in the President's Energy Task Force and the Enron debacle allowed public disclosure. And Halliburton has just been awarded a contract for 7 Billion dollars over 2 years without any open bidding to put out the oil fires in Iraq – right! His respected wife sits on the board of directors of Lockheed Martin, the weapons manufacturer which stands to directly benefit from the sale of its weapon products to the US military, keeping it all in the family. In his six terms as a congressman from Wisconsin, he voted against the Equal Rights Amendment, and against a House resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela from prison. He has been involved in Republican Administrations going as far back as the Nixon White House, where he was Deputy House counsel under Donald Rumsfeld, and replaced him as chief of staff for President Ford. He was the Defense Secretary for Bush Sr. during the first slaughter on Iraq, and now he is presiding over its complete military occupation under Bush Jr.
It seems that a sick humor in Washington is that if Cheney has a heart attack, Bush might finally become President! I hope this does not happen because it would steal the satisfaction of some fine police man one day when he reads to Cheney, 'sir it is my deepest honor to arrest you for crimes against humanity', as what finally occurred in the case of the murderous Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet at the hands of an English Bobby. According to Daniel Ellsberg, to get rid of this election theft, work on the real president, because the public won't care if it's Vice President is brought to justice, but doing it to the overt President makes for a national trauma and hence much harder!
In any other country, Cheney's financial interests would be considered conflicts of interest at the bare minimum, even by the US media itself. But in America, it appears to be collective amnesia that no one in the mainstream can even recall the famous prescient warnings of the past US President General Dwight D. Eisenhower in his last message to the nation:
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience ... The total influence – economics, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government ... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influences, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex ... The disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” The military-industrial complex should never be allowed to “endanger our liberties or democratic process.”*14
No questions are asked!
We have the “Hermann Goering” of this “war on terrorism”, the real second in command to Dick Cheney, running this administration from within the hallowed walls of the Pentagon, the earnest Defense Secretary. Of all the people assembled in this administration, he appears to be the most amoral, ruthless, and inhuman character. The evidence against him for lies and deceit for everything that has transpired, from the ill fated day of 9-11, when the air defenses of America magically failed to respond, through the inhuman treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay as “illegal combatants”, to the monumentally criminal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, is as long as the Pentagon is deep. The record of his own statements publicly available, show him off as the most inhuman “butcher” of innocent Muslims with not a modicum of humanity in him. As unpopular a thing for me to say as this might be, while he is still the reigning and all powerful Defense Secretary, I would surely like to be present at his trial for war crimes and observe from the public back benches Hannah Arendt's disturbing observations of Eichmann during his own war crimes trial in Jerusalem.*15
A Princeton graduate, he was the CEO of G. D. Searle pharmaceutical company and General Instrument, and has sat on the boards of several corporations, who has vociferously argued for using chemical weapons against Iraq in this new assault on that defenseless nation as a humane alternative to minimize US casualties in urban warfare, and was photographed shaking hands in 1983-84 with the now bad (or dead) boy Sadaam Hussain right after the brutal dictator had gassed his own people and used chemical weapons against Iran. As noted before, he was sent there to normalize relations with Iraq by the Reagan administration – there is no question of morality in politics as President Ronald Reagan had rightly observed: ~“I am told politics is the second oldest profession, it seems to have a strong resemblance to the first one”.
It is said about Donald Rumsfeld that he never met a nuclear bomb that he didn't like, and his record bespeaks of this reputation. He was White House counsel to Nixon, Defense Secretary and then Chief of Staff for Ford where he officially remained against any arms control, and three decades later still clung to his play toys calling the ABM treaty “ancient history” during his confirmation hearing as Defense Secretary under President Bush Jr. He reputedly runs the CIA's secret army Special Operations Group (SOG) funded to the tune of billions of dollars for autonomous special operations in the world without any Congressional oversight. He is the prime hawkish supporter of militarization and weaponization of space and has deep affinity with the ideologues who advocate world domination by “the empire”. His association with former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci, who subsequently became the CEO and Chairman of the empire-building Carlyle group, and the influence peddling and revolving door unwritten agreement between government and the military-industrial complex, is unraveled in the investigative book The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group by Briody and Byron. But what is this empire of which Donald Rumsfeld is only the tip of the iceberg? Is it only about oil? Arundhati Roy eloquently refers to the non obvious aspects of empire in her speech “How to confront Empire?” which might be apropos to interject here:
“As the disparity between the rich and the poor grows, the fight to corner resources is intensifying. To push through 'sweetheart deals', to corporatize the crops we grow, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the dreams we dream, corporate globalization needs an international confederation of loyal, corrupt, authoritarian governments in poorer countries to push through unpopular reforms and quell the mutinies. Corporate Globalization – or shall we call it by its name – Imperialism – needs a press that pretends to be free. It needs courts that pretend to dispense justice. Meanwhile, the countries of the North harden their borders and stockpile weapons of mass destruction. After all, they have to make sure that it's only money, goods, patents, and services that are globalized. Not the free movement of people. Not respect for human rights. Not international treaties on racial discrimination or chemical and nuclear weapons or greenhouse gas emissions or climate change, or – God forbid – Justice. So this – all this – is 'empire'.”
We have an Attorney General who can only be described as an extreme far right-wing gun toting fundamentalist doomsday seeking mullah, but without a turban and a beard – starting official morning meetings with his staff by holding hands and singing prayers to the Lord, subscribing to the philosophy of the extreme right-wing Evangelical Christian fanatics who seem to have taken over this White House administration – or so it would appear. Their fundamentalist fanatic ideology and its marriage of convenience with Zionist aspirations in the Middle East is discussed later. One of his first acts beside instituting morning chanting to the Lord (I personally don't have a problem with it – sing all you want – but perhaps the US Constitution might – what with all that separation of Church and State which ostensibly disallows even morning prayers by children in public schools let alone by public officials in government buildings), was to announce that the Justice department will destroy all background check records of gun ownership within 24 hours of such approval being granted. So no record of who owns what weapons is to be kept whatsoever!
The NRA (National Rifle Association), I am sure, will be thrilled to elect Ashcroft as their Next President after the gun toting Mr. Heston, the moses of the silver screen, has retired. See Bowling for Columbine, and reflect on the new message that this glamorous Bush coterie is sending to the youth in America – the best way to resolve differences is to shoot it out with your opponents – the bigger your weapon, the better your chances of minimizing your own casualties while “not terribly being concerned about” what you do to your enemy. The latter is a direct quote of General Colin Powell, while proudly commenting on US high tech superiority after the first Gulf war on Iraq that how the American casualties were “only” a few hundred as they liberated Kuwait, he was asked “well what about Iraqi casualties?”. This quip by the then Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff a decade ago under the stewardship of the illustrious dad, summarizes the imperial colonial attitude of this entire administration under the stewardship of the prodigal son, and the same General as the Secretary of State.
Ashcroft's opinion of Islam and its billion plus followers is noteworthy: ~“God [of the Christians] sends son to die for people – people [in Islam] send sons to die for God”. With his crusading attitude shared by many in the administration including the President, how much of a fair shake can the Muslims expect from this Christian religious fanatic who is the highest ranking law officer in the most powerful country in the world? Thus we see the kind of illegal and extra judicial internment of Afghan Muslims in Guantanamo Bay, stripped of all human rights and dignities, treated worse than animals. If they were dogs or cats instead, there'd be an uproar by all the animal rights groups at least!
His Justice department argues that the Posse Comatatus Act that Congress passed a century and a half ago now gets in the way of terrorist fighting effort, and the revival of COINTELPRO of decades past to enable the FBI free and unfettered access to the terrorists, is a necessity. This is the Patriot Act 1, already the law of the land until at least 2005. A Patriot Act 2 already circulated in Congress, is also in the waiting, and goes a few steps further. Following that, might be the blurring of the distinction between civilian policing functions and military policing functions, as the constitution is getting in the way of locating and fighting the terrorists. Taken to its logical conclusion, it will result in a police state. Not the type we see in the vanilla imposed dictatorships in developing countries with a centralized brutal dictator and the entire population against him, but a brand new type, only possible in America, where its populace plays a cooperative rather than an adversarial role in maintaining it. These issues are fleshed out in greater detail throughout the essay, such that the big picture will emerge after you have read through it all. Then you can judge for yourself the truth or falsity of the connections made therein. Unlike other thesis where the protagonists defend their view point as that determines success of their positions, in this case, the protagonist's success is to be proven wrong. Please try to do that.
We have a National Security Advisor who was on the board of Chevron and has a Nigerian flagged oil tanker named after her, who has been a director of several other corporations as well including Charles Schwab, and also served in the National Security team of Bush Sr. as the Russian affairs expert. She rose up through the ranks of political science professor to become Provost at Stanford University and was allegedly a fortunate beneficiary of Affirmative Action but now is an ardent opponent of it. An accomplished hawkish senior advisor to the President, she was perhaps also instrumental in orchestrating the fall of Baghdad without blood shed through her alleged visit to Moscow days before the event. If this be true, here is a true Nobel Peace Prize candidate because that avoided the sufferings and misery of a civilian population of 5 – 6 million people at the hands of American bombs and high tech soldiers, as well as the American soldiers themselves due to the anticipated street fighting! I hope it is true, because this is one Machiavellian machination that deserves this award. Of course it would have been even more deserved had she talked the White House out of launching this illegal assault on Iraq to start with, or resigned as a matter of principal – what with she being Black and all – having been at the receiving end of slavery for centuries, perhaps she might have been more conscious of the sufferings of another! It is almost as if many commentators are almost sorry that there was no resistance in Baghdad the way many talk about this: shucks(!) we missed our chance of watching a real battle on the telli. Yes, resist to the last Iraqi, or for that matter, every last Palestinian! Rent a war movie, you can't tell the difference anyway. I sincerely thank Condoleezza Rice if she did have even the smallest role in minimizing the slaughter of Iraqi population by orchestrating this departure of the Baathist – just don't bring them back now in another uniform!
We have an imposing and very articulate Secretary of State, who in addition to his impressive credentials as a General and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, exhibits no qualms about openly lying to the people of the United States, and indeed the whole world by waving plagiarized documents and “fictitious facts” in the UN, and just offers a cavalier shrug when the “fiction” blows up in his face a week later – the main effect having already been achieved on the domestic audience. His hurriedly updated autobiography My American Journey rushed onto the bookshelves contains his report in its entirety made to the UN on 5 February 2003, with charts and maps galore detailing Iraq's WMDs, but not the one above. The future youngsters browsing it in their school libraries will come away with shock and awe at the patriot who once served so valiantly for the defense of his country, and having no knowledge of him having waived fake plagiarized evidence to bomb another country. Another Nobel Peace Prize in the making!
Other Big Brains
We also have a convicted felon, the highest ranking White House staff member ever to be convicted of lying to Congress: Mr. John Poindexter of the Iran-Contra scandal from Reagan administration, subsequently pardoned after his conviction by Bush Sr., and now appointed to run the “Total Information Awareness” system for Bush Jr., to bring the Orwellian “1984” into a belated reality for the good citizenry of this country.
We further have the likes of Richard Perle, Ex. Chairman and member of the Defense Policy Board, advising the government on imperial strategies. A known war mongering and profiteering Zionist ally who has, since 1997, argued for war on Iraq. The Defense Policy Board is a very secretive advisory group to the Pentagon whose members are appointed under the stewardship of the Secretary of Defense, whose meetings are classified, and for which there is no public scrutiny of its deliberations. Nine of its thirty members are connected to corporations in the military-industrial complex, and as reported by the Washington based Center for Public Integrity watchdog group, they were awarded contracts worth $76 billion dollars between 2001 and 2002! Among them are Jack Sheehan, a senior executive vice President at Bechtel who is also a retired Marine Corps General, and the well known former US Secretary of State George Schultz, a board member of the board of directors at Bechtel, and also involved in the reconstruction of Iraq as the Chairman of the advisory board on the committee for the liberation of Iraq. This cozy coupling between the Corporations, the Military, and the Government is well documented in The Iron Triangle mentioned earlier for those who are wont to dismiss all empirical evidence of collusion as conspiracy theories.
