Chomsky Acknowledges the Neocons as the Dominant Force in Pushing for Iraq War
March 7th, 2013 | Author: Patriot
Chomsky Acknowledges the Neocons as the Dominant Force in Pushing for Iraq War
By Stephen J. Sniegoski
http://thepassionateattachment.com/2013/03/07/chomsky-acknowledges-the-neocons-as-the-dominant-force-in-pushing-for-iraq-war/
Thanks to the efforts of the indefatigable James Morris, a seeming
transformation of the view of the illustrious Noam Chomsky was revealed,
which, if not equivalent to the change that Saul of Tarsus underwent while
on the road to Damascus, was significant nonetheless. Morris seems to have a
knack for ferreting out the unknown views of the famous, as was illustrated
in his 2010 email exchange with General David Petraeus, then head of U.S.
Central Command, in which he was able to reveal the latter's close
relationship with neocon Max Boot and his ardent desire to propitiate the
pro-Zionist Jewish community at a time when it was generally thought that
Petraeus was critical of the negative effects of the intimate U.S.-Israeli
relationship on America's position in the Middle East.
The Chomsky revelation took place while the latter was a guest on Phil
Tourney's "Your Voice Counts" program on Republic Broadcasting Network from
2:00 pm to 3:00pm Eastern Standard Time on Sunday, February 24, 2013. While
Chomsky is a strong and very knowledgeable critic of Israel, he also has
been (at least, was before this program) a stringent critic of the idea that
the neocons have any significant impact on American Middle East policy.
Rather, he presents a somewhat nebulous, quasi-monolithic, corporate elite,
which includes the oil interests, as determining American policy in that
region-as it does everywhere else in the globe-for its own economic
interests. In what has been Chomsky's view, Israel only serves as an
instrument for American imperialism; that it too might benefit from American
policies is, presumably, only an incidental by-product.
Chomsky was quite impressive on the program as he demonstrated extensive
knowledge of the USS Liberty issue, which is a major issue of the program,
since Tourney was a seaman on that ill-fated ship that was deliberately
attacked by Israeli planes and gunboats during the Six Day War in June 1967,
causing the deaths of 34 U.S. seamen and wounding 171 others out of a crew
of 297.
Chomsky included an injection of his standard theme that Israel became a
valuable strategic asset to the United States with the 1967 war when it
wrecked Nasser and secular Arab nationalism in general, thus aiding America's
conservative client states, such as Saudi Arabia.
Listener phone calls were restricted to the last 15 minutes. Consequently,
James Morris wasn't able to get on the program until the last five minutes
when he tried to get Chomsky to address the issue of the connection between
the neocons and Israel. Morris cited then-Secretary of State Powell's
reference to the "JINSA crowd" (Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs) as the primary force for the war on Iraq within the Bush
Administration. Morris went on to say that the neocons were a leading
element of the Israel lobby.
http://mondoweiss.net/2008/10/and-much-of-mccains-braintrust-has-ties-to-jinsa-so-this-is-a-pro-jinsa-anti-jinsa-election-remember-when-cool-waspy-hubs.html
http://tinyurl.com/25pb2to
After Morris made these statements, Chomsky amazingly blurted out that he
"agreed completely" with him regarding the importance of the
neocons - describing the neocons as "tremendously important." Chomsky
acknowledged that the neoconservatives had been the "dominant force" in the
Bush administration, and that they had "pushed through" the Iraq war over
many objections even from within the government. What Chomsky had said about
the importance of the neocons was radically different from his usual
portrayal of a monolithic corporatist dominance of U.S. Middle East policy.
Chomsky even seemed to agree that the neocons held positions that diverged
from those of the traditional foreign policy establishment-Morris had
earlier mentioned Scowcroft and Brzezinski as opponents of the neocons.