And we have his twin, deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, a Zionist hawk for whom it is sometimes hard to tell whether he holds that position on behalf of the United States or Israel. He has been around since the 1970s in various Administrations and is also part of the JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) strategic planning group for Zionists’ occupation of the greater Israel. I often wonder if he is the war mongering Daarth Vaider version of Hari Seldon! That is an immense compliment for those not familiar with this science fiction character from Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy. Please read this trilogy, especially the first novel in the trilogy. You will not be able to put the book down. That will define for you an exceedingly brilliant and mastermind character who operates deceptively from behind the scenes. Except that Hari Seldon uses his genius for “good” even when his methods are based on deception of the masses as well as the visible ruling elite. Now imagine the “dark side” metaphor from the Star Wars trilogy of George Lucas, and layer it upon Hari Seldon. That is exactly Paul Wolfowitz in my humble opinion. He was the prized disciple of the master of all deception – the latter day Machiavelli – the father of modern neoconservatism and professor of political philosophy, Leo Strauss.*16
Please lookup Wolfowitz, the Sunshine Boy, and his mentor Leo Strauss on the internet. While at it, also look up the names of the Zionist Neocons listed in Exhibit A, all of whom are active exponents of this invasion of Iraq and encouraged both President Clinton and the current President Bush to attack Iraq because of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” that Sadaam Hussain refuses to relinquish, and after the invasion wrote him laudatory and supporting letters that finally, there is moral clarity in American Foreign Policy. Instead of my rehearsing all the easily accessible information about these peoples here, it is imperative that you as a reader concerned about your nation, spend some time on a computer looking up the biographies of these leaders of America. Every character listed in Exhibit A has some incredible story of confluence of interests spanning the gamut from “The Iron Triangle” to being intensely pro-Zionist. Wikipedia, a grass-roots encyclopedia on the internet, is a great place to start to learn about this coterie of evil geniuses among the ruling elite of America who are so anxious to spill American blood. To fulfill whose agenda and under which political philosophy? That will be a revelation I can assure you. This will be the best couple of weekends of investment you can make in your own future.
You will note that a majority of these names in Exhibit A, are not surprisingly, Jews, but a few are also Christians, and at least one is of Muslim origin. Indeed, Zalmay Khalilzad’s background is worth studying in some depth for Afghanis might view him as their Benedict Arnold. As a protégé of Zbigniew Brzezinski, he played many significant roles in the Pentagon to bring about the demise of the USSR by offering them the sacrifice of his own peoples in Afghanistan. As a member of the Congressionally funded organization “Friends of Afghanistan”, he was instrumental in getting the Afghans to not make any peace with the Soviets and to fight to the last Afghan. A major traitor to his own peoples according to some, including this scribe, it escapes me how he is able to survive his stay in Afghanistan – unless they do not know who helped Brzezinski destroy their nation, and who deliberately kindled this flame of “Islamic extremism” to take down the USSR that Bush is conveniently using once again, first to bomb their country to prehistoric times, and now for the “full spectrum dominance” of the planet.*16A
When Bush was referring to his advisors in “That depends upon my advisors and the people who know a heck of a lot more about the subject than I do”, it was to this bunch of people, beyond the obvious first tier handlers in the White House under the captainship of Karl Rove – and all are Zionists or their immediate exponents. Indeed, I would really like to discover a single Neocon who is not an ardent supporter of Israel – the singular American Foreign Policy pivot since the inception of Israel that is the root cause of the Middle East perpetually being an international hotspot, always in the throes of bloodshed. But the neoconservatives have only in recent years acquired such power – yet the support of Israel is systemic in America. And that is because whether it is neoconservatives, or neoliberals or another “neo” or “multi” or “wing” flavor, Zionism has laid its eggs in their midst as their chief ideologues and exponents, and behind it all, is the singular shillling for Zion. It is almost akin to all the spokes of a bicycle wheel all spread out around the wheel’s circumference on the one end, and all connecting at the wheel's center at the other end. All the spokes are integral to the strength of the wheel. It is just that the focus today happens to be on the “spoke” of the Neocons, because they are the ones who happen to be in power. It was not lightly that Ariel Sharon so gallantly boasted to Shimon Perez on Israeli radio “I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” (see fuller quote later)
And finally, not to be out done by the presence of Machiavellian thinkers, we also have the Machiavellian doer, a retired General, Jay Garner, appointed to run Iraq, a past weapons manufacturer executive and an open ideological ally of Israel and the Zionist dream of physically conquering Arab lands from the “Nile to the Euphrates”. Just imagine who is being appointed in the role of Douglas MacArthur! There should be little surprise to anyone that a Jordanian political cartoonist would capture the Arab fears for post war Iraq with his cartoon showing the statue of Sadaam waving to the people, being replaced by one of George Bush waving to the people! Their only expectation of hope, that perhaps this new one might be a bit more lenient with them. Some regime change!
Among all these aforementioned leaders of America, it appears to me that this pentet of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Bush Sr., might be the core group of “Second Foundationers” in this White House. But they are also too visible for that, except perhaps Bush Sr., who I only caught a glimpse of once in the news very symbolically in charge driving a golf cart himself, as his son the President, sat in the passenger seat mildly waving to the onlookers. Bush Sr. still resides in the White House, and though presumably “retired” from public life, he fits right in with the pentet as their godfather. He is by far the most seasoned, experienced, and politically astute of anyone in this Administration, and also has deep connections to intelligence having been the Director of CIA himself. All the major players in his son’s present cabinet once worked for him, and may still be reporting to him. And I am sure he lives in the White House only to reminisce about old times!
Are there also some not so visible – the invisible hand – “Second Foundationers”? The only reason we know about ZB is because he published, detailing his thinking openly. And also because his name shows up in interesting places, like as one of the founders of the Trilateral Commission. He is one of the most pragmatic and successful imperial strategists today. He also seems to be rather straight forward and blatant in his chauvinistic pronouncements and therefore does not strike me as a secretive behind the scenes covert operator. While he may sanction covert operations upon other nations such as the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan, he boasts too openly about it after their completion to be a covert “Second Foundationer”. And we also know the names of the hundred plus Neocons from the PNAC reports and their open letters encouraging American Presidents to wage war upon other nations to bring about a very “American Peace” in the “New American Century” (See Exhibit A). But they are all still too prominent to be the hidden “Second Foundationers”. And they contain some rather unusual names, like Dan Quayle who could not even spell potato let alone define strategy for world conquest, and billionaires like Steve Forbes, and administrators like Jeb Bush (the President's brother running Florida).
I suspect that the real covert thinkers and doers of the “Second Foundation” might prefer to remain shielded from the public eye, and that their powers likely extend into the deepest darkest recesses of the Pentagon, the NSA, the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency – the behind the scene parent of CIA) and NORAD (which means collusion with the top brass from among the Generals). The covert “Second Foundationers” must also remain constant across Administrations for continuity of doctrines and command of executions, constant like ZB, and enjoy true bipartisan support in America's version of Democracy, like ZB. They are also the ones most likely to possess the real truth behind the new “Pearl Harbor”. And consequently, both: the identities of the covert “Second Foundationers” – the root godheads of terror and conquest – and the modalities of their treasonous crime of 911, will remain obscure and a matter of conjecture unless a third party comes to the White House and really cleans house!
This self house cleaning in the inner sanctums of power is a highly improbable proposition however, for one can only get to the White House after one has choked one’s own conscience with one’s own hands and paid one’s dutiful homage to the king-makers. And this would surely apply to even courageous third parties. But a candidate who can outsmart the king-makers can always be born – watch out for Luke Skywalker!
Can George Bush Jr. be nobly converted over from the power of the dark side and be re-born as the Luke? May the “Force” be with him! From Asimov's “mule” to Lucas' “Skywalker” can be a very short step indeed!
How can monumental criminals ever be brought to justice for providing the intellectual motivation and Machiavellian orchestration of this lifetime of “World War IV” to build empire?
They are directly responsible for the ensuing barbarianism of a mighty peoples – for “all the evil .. follow[ed]” from their first cause co-optation of the “populist democracy” that was perceived to be “inimical to imperial mobilization” – and the death and misery of hundreds of thousands, actually millions, as they have bombed entire nations and thrown their entire societies into disarray and turmoil. They are quite the opposite of the fictional “Second Foundation” setup by Hari Seldon as the behind the scenes “good guys” who orchestrate global events to eliminate many lifetimes of wars and free people from the decaying remnants of an oppressive empire. Perhaps these Zionist Neocons are also sci-fi fans and actually draw their evil inspiration for global domination from the likes of Daarth Vaider and the power of the Dark Side of his Emperor!
Then watch out for Luke Skywalker and the power of the Force! While these may be popular literary icons from American science fiction and cinematic culture, they seem strangely apropos in expressing the imperial designs, mass deceptions, and barbaric demonstrations of military prowess upon innocent and defenseless civilians in this brazenly lopsided “Holy war and Unholy terror” unleashed by a mighty unchallenged superpower in its unquenchable thirst for “full spectrum dominance”!
It is more aptly the “war of imperialism”, as banal in its origin and in its bottom line, as all the club wielding Neanderthals of history for “hegemony is as old as mankind”. Past all the sophistication and suits, ideologies and fancy names, they are just petty thugs performing monumental crimes because they happen to occupy a particular position on the Grand Chessboard. Once in the docks, they will lose their 'patriotic hero' persona in a blink to look just as pathetic and banal as Eichmann did in Jerusalem facing his own victims and accusers.
When you look at their photographs in books like Bob Woodward's Bush at War, it is hard to tell from the grim serious looks on their faces how they can be up to anything insidious behind the scenes, the blasé and obvious profit making conflicts of interests notwithstanding? How is it possible to do these photo shoots in the middle of a crisis and have them come out looking like they are really working on solving the problem, and not the cause of the problem? I have stared at those photographs a lot. They have expressions of ice and steel on their faces. I am impressed and also scared because I cannot penetrate through their expressions in these pictures. Are these saints or demagogues? They look far from guilty in these pictures. Power of the photographic images? We already saw General Powell demonstrate this photographic power with glossy evidence of WMDs in the UN which can now only be found in his updated biography but not in Iraq!
Was Socrates right about democracy being stupid, and Plato about the masses easily fooled by imagery? And were the founding fathers of this country right in recognizing that condition and putting in safeguards against it in the US Constitution for the freedom of the press in order to keep the people informed lest they either become chained in Plato’s Cave or revert back to poisoning Socrates again?
The ordinary public only sees patriotic heroes in these pictures, and in their stories, as told by even respected journalists. This image making it would appear, is the biggest obstacle in the path of mainstream American public accepting them as anything other than what they appear to be on the silver and photographic screen!
Is it then little wonder that the outfit that designed the set for General Tommy Franks in Qatar to provide his television press briefings during the operation “Iraqi Freedom”, built to the tune of $250,000 according to Arundhati Roy, is also a Hollywood outfit that designs sets for Disney, MGM, and Good Morning America! When all news media ownership falls into the hands of the industrial military complex, you end up with the fox guarding the coup!
The discussion of how consent used to be manufactured in the past, and how news is manufactured today permeates all essays in this book, and by the time you are done reading it, you would have a good understanding of why mainstream Americans are now complete prisoners of the cave. Becoming aware of it is the first step in breaking loose from its shackles.
Conqueror's prerogatives: Destroying Iraq's Civilization
It is instructive to pause here for a moment, and digress briefly to reflect on the stated intentions of the US to publish new text books for the Iraqi schools. This is ominous, and could portend a real remaking of Iraq, away from its nationalistic Arab roots, away from its thousands of years of heritage, into a 'Mesopotamian Turkey', very much suited to the interests of Israel, who is already seeking to revive the dormant oil pipeline from Mosul to Haifa. As Winston Churchill once noted in the waning years of British colonialism, that one does not physically have to colonize a nation in the post colonial era, it can just as effectively be done and also be a lot cheaper in the long run, to install a client-state that serves your interests – and that has been the history of the post WWII era, especially in the Middle East. Why should it be any different now? The burning of the National Library and looting of National Museum in Baghdad, as witnessed by Robert Fisk, destroying the priceless heritage of the Muslims and the Iraqi nation including the destruction of some of the oldest copies of the Koran, and the theft and looting of some of the world’s most priceless art and archaeological heritage of the ancient Mesopotamia, as the American army stood by doing nothing, is not much different from the burning down of Baghdad by Halaku Khan that had turned the Tigress river black with the ink of the thousands of library books thrown into it as the Mongols didn't see much use for other's civilization. While the US troops only guard the oil ministries with tanks, the civil records and other infrastructure burns, to some eye witness accounts even actively goaded into destruction by the US soldiers as a few chaotic looters go on a rampage to torch their own infrastructure. All substantiating the above mentioned fears of remaking Iraq with a new history. 'Destroying Iraqi Civilization' would have been more apropos as the title for this adventure, but then would the American public have allowed it? Dangerously poised at the brink of civil war, it is another Lebanon in the making. More innocent Muslims to continue to die for oil and Israel. This war of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” is freedom for the Iraqis to be at the receiving end of American bombs and American-Zionist Corporate Hegemony!
When Tom Brokaw, the earnest news anchor at NBC candidly observed ~“one of the things we don't want to do is to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, because in a few days we will own that country”, he was perhaps being exuberant about the obvious empire building for America, perhaps not understanding the deeper con game of destroy and rebuild contracts to select American corporations like Bechtel, Chevron, Shell, and Halliburton, some of whose executives also sit on the advisory board of the Defense Policy Board as well as in the White House itself, nor the Neocon Zionist's plan to remake Iraq into the best mold of exploitation learned from recent history's best world colonizer, the Great Britannia.
It is used to be exact same designs and articulations when the British conquered Burma and India in the past centuries, for the white man's burden of bringing them freedom and civilization to the oppressed of the world, of recreating new civilizations for the natives in the image of the conqueror, and to save them from the plenitude of their own natural resources. It used to be freedom to obey the British! The Shell oil of today used to be Burma-Shell of yesterday. Many new histories can be written for the American empire by simple substitutions of a few choice names in histories past!*17
Is Iraq to be any different?
The Evangelical Christian Crusaders and their alliance with the Zionists
These are the burgeoning Bible thumping born-again ultra right-wing Evangelical Christian fanatics, who want to bomb Christianity onto the Muslims in a revived Crusade. Among their leaders is billionaire Dr. Pat Robertson, who continually broadcasts anti-Islamic hateful propaganda from his ubiquitous 700 Club and CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) television shows, and openly calls Islam a “very wicked and evil religion”. These Christians form the majority of “white conservative born-again Christian” electorate in many parts of the heartland of America. They are the ones who voted Republican to bring George Bush, and the likes of John Ashcroft to power from the crucial Bible belt of America. They can make or break an election for a candidate, for they are well organized and galvanized into action, and thus both Republicans and Democrats generally covet their favors. And these “Compassionate Conservatives” as they like to call themselves, have finally found an ally in this White House, in George Bush Jr., who is purported to subscribe to their fanatical beliefs.
Some of these beliefs are monumentally obnoxious, and lead to severe policy implications when held by the most powerful person on earth, who seeks his charter from some voice whispering into his inner ear, instead of from the American people whom he represents, and who aims to fulfill “god's” promise on earth rather than the one he made to the American people upon taking oath as the President of the United States of America.
Let's see what the beliefs of these doomsday seeking Bible literalists appear to be and how they effect America's foreign policy:
I.1: that the return of the Jews to Israel is a Biblical Prophesy come true and a sign of Rapture; thus in order to hasten the arrival of Jesus further, they must support Israel, even in its most oppressive and barbaric conquest of Palestine, and even if it entails bringing on Armageddon, as that would only hasten the arrival of their Messiah;
I.2: that they must bring the message of Christ to the “lesser” humanity who are otherwise doomed to perish, even at the expense of bombing it onto them in the name of bringing them democracy, for it's only the “lesser heathens” destined for hell anyway that are being done a favor, as against the possibility of converting the rest who escape the killing fields, to Jesus and saving them;
I.3: that the “higher heathens”, the Jews, will automatically be converted to Jesus when Christ comes; thus supporting the right-wing Israeli “heathens” and the Zionists now in their homicidal conquest of an innocent civilian population in Palestine, is also only doing all the living Jewish people a favor by hastening the arrival of the Messiah, so that all the living Jews can be saved;
I.4: the rest of humanity that is not “saved” will burn in Hell, and the “saved ones” i.e. born-again and the Jews, will get to watch the show from the best seats in the house!
The diabolical right-wing Zionist alliance with the right-wing Evangelical Christians makes a self serving marriage of convenience for both sides. The Zionist Jews, while privately scoffing at the delusional beliefs harbored by these fanatics and their benefactor George Bush, nevertheless find them a convenient source of indispensable American support in their own agenda for Eretz Israel. Thus various Prime Ministers of Israel have routinely visited the Bible belt states in America and met with the Evangelical Christian leadership; the Israeli lobby AIPAC in conjunction with the well organized Evangelists, either actively support or actively ensure failure of electoral candidates for most higher local and national offices in America based on the candidate's stated position on Israel; and we continually see Ariel Sharon beaming from ear to ear every time he meets and shakes hands with the President of the United States, George W. Bush, for he usually goes home with a basket of Palestinian gifts from the White House, and a license to acquire more.
Perhaps it is time that the Muslims around the world also called for the reformation of the “Bible” on the continued (mis)interpretation of which these fanatics wage death and pestilence on the rest of humanity. It would be a befitting response to the West's disingenuous calls to reform “Islam” as an antiquated religion that needs to be brought in sync with modern times, and especially its concept of Jihad, that the Muslims keep getting energized by to fight the West's continual attempts to colonize them over the past two centuries to this day. Pursuing such an outrageous path however would only engender further hatred among the already antagonized factions rather than foster amity and friendship, and hence I do not advocate it. In any case, it would be as unfair as the acts of those we condemn, and akin to burning books in a library that we don't agree with!
At the risk of harping on truism, but which sadly needs restating over and over again: If faith inspires and moves one to reclaim one's life and become a better more stellar human being, all power to one – regardless of what someone else might think of that faith. So if stone worshipers are moved by their statues, people of the Abrahamic faith moved by an unseen Creator, and the secular humanist and assorted modern day spiritualist atheists moved by the lack of perceiving one, more power to all of them. But when one's beliefs entail invading others and bombing innocent civilians to bits because one holds one's beliefs to be “superior”, a crusade or (neo) Zionism of any flavor, then freedom to hold personal opinions has transitioned to monumental crimes – regardless of how profound or deeply felt these beliefs might be for the perpetuators. Such tyrants must be opposed in no less a confrontation, than that allied to vanquish the Nazi Third Reich! While students across the vast class rooms of America study the Third Reich and energetically debate the lessons to be learned, they are sadly not taught to recognize it appearing at home as the public lines up to salute “United We Stand”.
It is rather disingenuous that the American mainstream press generally presents these criminals not as fanatic and monumentally criminal fundamentalists out to get the world, but as people of profound Christian faith who “deeply” believe in their mission – and what their mission might be is either left out, or in the rare circumstance that it is delved into, the depth of their feelings for their mission is somehow portrayed as a justification for holding such beliefs – 'la mission civilisatrice'. Not in so many words, but leaving that distinct impression – because no sympathy is shown at all for those on the receiving end of their 'divine mission' (sic!).
Is it perhaps because these fanatics wear corporate suits and are clean shaved, instead of the traditional view that fanatic fundamentalists only come in turbans and wavy beards wearing baggy pants and wailing their heads off or burning the American flag? Or is it perhaps because these “ubermensch” conservatives also populate the upper echelons of the American news media and agree with ZB's assertion that “More generally, cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation,...”.
You be the judge!
This is a serious team play
Suffice it to say, any objective assessment of the few dozen or so most influential people, both in the Cabinet and outside of it, their religious and other institutional corporate backers from the military-industrial-media complex of America, and their orchestration of events now unfolding in Iraq, and what transpired in Afghanistan, coupled with the personal motivating religious beliefs of the President, leaves one quite bewildered, and sick to the stomach. Many of them have been waiting in the wings so impatiently to come to unilateral power. They are so driven ideologically, that they will go to any lengths to grab power, if they cannot get it through popular democratic vote. As they have successfully demonstrated in the 2000 elections where the president was finally selected by the US supreme court conveniently stacked by his “one term” daddy, and not entirely elected by the people. According to Greg Palast's further investigations, other states are adopting the Florida Model for centralized voting lists and the potential for further vote manipulation in other states will assure this administration legal cover of legitimacy in future elections, just in case people decide they have had a bit too much of their empire building and crusading. If people don't wisen up now, this White House is here to stay. The legal cover obsession of this government is eerily reminiscent of the “legal cover” that Hitler insisted on after his failed Putsch the first time around, and he eventually did come to power through intrigues and shabby back door deals, but publicly having the “legal cover” and “legitimacy” necessary for foreign relations (i.e. empire building), even if it was of a somewhat dubious nature.*18
So we have here a perfect team of a few dozen or so Sunshine boys assembled for realizing this global imperial domination in the “New American Century” that ZB was kind enough to let us know about. Otherwise, such strategies usually lie buried in obscure think tank papers, classified war game strategies of the Rand Corporation and the Pentagon, or unknown Neocon foundation journals and papers not easily accessible to the lay public, certainly not quite so readily available at Barnes and Noble. Fortunately for us, some of this stuff is accessible on the web if you know where to look. Visit the PNAC web site for understanding what these Neocons have openly stated as their goals for the New American Century, read the Nuclear Posture Review and the National Security Council Strategy, and see if you would support such goals with your hard earned tax dollars and the lives of your own children. Even better, see if you would like to be in the shoes of those being bombed into Democracy, for that is the surest way to know something is not right when sophisticated Machiavellian propaganda envelops all sensory inputs 24/7.
Putting it all together – who runs this White House?
The Zionist Neocons dominate the agenda in the White House. And their agenda is basically only two fold: a) Zionism from the Nile to the Euphrates for Eretz Yisrael – a regathering of the Jews of the Diaspora in the Biblical lands of Palestine (and Babylon and the rest of the Middle East up to the edge of the Persian Gulf eventually) – drawing upon their cultural ethos and weight of three thousand years of history to inspire the Jews to come together in the only place that can possibly bind them together. And b) Neo Zionism, from continent to continent, shore to shore, and to the skies above and space beyond, for Eretz America – complete world domination by America as its national imperative to be a global empire, as the “Zion that will light up all the world.”