["Chomsky Confirms Neocons Pushed Iraq War Over Objections," :
Chomsky Acknowledges the Neocons as the Dominant Force in Pushing for Iraq War
By Stephen J. Sniegoski
http://thepassionateattachment.com/2013/03/07/chomsky-acknowledges-the-neocons-as-the-dominant-force-in-pushing-for-iraq-war/
Thanks to the efforts of the indefatigable James Morris, a seeming
transformation of the view of the illustrious Noam Chomsky was revealed,
which, if not equivalent to the change that Saul of Tarsus underwent while
on the road to Damascus, was significant nonetheless. Morris seems to have a
knack for ferreting out the unknown views of the famous, as was illustrated
in his 2010 email exchange with General David Petraeus, then head of U.S.
Central Command, in which he was able to reveal the latter's close
relationship with neocon Max Boot and his ardent desire to propitiate the
pro-Zionist Jewish community at a time when it was generally thought that
Petraeus was critical of the negative effects of the intimate U.S.-Israeli
relationship on America's position in the Middle East.
The Chomsky revelation took place while the latter was a guest on Phil
Tourney's "Your Voice Counts" program on Republic Broadcasting Network from
2:00 pm to 3:00pm Eastern Standard Time on Sunday, February 24, 2013. While
Chomsky is a strong and very knowledgeable critic of Israel, he also has
been (at least, was before this program) a stringent critic of the idea that
the neocons have any significant impact on American Middle East policy.
Rather, he presents a somewhat nebulous, quasi-monolithic, corporate elite,
which includes the oil interests, as determining American policy in that
region-as it does everywhere else in the globe-for its own economic
interests. In what has been Chomsky's view, Israel only serves as an
instrument for American imperialism; that it too might benefit from American
policies is, presumably, only an incidental by-product.
Chomsky was quite impressive on the program as he demonstrated extensive
knowledge of the USS Liberty issue, which is a major issue of the program,
since Tourney was a seaman on that ill-fated ship that was deliberately
attacked by Israeli planes and gunboats during the Six Day War in June 1967,
causing the deaths of 34 U.S. seamen and wounding 171 others out of a crew
of 297.
Chomsky included an injection of his standard theme that Israel became a
valuable strategic asset to the United States with the 1967 war when it
wrecked Nasser and secular Arab nationalism in general, thus aiding America's
conservative client states, such as Saudi Arabia.
Listener phone calls were restricted to the last 15 minutes. Consequently,
James Morris wasn't able to get on the program until the last five minutes
when he tried to get Chomsky to address the issue of the connection between
the neocons and Israel. Morris cited then-Secretary of State Powell's
reference to the "JINSA crowd" (Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs) as the primary force for the war on Iraq within the Bush
Administration. Morris went on to say that the neocons were a leading
element of the Israel lobby.
http://mondoweiss.net/2008/10/and-much-of-mccains-braintrust-has-ties-to-jinsa-so-this-is-a-pro-jinsa-anti-jinsa-election-remember-when-cool-waspy-hubs.html
http://tinyurl.com/25pb2to
After Morris made these statements, Chomsky amazingly blurted out that he
"agreed completely" with him regarding the importance of the
neocons - describing the neocons as "tremendously important." Chomsky
acknowledged that the neoconservatives had been the "dominant force" in the
Bush administration, and that they had "pushed through" the Iraq war over
many objections even from within the government. What Chomsky had said about
the importance of the neocons was radically different from his usual
portrayal of a monolithic corporatist dominance of U.S. Middle East policy.
Chomsky even seemed to agree that the neocons held positions that diverged
from those of the traditional foreign policy establishment-Morris had
earlier mentioned Scowcroft and Brzezinski as opponents of the neocons.
["Chomsky Confirms Neocons Pushed Iraq War Over Objections," :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGqdcKLmOXs]
http://tinyurl.com/chomskyconfirms
What Chomsky said pertaining to the neocons being the leading force for the
Iraq war is essentially identical to my position in "The Transparent Cabal."