The former agenda is very serious and cannot be taken lightly as most of the global population of the Jews worldwide is likely in sympathy with it at the back of their minds, even though only a small percentage, less than 4 million actually live in Israel. The sentiment alone of an ethnic Jewish homeland, coupled with the holocaust and anti-Semitism of Europe, has created in the existence of Israel, an insurance policy of sorts, and the subscribers pay their annual premiums like anyone carrying any insurance. Among the new generation of its more fanatic adherents, it has now acquired a life of its own, like Frankenstien. The new generation of Jewish Fundamentalists are worse than the Talibans in their rabid fanaticism for the biblical lands, the only difference being that it is for Eretz-Yisrael as directly inspired by the tortuous rabbinical Talmudic teachings that insists Zionism is Judaism, rather than any misinterpretation and misapplication of Islamic teachings as in the case of the ill fated Talibans. A vast majority of these Jewish Talibans are sourced directly from New York into Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza as the gun totting Settlers and Rabbis, who periodically gather at the wailing wall with huge machine guns slung over their shoulders. They find natural sympathy in approximately 20% to 25% of the US population that lives in the Bible Belt, the Christian Zionists, and of course their President W. George Bush.
The latter agenda, Neo Zionism, is the sentiment of the secularists and largely Westernized atheistic Hectoring Hegemons who see any dominant civilization du-jour as their Zion, for power upon others is all they aspire for. Not unremarkably, they too are inspired by the tortuous rabbinical teachings that has become their cultural heritage of supermorality, enjoying a “holy” superiority as god’s chosen peoples beyond the pale of ordinary morality, even when god is dead for a majority of them leaving behind only a cultural residue that is passed on from generation to generation under the weight of three thousand years of history. Exploitation, and subjugation of the goyem is their religion, making temporary alliances with them as might suit them, but having only contempt for the hosts that carry them.
What unites the two into an American-Israeli Zionist institutional ruling elite is the nexus that they have no other religion but imperial power, one inspired by the Kingdom of David, the other by the Kingdom of superpower that is manifested today as corporate multinationalism with dizzying global profits, and direct influence and control of the planet as the great prize. It is neo-liberalism on the guns of neo-conservatism, all neos, and ultimately only “neo dash nothing”, as Irving Kristol, the father of neo-conservatism which today controls the world by virtue of having acquired direct control over the White House, described himself.*19
This Zionist ruling elite are masterminds in aligning all disparate interests, both nationally and internationally, towards their singular focus, which is what enables them to harness the energies of non Zionists as well in this fantasy of a New World Order – for hunger for absolute power is in the veins of all baboons and makes a perfect fly-trap! This is so well thought out that majority of the non-Jewish participants caught in the Iron Triangle, the revolving door of alumnus working in Government, the Pentagon, and the Corporations almost cyclically in America’s military-industrial complex, are frequently invited to Israel at Zionist expense and shown the wonderful democratic mini Europe in the heart of the barbaric dictatorial Middle East that is supposed to be instrumental in America’s hegemonist success in the world as outlined and pitched by JINSA to the White House since President Gerald Ford was in power. All these divergent interests meet at the loci of the Jewish think tanks from American Enterprise Institute to the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Hoover institute, ad infinetum. It is a legal cover to pitch private aspirations in the guise of public policy analysis and advice to meet the interests of the ruling elite, and behind that backdrop, is thrown in the inevitable shill for Zion.
Do your analysis, and see of all these think tanks and lobby groups, how many advocate immediate and unilateral support of Israel? Also examine their various other policy focus, and they will span the gamut from corporate interests from different segments of the economy, to the theory of capitalism, to social security reform, to the environment and global warming. And what is in common with all these disparate interests? Israel. Considerations for Israel dominate all American Foreign Policy theology that is spinned so deftly by its carpet beggars overtly representing their various special interests, and legally so in the guise of think tanks and lobby groups. There is unfortunately, no lobby group or think tank that represents the American people. The Congress is supposed to be doing that, but they take their advice from specialists coming from these very lobby groups and think tanks who represent the special interests. A perfect example is the AEI from which George W. Bush admitted borrowing twenty of their best minds and thanked them for their service to the nation. Reagan borrowed a few dozen from AEI. And this is just one think tank. There are dozens of others. So where is the American public in all this? Nicely ensconced in consumerism and the pursuit of their own passionate loves for the good life of America, with once every four year trek to the Mecca of the polling station to cast their vote to select between the carefully crafted and pre-determined choices that are laid before them.
It is the Zionists from these think tanks who have now entered the Administration as the so called “neoconservatives”, who are taking the rather simplistic and dole Evangelical Christian President and his chief law enforcement officer for an imperial ride by indulging them in their respective fantasies of Christian Zionism. It even culminated in the greatest war criminal of our times, Ariel Sharon, being awarded the nom de guerre “man of peace” by George W. Bush himself. Even more amazing, Bush awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Irving Kristol of the American Enterprise Institute in 2002, a person who argued for multiple levels of “truths” in politics, being the direct descendent of both Machiavelli and Leo Strauss in political theology where words behind the scenes mean the exact opposite of what they are projected to be in public, surely eliciting a chuckle among those in the inner circles as yet another triumph of their ideologies over the dolt goyems.
I believe that these brilliant Zionist Neocons actually needed a religious freakish gullible dolt like George W. Bush in the White House for them to launch their new “World War IV”. A more saner person harboring fewer self delusions might have asked too many questions and not quite obliged walking in the carefully crafted paths and options laid out before the President on a daily basis. Yes, I believe George Bush does choose, and indeed perhaps did choose to go to war. And I am certain that he exercises all his Presidential prerogatives of independent thinking and taking actions, for no one is holding a gun to his head and making him do things he does not want.
But like the rest of the American public, this American President is also obliged to choose between only the restricted options presented to him by the ruling elite who are the real power brokers – for he had openly stated:
“I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with foreign policy”;
“That depends upon my advisors and the people who know a heck of a lot more about the subject than I do”;
“That's dependent upon the military advisors that would be advising me”.
This dream team is well backed by a conservative dominated Capitol Hill (since at least 1994) with at best a silenced opposition. While the pusillanimous behavior of the Democrats that only one brave voice, that of Congress member Barbara Lee, could courageously stand up in dissent among 400 or so members in the Congress, can perhaps be explained away by the shock factor of 9/11, the strong endorsement of the now convalesced legislature in passing most legislation asked by the White House, such as the oppressive USA Patriot Act without much if any debate, or the $80 Billion appropriations for war, makes the synergy between them self evident. Even other supporters are cropping up. James Woolsey, the former director of CIA, in a speech at UCLA recently echoed similar sentiments as ZB's “to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer”, calling it World War IV, a lifetime of wars, regime changing one country after another to get them all aligned with US geostrategic interests. This team is further backed by a Judiciary dominated by the conservative right-wing ideologues that not only brought this team into power, but is effectively able to thwart any legal challenges to them that may come before them.
All three governing institutions of the US are now singularly aligned – or so it appears. It's like a baseball or soccer team, after several failed seasons, finally all coming together to dominate the world series.
In summary, all of the above foreign policy evidence, along with the examination of the backgrounds of the many members in this administration, and those neoconservative and Zionist foundations and think tanks influencing them (Heritage Foundation, AIPAC, JINSA, PNAC, and many others), unequivocally demonstrates that there is sufficient confluence of interests between ZB's stated imperatives of a truly global superpower, and the ambitions of Washington. It is also obvious that this strategic alliance to ZB's framework is institutional, not Republican, or Democrat, as evidenced by the strategists themselves, whose only aim appears to be best captured by sentiments expressed by Hitler's top rocket scientists who went to work for the United States after the end of WWII: ~“our job is to send it up, what does it matter where it comes down”! The only significant differences between the two political parties in America arise on certain very predictable domestic agendas. In foreign policies, it is only 'the will to execute' – depending on how despotic a Cabinet has been assembled, and how much synergy exists between them and the law makers on Capitol Hill, as in any team play.
It would have been a different story altogether, if contrary to George Kennan's advice, the US had spent the $9 Billion dollars that it just handed over to Israel in April 2003, for eliminating hunger and poverty from the world, and instead forced Israel to stop the occupation of the Palestinians by withholding all its aid; and not waged these genocidal imperial slaughters of innocent civilians across two civilizations, like a bully thrashing out to the world, in response to 9/11. If the American public cannot reason through this obviousness, what would an objective observer on mars conclude? Indeed, you be the wisest judge of that!
Israel and the role of the Jews in the world today has become central to American geopolitics, and to the very definition itself of the primacy and geostrategic imperatives of the United States of America. All its major thinkers, leading exponents, and immediate contributors are Jews. The harbingers of the New American Century are primarily Jews. And the majority of the signatories noted in Exhibit A who advocated attack on the Muslim country of Iraq are Jews. All the doctrinal scholars rebutted in Chapter 9 are Jews or their declared exponents, as is the author of the Grand Chessboard that my book uses to disambiguate the facade of “war on terrorism”, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who so easily and remorselessly, destroyed an entire Muslim civilization in Afghanistan by handing the USSR their “Vietnam war” on Muslim lands:
“Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. ... What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” (Full excerpt of ZB’s 1998 interview to “Le Nouvel Observateur” appears in Chapter 2.)
And the most potent weapon in the hands of the hectoring hegemons against developing nations where 3/4th to 4/5th of all humanity lives today, the World Bank, is run by the Jews, with their head now being the same person who spearheaded the destruction and attempted conquest of Iraq.*20
The aspirations of the Zionist Jews to piggyback on the dominant civilization of the time is made manifest by the scholarship of the neoconservative scholars themselves – a large number of whom are scholars at American Enterprise Institute (AEI), from where George Bush borrowed twenty of their best Zionist minds:
“Some of the finest minds of our nation are at work on some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed twenty such minds. I want to thank them for their service.”*21
AEI’s lifetime member and Senior Fellow, Irving Kristol, a Leo Strauss disciple, whose son William Kristol is the founder of Project New American Century (PNAC), summed it up elegantly as an imperative, a manifest destiny, a “national interest of a world power, as this is defined by a sense of national destiny”:
“patriotism springs from love of the nation’s past; nationalism arises out of hope for the nation’s future, distinctive greatness…. Neoconservatives believe… that the goals of American foreign policy must go well beyond a narrow, too literal definition of ‘national security’. It is the national interest of a world power, as this is defined by a sense of national destiny … not a myopic national security”*22
And Straussian Harry Jaffa entirely summed up the Jewish aspirations for America the best:
“Zion that will light up all the world.”*23
I can almost imagine a remaking of the hilarious Charlie Chaplin movie “The Great Dictator” in which the new hectoring hegemonists (all Charlie Chaplin look alikes) are lying on their backs on a row of desks, and each playing with a globe of the world with their feet in the air. It was his manifest destiny too to light up the world – for Berlin, up to the mid 1930s, was the heart of Europe in civilization, culture, scholarship, technology, the arts, the sciences, and Germany, the proud inheritors of the Austrio-Hungarian empire, had a self-evident manifest destiny to “light up all the world”. Within a single decade, it lay in ruins. It was Hitler who did for them. “If America fights Hitler, we will become Hitler”. His inheritors – and it is sadly ironic, but also empirical and in their own words – are they setting up goyem America for the same, as the ultimate in revenge for the weight of two thousand years of Christian generosity to god’s chosen peoples? Or is it a win-win deal in either case?
Jewish power is not just pervasive in the corridors of Governmental power at all levels – from theology spinners to its efficient executors, but is also ubiquitous in the very fabric of American society. It is now so pronounced in America today, that most people are even afraid to discuss anything related to the Jews, critical or benign, lest the demonizing label of “anti-Semitism” be inadvertently applied to them and potentially wreck their careers, as it used to do with the “communist” label during the McCarthy era. It is the dawn of the new McCarthyism in the New American Century.*24
An organization like the fascist “Campus Watch” has been formed by the most fanatical haters of Islam and the Muslims, Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz, to squelch all debate critical of Israel from occurring on American college campuses. It is the same persons who claim up to 10% to 15% of Muslims in America are “terrorists” and must be closely monitored. But since they don’t specify which 15% they don’t like, it implies monitor all 100% for who knows which 15% among them might be “terrorists”. Why is such simultaneous fascism transpiring now as America is fighting its lifetime of “war on terrorism”, the twin propagation of hatred of American Muslims, and the squelching of debate on Israel and anything Jewish under the mantra of “anti-Semitism”? Who is behind that “war on terrorism” and who does not want any public debate on their activities in America – their prime and exclusive source of global power today? Who would rather have debate focussed on some other mindless or fictional matters to create lots of red-herrings and keep any intelligent peoples thoughtful enough to ponder, gainfully employed pursuing such red-herrings?
Ariel Sharon, Israel’s Prime Minister and President Bush’s famous “man of peace”, summed up today’s reality of Jewish power in America the best:
“Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”*25
The fundamental question for the concerned American citizen to ask themselves, and their friends and neighbors, colleagues and peers, parents and children, teachers and students, is that is this what they want for America?
Do they want to live under the thumbscrews of a tiny perverse minority among the Jews – a peoples upon whom their Christian brethren have heaped venom and destruction for two thousand years culminating in the horrendous holocaust; in whose ethos is the ideology of lording over the goyems every moment they can get away with it; and in whose morality deception is a justifiable method to achieve any end as god’s chosen peoples beyond the pale of ordinary laws and moral values?
You ask yourselves this question as you read through the systematic unraveling of the deception of the “war on terrorism” in the subsequent 10 chapters and examine who is behind it all – who spilled the blood of your own sons and daughters in this quest for American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives? Please see Exhibit A for some of the names of the authors who had your children killed in Iraq in search of fictitious WMDs for which “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
Would you not have become a suicide bomber ten times over had your country been invaded on any pretext, let alone false ones, by an enormously and overwhelmingly superior military force? Your forefathers wouldn't even agree to pay taxes without representation, and laid their lives down for a principle so that you could be free. What is your responsibility for your progeny?
In the very words of my greatest intellectual antagonist today, Jewish Zionist Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton University, who might indeed be a closet Straussian, for that would rationally explain the level of his deliberate deceit in his Machiavellianly titled books like Crisis of Islam – Holy War Unholy Terror where he states:
“Terrorism requires only a few. Obviously the West must defend itself by whatever means will be effective. But in devising means to fight the terrorist, it would surely be useful to understand the forces that drive them”.
Forces that drive them – surely we are in the process of uncovering both, the real superterrorists, and the forces that drive them. Then you dear astute reader make up your own mind. Either you can kill me for bringing you the news as Plato has informed me that you may, or wake up and break your damn chains of ignorance as Prisoners of the Cave that Shakespeare has informed me that you shall, once the knowledge comes to you.
In my own mind, I often see myself shouting at the perpetuators of these monumental crimes inflicted upon humanity in the name of “war on terrorism”: 'You are despicable war criminals and I publicly call for your indictments for war crimes against humanity in an open public trial conducted by the victims, as the one held for Eichmann in Jerusalem.' But I cannot imagine what punishment on earth would atone for “Shock and Awe” bombing entire civilizations with depleted uranium bombs, murdering tens of thousands of innocent civilians including defenseless men, women, and children, and depriving many more of their kin, breadwinners, and loved ones. What does 10,000 years of rigorous imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay mean anyway – these guys are already in their 50s, 60s or 70s. Shouldn't punishments match the crimes? Isn't is as unfair to punish a black child who steals chocolates with the 'three-strikes and out for years in jail' law, as it is to ask perpetuators of monumental crimes to simply vacate their posts by the fancy names of “impeachment”? What do you think?
Monumental crimes must deserve monumental punishments. We know what monumental crimes look like. We have seen them rehearsed not just over the past couple of years, but continually over several millennia of human history. Thus most people, possessing even a modicum of humanity, and an iota of commonsense, must easily recognize monumental crimes. But what is a befitting monumental punishment that can be awarded for these crimes? There can be no adequate atonement and compensation made once monumental crimes have occurred, try as a nation may for generations. Impeachment and getting the criminals out of office is hardly sufficient (though rather necessary if only to hold up the pretense of an advanced civilizations' justice at work). This begets the axiomatic truth that monumental crimes must be prevented from occurring to start with. One cannot wait until the receipts for the ordering of such crimes are found, as the perpetuators seldom leave one behind, and generally maintain the alibis of “plausible deniability”. By the time people wake up to their deeds, the bomber bays have already dropped their payloads.
To stop these handful of misanthropes who command the vast armies of State to indulge in their various ideological fantasies, before they can commence their monumental offenses against humanity, is a responsibility jointly shared by all human kind. But a responsibility more closely shared by the people whose leaders engage in it, especially when they live in a democracy.
Of the 5+ billion people in the world, only about 10 million seemed to have realized it when they clogged the streets in many a world capital (<>focus group” by George Bush. That is all it takes to stop these monumental criminals of humanity, because “they need us more than we need them” as Arundhati Roy so eloquently puts it. The people don't need vast military war machines to counter other military war machines, as Gandhi's non-cooperative movement indeed demonstrated in India, as did the vast pouring onto the streets by the simple peasants – barefooted and sticks in hand, in Cochabamba Bolivia.
Michael Moore has already called the White House publicly and shouted “Time's Up!” into his cell phone, to a thunderous chorus of a thousand voices in the background chanting the same. If I had not lived in this country and had not witnessed the mental enslaving of its kind people, I would have further argued 'Time's Up' for its people as well, and condemned them to take off this garb of hypocrisy and openly admit to the world that they are being willingly led by plain old ordinary thugs no different than those lining many of the private jails run by the Wackenhut Corporation, except that these ones are wearing Wall Street suits and live between their lexuses and their olive trees. Indeed, from George Bush's stand point, what difference could it make if he lies or not? The rest of the world already knows the reality anyway, but can't do a thing about it. Why doesn't he come right out and openly inform his own people that he is the new Mongol emperor and crusading king of the world, and clean out his conscience of any lies – it is the lies that can get him into trouble in the first place, not his maiming and killing of mankind! That is what the histories of his past illustrious predecessors have taught him, especially Nixon's. Why doesn't he? In fact, it would also save his otherwise pure Christian soul from eternal damnation as he seeks to bring Jesus home, the hypocrite having been loudly condemned by the disciples of Jesus as they wrote down his teachings. I would presume that George Bush would love to openly proclaim himself emperor, a divinely appointed Crusading latter day Richard the Lionhearted on a mission from god – democracy aside. He has even publicly joked about being a dictator that bears repeating: “If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator”. Except that he is afraid of the good people of this country throwing him out if he openly proclaimed himself the new crusading King.
I dearly hope that some astute reader would demonstrate to me that I have got it all wrong; facts, rational thinking, and logical reasoning aside. Because I would much rather be wrong – for my perception of reality has stripped me of my sanity.
Perhaps this “war on terrorism” is indeed the truth as it is projected by Bush? The world outside is perhaps indeed as Bush says it is, the “evil-doers” are indeed out to get the Americans, the FBI really does have to come to my house to check me out, what with me being a Muslim and all, and these oppressive domestic surveillance measures are indeed necessary to “protect American lives”. That: “the Patriot Acts and the other law enforcement measures are like speed bumps in the parking lot, designed to slow down and catch speedsters, but only a minor nuisance to law abiding responsible drivers. So I should just live with it as we go clean out the world of all its assorted terrorists and evil-doers and make it a safer place for all! In fact, why even bother checking the other passengers at airports, they should straight away profile only Muslims who are easily identified by their names, because it's the Muslims doing all the terrorism in the world, not the Irish or the Swedes, so why hassle us white folks?”
I was told the aforementioned things by a mainstream conservative Republican American friend whom I had asked for candid feedback about the FBI's visit to my home. He also quite frankly told me that he did not see anything wrong with profiling the Muslims, and that President Bush is indeed doing a great job of getting the terrorists before they get us. While feeling sorry for the FBI having disquieted me, he said it was a necessary evil. They had only very politely asked me for information about myself, and left when I told them to go away. So what's the big deal?
Is this how mainstream America views the Muslims and their predicament? So perhaps it must be me, I am just prejudiced against America and do not see the Western values of bringing democracy to the world at the expense of bombing it onto them. I even ponder that my mentor Howard Zinn is also not living in the twilight zone when he suggests that imagine for a moment that you could end all the world's injustices and rid it of all terrorists for all future time by dropping one big bomb even if it kills a 100,000 children in collateral damage, wouldn't you do it? Remember this is peace for all eternity at this small price. Come on, wouldn't you do it? Okay now imagine that these were 100,000 American children. Would you still do it?
Whenever I think about this question, the very underlying premise that required asking such a question in the first place and its significance in American history at least since World War II, is very disturbing. This question could be asked of every single American foreign policy adventure – from Korea to Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq. The premise being: that the American public values its own lives over everyone else's, and the only reason they would be restrained in their actions is the cost to themselves. The cost to others is immaterial!
If the FBI were to start investigating all the majority white Americans, all the Bobs and the Sallys and the Goldsmiths, would they still feel that the FBI is just doing its job? If the US Air Force started bombing Florida with 2000 pound Depleted Uranium Daisy Cutters, would they still feel they are liberating the poor natives of Florida from the stolen 2000 election? The other disturbing conclusion is yielded if one negates the thesis of this book – that the Americans are unwilling, or at least unwitting, prisoners of the cave spun by the elite ruling them.
Because if they are not, then they are a deliberate participant in this barbaric and murderous exercise of imperial world hegemony. And it becomes an inescapable conclusion that the American public must be incredibly self-serving and hypocritical. For the sake of their own comfortable and wasteful living, they are willing to wage endless wars on the weaker nations with bombs and sanctions, trade treaties and ruthless dictators, all to control the raw materials that fuel their empire, while shamelessly denying that they are doing so and disingenuously looking the other way when their closest ally Israel does the same for Eretz Israel.
Would most mainstream Americans, except those of the Zionist-imperialist-crusading ilk, have a problem with this inescapable conclusion? I think they would. But then, I haven't met all of them.
In the meantime, back on earth in the insanity of the times when fools live long and the wise and innocent die young, with the preceding analysis and exposé of the factual US Foreign Policy theology as background, and the identification of their greatest exponents with an expanded list in Exhibit A, this global “war on terrorism” mercifully begins to shed some of its facade and brings us back out of the twilight zone.
Footnotes Chapter 1
Original citation: Memo by George Kennan, Head of the US State Department Policy Planning Staff. Written February 28, 1948, Declassified June 17, 1974. George Kennan, Review of Current Trends, U.S. Foreign Policy, Policy Planning Staff, PPS No. 23. Top Secret. Included in the U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, volume 1, part 2 (Washington DC Government Printing Office, 1976), 524-525. Can be read in its gory details at: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Memo_PPS23_by_George_Kennan.
*2 See The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence by Francis A. Boyle.
*3 See Greg Palast's Best Democracy Money Can Buy (11 – 81) for the solution if you can't solve it.
*4 See Exhibit A for a detailed list of contributors and reference URLs on the web, and examine the cited documents for the amazing frankness of strategic goals – as George W. Bush Jr. parrots “war on terrorism” on cue from his trainers.
*5 Key term in Joint Vision 2020. It’s a strategy document approved by General Henry H. Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director for Strategic Plans and Policy, J5; Strategy Division. It was Published by: US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, June 2000, and for a time was available publicly from the website http:www.dtic.mil/jv2020. Also see the summary of it by Jim Garamone from the American Forces Press Service in: Joint Vision 2020 Emphasizes Full-spectrum Dominance
Here is an excerpt from the beginning of its Chapter 3 titled Full Spectrum Dominance. Please pay special attention to the underlined portion, emphasis is mine, and ask yourself – which morality, or god, gave America the right to have “global nature of our interests and obligations”? If you answered “might is right”, welcome to the civilization of baboons and barbarians, and await the arrival of bigger baboons with bigger clubs that might just hand you “eye for an eye” and an Armageddon to boot.