And it is not only the opposite of what it appeared that he used to hold but
what his protégé Norman Finkelstein continues to expound, as I discuss in my
article, "Norman Finkelstein and Neocon Denial."
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2012/10/norman-finkelstein-and-neocon-denial/
http://tinyurl.com/aqsuovz
Finkelstein denies that the neocons were a factor in causing the U.S. to go
to war-and has nothing to do with my book, describing it as conspiracist-but
he does not seem to realize that his position contrasts with that of his
mentor. Since the two are quite close, it would seem that Chomsky has not
even expressed this new view to Finkelstein in private conversation. When
Finkelstein finds out that his mentor holds that the neocons were the
"dominant force" for war with Iraq, one wonders if he will then charge him
with believing in a conspiracy.
Unfortunately, however, Chomsky still stops far short of the full truth. For
in his response to Morris, he went on to maintain that the neocons are
different from the Israel lobby-definitely implying, though not explicitly
stating, that the neocons are not motivated by the interests of Israel. He
quickly put forth two arguments for this contention. First, he claimed that
the neocons are simply a mainstream force in American conservatism going
back to the Reagan administration. Even if true, this would not necessarily
preclude their being biased in favor of Israel. However, it is not true-the
neocons did not just fit into existing mainstream conservatism, but altered
it to fit their own goals.
As I bring out in "The Transparent Cabal" (with numerous citations from
secondary sources, this being a rather conventional view), the neocon
movement originated among liberal Democrats, mainly Jewish, who gravitated
to the right in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In significant part, this
reflected a concern that American liberalism was moving leftward in ways
detrimental to Jewish interests. In foreign policy, this involved diminished
support by American liberals for Israel-in line with the world left's
support for Third World movements that included the Palestinians-and the
liberals' turn against an anti-Communist
foreign policy, as a reaction to the Vietnam imbroglio, at a time when the
Soviet Union's policies were exhibiting discrimination against Soviet Jewry
and opposition to Israel in support of its Arab enemies. In opposing what
they saw as liberalism's move to the left, these proto-neoconservatives did
not see themselves as becoming conservative, but were dubbed with the
moniker "neoconservative" by left-wing social critic Michael Harrington, who
intended it as a pejorative term, and the name soon stuck.
Neoconservatives basically wanted to return mainstream American liberalism
to the anti-Communist Cold War positions exemplified by President Harry
Truman (1945-1953), which had held sway through the administration of Lyndon
B. Johnson (1963-1969). When this effort failed to achieve success, neocons
would turn to Ronald Reagan in the 1980. Despite being newcomers to the
conservative camp, neoconservatives were able to find significant places in
the Reagan administration, especially in the national security and foreign
policy areas, although at less than Cabinet-level status.
Neoconservatives, however, did not become traditional conservatives, but
instead altered the content of conservatism to their liking. "The
neoconservative impulse," pro-neocon Murray Friedman maintains in his book
"The Neoconservative Revolution," "was the spontaneous response of a group
of liberal intellectuals, mainly Jewish, who sought to shape a perspective
of their own while standing apart from more traditional forms of
conservatism."[Quoted in "Transparent Cabal," pp. 39-40]
In domestic policy, neoconservatives supported the modern welfare state, in
contrast to the traditional conservatives, who emphasized small government,
states' rights, and relatively unfettered capitalism. Most importantly, they
differed significantly from the conservative position on foreign policy.
Although the American conservatives of the Cold War era were anti-Communist
and pro-military, they harbored a strain of isolationism. Their
interventionism was limited largely to fighting Communism, but not to
nation-building and the export of democracy, the expressed goals of the
neocons. Nor did traditional conservatives view the United States as the
policeman of the world. Most significantly, traditional conservatives had
never championed Israel.
While traditional conservatives welcomed neoconservatives as allies in their
fight against Soviet Communism and domestic liberalism, the neocons in
effect acted as a Trojan Horse within conservatism: they managed to secure
dominant positions in the conservative political and intellectual movement,
and as soon as they gained power, they purged those traditional
conservatives who opposed their agenda, particularly as it involved Israel.