The ultimate goal of our military force is to accomplish the objectives directed by the National Command Authorities. For the joint force of the future, this goal will be achieved through full spectrum dominance – the ability of US forces, operating unilaterally or in combination with multinational and interagency partners, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the full range of military operations.
The full range of operations includes maintaining a posture of strategic deterrence. It includes theater engagement and presence activities. It includes conflict involving employment of strategic forces and weapons of mass destruction, major theater wars, regional conflicts, and smaller-scale contingencies. It also includes those ambiguous situations residing between peace and war, such as peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations, as well as noncombat humanitarian relief operations and support to domestic authorities.
The label full spectrum dominance implies that US forces are able to conduct prompt, sustained, and synchronized operations with combinations of forces tailored to specific situations and with access to and freedom to operate in all domains – space, sea, land, air, and information. Additionally, given the global nature of our interests and obligations, the United States must maintain its overseas presence forces and the ability to rapidly project power worldwide in order to achieve full spectrum dominance. [...]
*6 The dates are in the documents themselves, I don’t know when exactly were they put on the web and made accessible to the general public. I only learnt of PNAC and JV2020 after 911.
*7 See Calling the Shots – How Washington Dominates Today's UN by Phyllis Bennis, for a better understanding of how the US enforces its own will on the members, and uses the UN as its own foreign policy tool when necessary, and ignores it when necessary.
*8 See The New Yorker, Jan 13, 2003.
*9 See Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.
*10 See The Bush Dyslexicon by Mark Crispin Miller for these and other interesting and funny statements of George W. Bush Jr. In any other profession, he could never be hired based on the intelligence level betrayed in these comments, and this makes him eminently qualified to be the leader of the free world as the front man for the incredibly brilliant Zionist imperial thinkers behind him.
*11 See Isaac Asimov's Foundation and Empire for the character of the “mule”.
*12 See Bush's Brain by Moore and Slater. Also, The Bush Dyslexicon by Mark Crispin Miller.
*13 See Asimov's Foundation and Empire. Magnifico is the behind the scenes mule who controlled the world through emotional mind control of its inhabitants, but played the fool and made everyone laugh at him. The mule was finally destroyed by the sole remaining innocence of one girl whom the mule left untouched because her natural reaction to him had been one of sympathy and friendship, and not of recoil at his overt disfigurement, or laughter at his antics. One of Bush's biographers almost makes the case that Bush purposely allows his opponents to underestimate him, purposely plays the fool. Otherwise how else would he have got into Harvard and become the MBA President of America, especially when Junior did not even inform Papa that he was applying to Harvard. See Team Bush by Donald Kettl. Amazing marketing!
*14 Excerpted from Eisenhower – Soldier and President, (536 – 537) by S. Ambrose.
*15 See Hannah Arendt's insightful report on the “Banality of Evil” – that the all powerful Adolph Eichmann, who during the reign of terror of the Third Reich exercised monumental control over the lives and deaths of millions in Nazi concentration camps, appeared like an ordinary, quite unremarkable, common criminal seated in the docks lamely commenting that he was just “following orders”. Whose orders is Rumsfeld following? Dick Cheney's? The two together are the ones who devilishly orchestrated the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan with Paul Wolfowitz as the mastermind, and if not stopped, Iran and Syria next. I can bet however that all will claim they were following orders from the President, who indeed obliged them by issuing the orders they deftly maneuvered him into issuing by preying on his base fanatical zeal for a Christian Crusade to hasten the return of the Jews to all of Eretz Yisrael and the consequent return of his Messiah upon fulfillment of some “biblical prophesy”. A double pincer Machiavelli.
*16 See the article on Strauss “Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq”, at http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-95-1542.jsp or http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm
Some relevant excerpts from this highly recommended article as background reading are included below to enable the reader to understand the deeper philosophical underpinnings that motivates the creation of lies and deception as an acceptable means to pursue any goals and agendas based on a super-morality of Nietszche's superman. Whether these ends be the creation of Israel in Palestine, creation of Eretz Yisrael in the rest of the Middle East, or to secure an “American peace” in the New American Century based on the monumental deception of 911 and WMDs, all are related by the singular fact of their exponents being Jews with the shared interest of Zion – be it in Palestine or America. And it transcends generations, be it Theodor Herzl spinning his Machiavellian deception at the close of the nineteenth century, or Paul Wolfowitz and his gang of masterminds spinning the WMD and 911 deception at the dawn of the twenty-first century.
One must go further down the unraveling path by peeling down to the next onion layer beyond Strauss to understand how is it that the Jews keep coming up with such tortuous philosophies. I don’t see any other peoples with other mighty world heritages, generation after generation, come up with doctrines which at best, can be defined as brilliantly inhuman, and at worst, monumentally criminal. It may just be, that Jews have been given the gift of brilliance. They entirely dominate the sciences today, and in Physics they are king, as in Economics. They are also brilliant financiers and most banks and large endowments are under their purview. Some of Germany’s best scientists were Jews and it was Hitler’s loss that he hadn’t the imagination to keep them. Historically as well, they have always been physicians and prominent citizens among the ruling elite in most civilizations where they have lived in their Diaspora, including among the hospitable Muslims, as well as in the inimical Christian Europe. Ironically, even when the fanatics were chasing them out of town, they might call upon the services of the Jew. And just the statistical averages may lead to a minority of brilliantly tortuous scholars to also be born among them. On the other hand, the rabbinical teachings in the Talmud is also a great place to search for further comprehension and unravel.
If there is any reasonable definition of genuine terrorism, it must indeed begin right here in the Hebrew editions of the Talmud, where a supermorality based on exploiting and subjugating others is defined for a god’s chosen peoples, who are themselves perceived as beyond ordinary standards of morality. I am not sure where Nietzsche got his idea of the superman, but Talmud is a logical place. And now, everyone quotes Nietzsche when they mention this concept of supermorality, and no one mentions the Hebrew Talmud. And neither is it mentioned in this article that is excerpted below in the context of Leo Strauss, but Nietzsche is certainly mentioned. It is important to make the distinction between the Hebrew and the English versions of the Talmud, because the latter is deliberately sanitized – lest the goyems become aware of it. See Professor Israel Shahak’s Jewish history, Jewish Religion available for free on the internet, to catch a glimpse of this sanitization, and what comprises the actual cultural religion of the Jews under the leadership of their own mullahs (i.e., Rabbis who for three Millennia have followed their own whim rather than try to understand the spirit of the teachings of their Noble Prophet, and who distort and twist and create complex legalisms and rituals to synthesize their own powers over their flock, and the latter like all flocks, have only suffered and obeyed throughout the Jewish Diaspora). Also see Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 for quotes from the pen of the Jews themselves that illustrate how this notion of supermorality has been actually put into practice in Israel in the service of Zionism, that it isn’t just harmless ancient theory in ancient books. This supermorality arrived at the American shores as the new Zion, just as it arrived in Palestine as Der Judenstaat, by way of deception – for which peoples among all the 5 or 6 billion peoples on the planet earth today, have that motto: wage war by way of deception? The Zionists.
My own humble and limited comprehension of Jewish history and Jewish peoples leads me to conclude that it must only be a handful of people who gravitate towards such tortuous philosophies in almost every generation of the Jews among the ruling elite, perhaps based on their exposure to these rabbinical teachings in their formative years or through cultural osmosis if they don’t speak Hebrew (like Theodor Herzl supposedly didn’t as claimed by his biographers). And I imagine that these teachings must be nothing but an embarrassment for the vast majority of the modern ordinary Jewish peoples who might be familiar with them. A significant majority likely aren’t, but that is only a hypothesis since my sampling is limited. None of my Jewish friends for example, have even heard of such things and nor do they care for world conquest or enslaving and exploiting others. My many Jewish bosses in the Corporate world over the years have always been more than generous and fair to me. My once Jewish roommate, a Ph.D. In Electrical Engineering from MIT, and brilliant in every respect, did not even have a clue about Israel, and what this entire hullabaloo with the Palestinians was all about – and neither did he have any time or interest to want to understand it as he was too engaged designing servo-controllers chasing his own passionate American Dreams like the rest of us. It is indeed a marvel of Creation, that among the same peoples, alongside the perverse hectoring hegemons, and the apathetic public, is also born straightforward and conscionable moralists like young Rachel Corrie and other courageous ISM members, who shy not, to offer the greatest gift they possess, their very lives in the prime of their youths, to save the genuine teachings that Prophet Moses brought them, from all its hijackers.
To me, Rachel Corrie, in her bid to bear witness to the crimes of her own peoples in Palestine, salvaged for a time, any claims of the Jewish peoples to the inheritance of Moses (peace be upon him). But even more than that, to me as a Muslim, she showed as a Jew, what it means to be a Muslim. And even beyond that, as a human being, she showed the world what it means to fight the “banality of evil” with body and soul to prevent the holocaust of another innocent people. She was obviously not a Straussian, nor a hectoring hegemon. I cry every time I think about her, her youth, and her sacrifice – when all she had to do was enjoy life in the best period of here life, at 23 years of age, like every other ordinary American. But conscience – the same conscience that got the better of Lady Macbeth – also got the better of her, for both of them, like all the rest of us muted spectators and silent bystanders, had blood soaked hands. It is precisely that awakened conscience, the unheeding of which becomes humanly impossible, and the call of which becomes a moral imperative, that is my most potent weapon against the Hectoring Hegemons. If merely 10% of the American population has it, there will be Justice and Peace on Earth, and Guantanamo Bay will be oversubscribed with baboons playing with themselves. See Chapter 4 for how the Straussian philosophy led American Government and their exponents in the mainstream news media covered her death amidst the roaring silence of the majority of the American Jews themselves to create more prisoners of the cave.
As Bernard Lewis put it, “Terrorism requires only a few.” And it can end up maligning an entire peoples in the hands that have an axe to grind. The end of America through implosion, due to indigestion of the barbarian and perverse thinking created by Zionist scholars like Strauss and his disciples who acquire political power, is more likely to spell her demise than any external enemies. It isn’t limited to neoconservatism however, for Zionism has many and ever changing faces. No wonder the Chinese are just so relaxed, they don’t need to spend 400 billion dollars a year to beat America – ‘for America is the “Zion that will light up all the world.”’ as it goes up in flames.
Yes superterrorism requires even fewer. “Obviously the West [and the world] must defend itself by whatever means will be effective. But in devising means to fight the [super] terrorist, it would surely be useful to understand the forces that drive them.”
Wake up you ordinary comatose peoples of America – Muslims aren’t your enemies, Islam isn’t your enemy. If we (Muslims) have terrorists among us, you have superterrorists among you. While ours hide in caves perhaps, yours hide in plain sight under the legal protection of freedom of academia, freedom of speech, and freedom of forming think tanks and lobby groups with corporate funding to control American Foreign Policy. If we need new laws to rein in our terrorists, you need new superlaws to rein in your superterrorists. And as commonsense and Saint Augustine might dictate, the more significant and the root cause must be taken down first, with a war on superterrorism. You can still throw these supermisanthropes and their supertortuous philosophies in Guantanamo Bay and give them a steady supply of ordinary real baboons to practice their craft with. I have a feeling that a real baboon will actually come out on top of these super ones. May the curse of God be on these super Neanderthals – they have no humanity of their own, and want to strip others of theirs as well. Together we can beat ‘em for they are cowards and fight with other people’s blood. Just wake the damn up first because your slumber in the pursuit of American dream is their prime enabler.
With the aforementioned as the contextual backdrop to “understand the forces that drive” the superterrorists, here is the relevant excerpt from “Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq”:
Paul Wolfowitz, the influential United States deputy secretary of defense, has acknowledged that the evidence used to justify the war was “murky” and now says that weapons of mass destruction weren’t the crucial issue anyway (see the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq (2003.)
By contrast, Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, argues that the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flow directly from the doctrines of the political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973). His disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration.
She argues that the central claims of Straussian thought wield a crucial influence on men of power in the contemporary United States. She elaborates her argument in this interview.
A natural order of inequality
Danny Postel: You’ve argued that there is an important connection between the teachings of Leo Strauss and the Bush administration’s selling of the Iraq war. What is that connection?
Shadia Drury: Leo Strauss was a great believer in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics. Public support for the Iraq war rested on lies about Iraq posing an imminent threat to the United States – the business about weapons of mass destruction and a fictitious alliance between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime. Now that the lies have been exposed, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the war party are denying that these were the real reasons for the war.
So what were the real reasons? Reorganising the balance of power in the Middle East in favour of Israel? Expanding American hegemony in the Arab world? Possibly. But these reasons would not have been sufficient in themselves to mobilise American support for the war. And the Straussian cabal in the administration realised that.
Danny Postel: The neo-conservative vision is commonly taken to be about spreading democracy and liberal values globally. And when Strauss is mentioned in the press, he is typically described as a great defender of liberal democracy against totalitarian tyranny. You’ve written, however, that Strauss had a “profound antipathy to both liberalism and democracy.”
Shadia Drury: The idea that Strauss was a great defender of liberal democracy is laughable. I suppose that Strauss’s disciples consider it a noble lie. Yet many in the media have been gullible enough to believe it.
How could an admirer of Plato and Nietzsche be a liberal democrat? The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be like throwing pearls before swine. In contrast to modern political thinkers, the ancients denied that there is any natural right to liberty. Human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition, they held, is not one of freedom, but of subordination – and in Strauss’s estimation they were right in thinking so.
Praising the wisdom of the ancients and condemning the folly of the moderns was the whole point of Strauss’s most famous book, Natural Right and History. The cover of the book sports the American Declaration of Independence. But the book is a celebration of nature – not the natural rights of man (as the appearance of the book would lead one to believe) but the natural order of domination and subordination.
The necessity of lies
Danny Postel: What is the relevance of Strauss’s interpretation of Plato’s notion of the noble lie?
Shadia Drury: Strauss rarely spoke in his own name. He wrote as a commentator on the classical texts of political theory. But he was an extremely opinionated and dualistic commentator. The fundamental distinction that pervades and informs all of his work is that between the ancients and the moderns. Strauss divided the history of political thought into two camps: the ancients (like Plato) are wise and wily, whereas the moderns (like Locke and other liberals) are vulgar and foolish. Now, it seems to me eminently fair and reasonable to attribute to Strauss the ideas he attributes to his beloved ancients.
In Plato’s dialogues, everyone assumes that Socrates is Plato’s mouthpiece. But Strauss argues in his book The City and Man (pp. 74-5, 77, 83-4, 97, 100, 111) that Thrasymachus is Plato’s real mouthpiece (on this point, see also M.F. Burnyeat, “Sphinx without a Secret”, New York Review of Books, 30 May 1985 [paid-for only]). So, we must surmise that Strauss shares the insights of the wise Plato (alias Thrasymachus) that justice is merely the interest of the stronger; that those in power make the rules in their own interests and call it justice.
Leo Strauss repeatedly defends the political realism of Thrasymachus and Machiavelli (see, for example, his Natural Right and History, p. 106). This view of the world is clearly manifest in the foreign policy of the current administration in the United States.
A second fundamental belief of Strauss’s ancients has to do with their insistence on the need for secrecy and the necessity of lies. In his book Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons – to spare the people’s feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals.
The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. In On Tyranny, Strauss refers to this natural right as the “tyrannical teaching” of his beloved ancients. It is tyrannical in the classic sense of rule above rule or in the absence of law (p. 70).
Now, the ancients were determined to keep this tyrannical teaching secret because the people are not likely to tolerate the fact that they are intended for subordination; indeed, they may very well turn their resentment against the superior few. Lies are thus necessary to protect the superior few from the persecution of the vulgar many.
The effect of Strauss’s teaching is to convince his acolytes that they are the natural ruling elite and the persecuted few. And it does not take much intelligence for them to surmise that they are in a situation of great danger, especially in a world devoted to the modern ideas of equal rights and freedoms. Now more than ever, the wise few must proceed cautiously and with circumspection. So, they come to the conclusion that they have a moral justification to lie in order to avoid persecution. Strauss goes so far as to say that dissembling and deception – in effect, a culture of lies – is the peculiar justice of the wise.
Strauss justifies his position by an appeal to Plato’s concept of the noble lie. But in truth, Strauss has a very impoverished conception of Plato’s noble lie. Plato thought that the noble lie is a story whose details are fictitious; but at the heart of it is a profound truth.
In the myth of metals, for example, some people have golden souls – meaning that they are more capable of resisting the temptations of power. And these morally trustworthy types are the ones who are most fit to rule. The details are fictitious, but the moral of the story is that not all human beings are morally equal.
In contrast to this reading of Plato, Strauss thinks that the superiority of the ruling philosophers is an intellectual superiority and not a moral one (Natural Right and History, p. 151). For many commentators who (like Karl Popper) have read Plato as a totalitarian, the logical consequence is to doubt that philosophers can be trusted with political power. Those who read him this way invariably reject him. Strauss is the only interpreter who gives a sinister reading to Plato, and then celebrates him.
The dialectic of fear and tyranny
Danny Postel: In the Straussian scheme of things, there are the wise few and the vulgar many. But there is also a third group – the gentlemen. Would you explain how they figure?
Shadia Drury: There are indeed three types of men: the wise, the gentlemen, and the vulgar. The wise are the lovers of the harsh, unadulterated truth. They are capable of looking into the abyss without fear and trembling. They recognise neither God nor moral imperatives. They are devoted above all else to their own pursuit of the “higher” pleasures, which amount to consorting with their “puppies” or young initiates.
The second type, the gentlemen, are lovers of honour and glory. They are the most ingratiating towards the conventions of their society – that is, the illusions of the cave. They are true believers in God, honour, and moral imperatives. They are ready and willing to embark on acts of great courage and self-sacrifice at a moment’s notice.
The third type, the vulgar many, are lovers of wealth and pleasure. They are selfish, slothful, and indolent. They can be inspired to rise above their brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe.
Like Plato, Strauss believed that the supreme political ideal is the rule of the wise. But the rule of the wise is unattainable in the real world. Now, according to the conventional wisdom, Plato realised this, and settled for the rule of law. But Strauss did not endorse this solution entirely. Nor did he think that it was Plato’s real solution – Strauss pointed to the “nocturnal council” in Plato’s Laws to illustrate his point.
The real Platonic solution as understood by Strauss is the covert rule of the wise (see Strauss’s – The Argument and the Action of Plato’s Laws). This covert rule is facilitated by the overwhelming stupidity of the gentlemen. The more gullible and unperceptive they are, the easier it is for the wise to control and manipulate them. Supposedly, Xenophon makes that clear to us.
For Strauss, the rule of the wise is not about classic conservative values like order, stability, justice, or respect for authority. The rule of the wise is intended as an antidote to modernity. Modernity is the age in which the vulgar many have triumphed. It is the age in which they have come closest to having exactly what their hearts desire – wealth, pleasure, and endless entertainment. But in getting just what they desire, they have unwittingly been reduced to beasts.
Nowhere is this state of affairs more advanced than in America. And the global reach of American culture threatens to trivialise life and turn it into entertainment. This was as terrifying a spectre for Strauss as it was for Alexandre Kojève and Carl Schmitt.
This is made clear in Strauss’s exchange with Kojève (reprinted in Strauss’s On Tyranny), and in his commentary on Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political (reprinted in Heinrich Meier, Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue). Kojève lamented the animalisation of man and Schmitt worried about the trivialisation of life. All three of them were convinced that liberal economics would turn life into entertainment and destroy politics; all three understood politics as a conflict between mutually hostile groups willing to fight each other to the death. In short, they all thought that man’s humanity depended on his willingness to rush naked into battle and headlong to his death. Only perpetual war can overturn the modern project, with its emphasis on self-preservation and “creature comforts.” Life can be politicised once more, and man’s humanity can be restored.
This terrifying vision fits perfectly well with the desire for honour and glory that the neo-conservative gentlemen covet. It also fits very well with the religious sensibilities of gentlemen. The combination of religion and nationalism is the elixir that Strauss advocates as the way to turn natural, relaxed, hedonistic men into devout nationalists willing to fight and die for their God and country.
I never imagined when I wrote my first book on Strauss that the unscrupulous elite that he elevates would ever come so close to political power, nor that the ominous tyranny of the wise would ever come so close to being realised in the political life of a great nation like the United States. But fear is the greatest ally of tyranny.
The intoxication of perpetual war
Danny Postel: You characterise the outlook of the Bush administration as a kind of realism, in the spirit of Thrasymachus and Machiavelli. But isn’t the real divide within the administration (and on the American right more generally) more complex: between foreign policy realists, who are pragmatists, and neo-conservatives, who see themselves as idealists – even moralists – on a mission to topple tyrants, and therefore in a struggle against realism?
Shadia Drury: I think that the neo-conservatives are for the most part genuine in wanting to spread the American commercial model of liberal democracy around the globe. They are convinced that it is the best thing, not just for America, but for the world. Naturally, there is a tension between these “idealists” and the more hard-headed realists within the administration.
I contend that the tensions and conflicts within the current administration reflect the differences between the surface teaching, which is appropriate for gentlemen, and the ‘nocturnal’ or covert teaching, which the philosophers alone are privy to. It is very unlikely for an ideology inspired by a secret teaching to be entirely coherent.
The issue of nationalism is an example of this. The philosophers, wanting to secure the nation against its external enemies as well as its internal decadence, sloth, pleasure, and consumption, encourage a strong patriotic fervour among the honour-loving gentlemen who wield the reins of power. That strong nationalistic spirit consists in the belief that their nation and its values are the best in the world, and that all other cultures and their values are inferior in comparison.
Irving Kristol, the father of neo-conservatism and a Strauss disciple, denounced nationalism in a 1973 essay; but in another essay written in 1983, he declared that the foreign policy of neo-conservatism must reflect its nationalist proclivities. A decade on, in a 1993 essay, he claimed that “religion, nationalism, and economic growth are the pillars of neoconservatism.” (See “The Coming ‘Conservative Century’”, in Neoconservatism: the autobiography of an idea, p. 365.)
In Reflections of a Neoconservative (p. xiii), Kristol wrote that:
“patriotism springs from love of the nation’s past; nationalism arises out of hope for the nation’s future, distinctive greatness…. Neoconservatives believe… that the goals of American foreign policy must go well beyond a narrow, too literal definition of ‘national security’. It is the national interest of a world power, as this is defined by a sense of national destiny … not a myopic national security”.
The same sentiment was echoed by the doyen of contemporary Straussianism, Harry Jaffa, when he said that America is the “Zion that will light up all the world.”
It is easy to see how this sort of thinking can get out of hand, and why hard-headed realists tend to find it naïve if not dangerous.
But Strauss’s worries about America’s global aspirations are entirely different. Like Heidegger, Schmitt, and Kojève, Strauss would be more concerned that America would succeed in this enterprise than that it would fail. In that case, the “last man” would extinguish all hope for humanity (Nietzsche); the “night of the world” would be at hand (Heidegger); the animalisation of man would be complete (Kojève); and the trivialisation of life would be accomplished (Schmitt). That is what the success of America’s global aspirations meant to them.
Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man is a popularisation of this viewpoint. It sees the coming catastrophe of American global power as inevitable, and seeks to make the best of a bad situation. It is far from a celebration of American dominance.
On this perverse view of the world, if America fails to achieve her “national destiny”, and is mired in perpetual war, then all is well. Man’s humanity, defined in terms of struggle to the death, is rescued from extinction. But men like Heidegger, Schmitt, Kojève, and Strauss expect the worst. They expect that the universal spread of the spirit of commerce would soften manners and emasculate man. To my mind, this fascistic glorification of death and violence springs from a profound inability to celebrate life, joy, and the sheer thrill of existence.
To be clear, Strauss was not as hostile to democracy as he was to liberalism. This is because he recognises that the vulgar masses have numbers on their side, and the sheer power of numbers cannot be completely ignored. Whatever can be done to bring the masses along is legitimate. If you can use democracy to turn the masses against their own liberty, this is a great triumph. It is the sort of tactic that neo-conservatives use consistently, and in some cases very successfully. [...]
*16A Time Magazine, Selling the Carter Doctrine, February. 18, 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski creating “jihadis” at the Pak-Afghan border. See the PBS video clip “God is on your side” – does that look like a young Khalilzad sporting the Afghan hat (topi) next to the young Brzezinski on the Pak-Afghan border urging the Mujahideen to fight the infidels? Video at: http://www.takeoverworld.info/vid/god_is_on_your_side.ram. Alternate: http://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/god_is_on_your_side.wmv
News voice over 1980: “US National Security Advisor Brzezinski flew to Pakistan to set about rallying resistance. He wanted to arm the Mujahideen without revealing America's role. On the Afghan border near the Khayber Pass, he urged the Soldiers of God to redouble their efforts”
Brzezinski 1980 speaking to the Mujahideens at the Pak-Afghan border: “We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over there, is yours, you'll go back to it one day, because your fight will prevail, and you'll have your homes and your mosques back again; because your cause is right; God is on your side.” [enthusiastic clapping by the Mujahideens]
Brzezinski 1990s in the studio speaking to the PBS interviewer: “... [garbled] coordinated with the Pakistanis will be to make the Soviets bleed, for as much, as long, as possible.”
*17 See the interesting novel by Amitav Ghosh The Glass Palace for a glimpse in a readable fictional form, the ravages of imperial designs on the lives of natives in colonies past.
*18 See The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer for details.
*19 Full quote: “Ever since I can remember, I’ve been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I’m going to end up a neo- that’s all, neo dash nothing.” See Arguing the World -- The New York Intellectuals at http://www.pbs.org/arguing/nyintellectuals_krystol.html.
Also see About AEI history at www.aei.org, where the following precious gem is found under the heading “AEI's Diamond Jubilee, 1943-2003”. Note the last sentence, emphasis is mine. No mention is made of the enormous cost of the Muslim blood spilled in Afghanistan and the destruction of Afghani society from a civilized cultured peoples to barbarians that led to the creation of the Talibans. The credit goes to AEI – they claim it themselves. They are as laudatory of themselves as Zbigniew Brzezinski was of himself in his 1998 interview quoted in this chapter – for using other peoples' blood is their conviction: “The 1980s were great years for AEI's ideas but troubled years for the institution itself. President Ronald Reagan appointed several dozen AEI scholars and fellows to his administration and to federal judgeships, where they helped him to achieve monumental improvements in economic, regulatory, and legal policy and to deploy the more assertive foreign policy that dispatched Soviet Communism by decade's end.”
The Americans populace better start getting their heads out of hedonism and start using it for what the good Lord gave it to them for, as America is the “Zion that will light up all the world.” Also see the excerpt of interview with Straussian scholar Shadia Drury in a preceding footnote. The relevant question to ask for the American public of themselves, is with whose blood, now that their own sons and daughters are directly involved in the quest for conquest. It is already obvious that cost to others is immaterial. The question now is, what will be the cost to the American peoples themselves?
*20 [Added 2005] See Joel Leyden’s snippet from the Jerusalem Post article in: “American Jewish Congress Lauds Wolfowitz Appointment to World Bank” excerpted below on how Paul Wolfowitz is being lauded in Israel and is their man of the year. It is a masterpiece of disinformation. See John Perkins’ “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” about the role of the World Bank in Machiavellianly managing and harvesting the resources of the developing nations for “empire” by keeping them poor and perpetually in debt, and put the comment by the American Jewish Congress congratulating Wolfowitz in context: “the World Bank will build on its proud traditions in the fight against worldwide poverty and for sustainable development”.
Note the outstanding example of Machiavelli's teachings in the statement: “the principal problem in the Middle East is not the unsettled status of our borders.” Imagine if Mexico made that statement while it was trying to gobble up California and redrawing the borders every week with each new settlement in San Diego to San Francisco based on a charter posted in every Mission in Mexico: “From sea to the shining sea”!
Observe how the “anti-Semitism” slogan: “In this year when anti-Semitism is once again a fact of life, the name "Wolfowitz" has become its lightning rod” is being cleverly setup for harvesting later upon anything critical being said of Paul Wolfowitz, like heaven forbid, he be called the worst war criminal since Hitler and a call be sent out for his head as the mastermind behind American State Terrorism in the New American Century. For what is anti-Semitic about pointing out that people participating in a particular joint venture are mostly Jews? Well what is the fact – are they, or are they not Jews? Are they, or they not, by their own words, ardent sympathizers of Israel and have advocated for years, war upon Muslim nations? If by their own admissions and in their own words they have done that, and they are also Jews, then how does pointing the finger at the war criminals and murderers become anti-Semitic? But the label is powerful in the American and European social context because of guilt complex that is deftly maintained, and it often mutes the indictment of the crime if its perpetuators happen to be Jews. Muslims and the rest of the world are least bit bothered by these labels, but they also aren’t all that significant because the Jewish power-base is America, which is where their unraveling is threatened. Behind the thin veneer of silence however, even ordinary Americans are beginning to ask why should they be spilling their blood for Israel, as is evidenced by Jim Moran. He won’t be coming back to Congress next election, that’s for sure! It does not take long for winds of war to change in America (and in the Christian West in general). One day Bin Laden was a heroic freedom fighter akin to the founding fathers of this nation, the next day people in America wear bulls-eye T-shirts with his face on it. One day Rumsfeld is pumping Sadaam Hussein's hand in gratitude for keeping Iran’s revolution in check for America, the next day he is being hunted down in a foxhole and dragged out by the cuff of his neck. One day Hitler’s scientists are mad men, the next they are working for their former enemies. The Zionists understand this fast “friendship” morality better than anyone.
Finally, note how all of Wolfowitz’s doctrines and American invasion of Iraq are being lauded in Israel – whereas also note how the same doctrines were defined as war crimes at Nuremberg by the victorious Americans themselves: “The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the Nazi regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers”; and be amazed at the irony, that what enabled the Holocaust of the Jews at the hands of Hitler and the propaganda machinery of the Reichminister for propaganda Joseph Goebbels, is now lauded as “Wolfowitz talking”, with the following coup de grace: “Israel has also long waited for an administration that understands that the regimes that threaten Tel Aviv also threaten New York.”. I.e., they have been awaiting the Fourth Reich!
Everything that is stated in this eloquent short blurb of Joel Leyden is Alice in Wonderland where it turns reality and truth over its head. That is quintessential Machiavelli. Quintessentially Straussian. I specifically chose his blurb in 2005 for inclusion in this footnote, because the words of the antagonists themselves once again attest to my earlier analysis in this chapter written in 2003, just as their own words one day will again attest to the entire thesis of this book also written in 2003 – it will be too late by then. Wake up and do something now, or wait to be awarded the same fate, and in spades, by the next baboon that comes out on top!
If I was interviewing journalists and reporters in my news organization for hiring, hypothetically speaking, I would present them this blurb by Joel Leyden and ask them to analyze it. If they couldn’t, they’d not be hired. And I would offer this litmus test to my seasoned professional journalists commanding six and seven figure salaries and show them the door if they asked what’s wrong with it – the rest I would offer real journalism training. Perhaps the American news organizations, once they are free from their predominantly Jewish ownership and watchful gatekeepers, and universities when they are free from the fascist Jewish Campus Watch orchestrating its speech-squelch for Zion, can use this very blurb to clean house and to educate their students in the art of detecting deception, respectively.
That will only happen when the American peoples wake up to Bernard Lewis' own words in his own disinformation masterpiece Crisis of Islam, written in a similar quintessentially Machiavellian manner to craftily and fictitiously apply to Islam and the Muslims what he could have applied incredibly accurately and realistically to his own brethren in kind: “Terrorism requires only a few. Obviously the West must defend itself by whatever means will be effective. But in devising means to fight the terrorist, it would surely be useful to understand the forces that drive them”. I would only change “West” to “World” in this statement to accurately reflect the scope of their superterrorism. Please see Chapter 9 for the full dismantling of Bernard Lewis’ deceit.
Here is the relevant excerpt from Leyden’s article:
Jerusalem----April 2.....The American Jewish Congress today congratulated Paul Wolfowitz on his election as the president of the World Bank. “I know that under your leadership, the World Bank will build on its proud traditions in the fight against worldwide poverty and for sustainable development,” said AJCongress Chair Jack Rosen. “Your election comes at a critical time for the international community, with hopes for democratic change and peaceful resolution of long standing conflicts. The World Bank will play a significant role in all if these areas.” ...
In Israel, The Jerusalem Post had selected Paul Wolfowitz as its Man of the Year for 2002. The Post stated: "On September 15, 2001, at a meeting in Camp David, Wolfowitz advised President George W. Bush to skip Kabul and train American guns on Baghdad. In March 2003, he got his wish. In the process, Wolfowitz became the most influential US deputy defense secretary ever – can you so much as name anyone else who held the post?" The Post added: "The war in Iraq had many authors: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, George Bush. Wolfowitz may have been an early and vocal advocate, but he was cheering from the second row. What's not in dispute is that Wolfowitz is the principal author of the doctrine of preemption, which framed the war in Iraq and which, when it comes to it, will underpin US action against other rogue states.” ... "When President Bush says, "America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons" -- that's Wolfowitz talking. When the president calls for "a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation, economic openness and free trade" -- that's Wolfowitz's talking, too. ... To our ears, the sudden stress on Mideast democratization is "transformative," to use the Pentagon jargon. Israel has long waited for an administration that understands that the principal problem in the Middle East is not the unsettled status of our borders. It is the unsettling nature of Arab regimes -- and of the bellicosity, fanaticism, and resentments to which they give rise. Israel has also long waited for an administration that understands that the regimes that threaten Tel Aviv also threaten New York.” ...
The Jerusalem Post concluded: "There's a downside. Earlier in the year, the notion took hold that the president was taking the country to war at the urgings of his Jewish advisers, themselves shills for Israel. "Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol [are]... the clique of conservatives who are driving this war," wrote New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. She may as well have written "the clique of Jews," some felt. Other critics of the war were more explicit. "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war in Iraq," said Democratic Congressman Jim Moran, "we would not be doing this." In this year when anti-Semitism is once again a fact of life, the name "Wolfowitz" has become its lightning rod."
*21 President George W. Bush Jr., on the eve of invasion of Iraq in search of the fictitious WMDs, on 26 February 2003, as the key-note speaker at the highly influential Zionist neoconservative Jewish think-tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) at which Richard Perle is a Resident Fellow, noted it with enthusiasm.
*22 In Reflections of a Neoconservative (p. xiii), noted by Professor Shadia Drury in her interview “Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq” excerpted in a footnote above.
*23 Noted by Shadia Drury – see interview excerpt above.
*24 [Added 2005] See Baruch Kimmerling: 'Can a “Patriot” Mob Take over the Universities'
*25 Ariel Sharon heard on Israeli radio while talking to Shimon Perez in October 2001.