Support for Israel and its policies had become, and remains, a veritable
litmus test for being a member of the multitudinous political action groups
and think tanks that comprise the conservative movement.
In his 1996 book, "The Essential Neoconservative Reader," editor Mark
Gerson, a neocon himself who served on the board of directors of the Project
for the New American Century, jubilantly observed: "The neoconservatives
have so changed conservatism that what we now identify as conservatism is
largely what was once neoconservatism. And in so doing, they have defined
the way that vast numbers of Americans view their economy, their polity, and
their society." [Quoted in "Transparent Cabal", p. 42]
While in domestic policy Gerson's analysis might not be completely accurate,
it would seem to be so in US national security policy, as illustrated by the
near unanimous Republican opposition in the US Senate to the nomination of
Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense because of his past statements critical
of both US all-out support for Israel and its hardline position toward Iran
(currently Israel's foremost enemy) that might lead to war.
Now the fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld may not be motivated by a desire to
aid Israel in their support for neocon Middle East policy, the Middle East
policies they have supported have been formulated by those who identify with
Israel. Since both of them have been closely associated with the neocons,
Cheney moreso than Rumsfeld, they were undoubtedly influenced by the
pro-Israel neocons. Cheney even went so far as to serve on JINSA's Advisory
Board. And JINSA was set up in 1976 to put "the U.S.-Israel strategic
relationship first."
http://www.fact-index.com/j/ji/jinsa.html
Moreover, as Vice President, Cheney specifically relied on advice from the
eminent historian of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, a right-wing Zionist
and one of the neocons' foremost gurus, who strongly advocated war against
Iraq and other Middle Eastern states. (Barton Gellman, "Angler: The Cheney
Vice Presidency," p. 231) Chomsky has said that "Bernard Lewis is nothing
but a vile propagandist," and he presumably means a propagandist for Israel.
The influence of ideas per se was not the only factor that likely motivated
Cheney. The fact that Cheney and his wife, Lynne, who was with the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI-known as "neocon central"), had close personal and
professional relations with the neocons also would have predisposed him to
give his support to the neoconservatives and their agenda.
The same arguments would apply for Rumsfeld, with one additional one: a war
on Iraq would give him the chance to demonstrate the value of his concept of
a smaller, mobile, high tech American military. Rumsfeld held that a small,
streamlined invasion force would be sufficient to defeat Iraq. As Bob
Woodward writes in his book, "State of Denial": "The Iraq war plan was the
chess board on which Rumsfeld would test, develop, expand and modify his
ideas about military transformation. And the driving concept was 'less is
more' - new thinking about a lighter, swifter, smaller force that could do
the job better. Rumsfeld's blitzkrieg would vindicate his leadership of the
Pentagon."["State of Denial," p. 82]
For the neocons, Rumsfeld's approach would not have the drawbacks of the
conventional full-scale invasion initially sought by the military brass. The
neocons feared that no neighboring country would provide the necessary bases
from which to launch such a massive conventional attack, or that during the
lengthy time period needed to assemble a large force, diplomacy might avert
war or that peace forces in the U.S. might increase their size and political
clout and do likewise. In short, it was this convergence on interests
between the Rumsfeld and the neocons that made them so supportive of each
other in the early years of the George W. Bush administration.
It must be acknowledged that the neocon Middle East war agenda did resonate
with both Cheney's and Rumsfeld's general positions on national security
policy, but there is little reason to think that they would have come up
with the specifics of the policy, including even the identification of Iraq
as the target, if it had not been for their neocon associates, whose policy
reflected their close identification with Israel. It should also be pointed
out that in Chomsky's usual presentation of an American foreign policy
shaped by the corporate elite, the actual government officials who
implemented the policy were not necessarily members of the corporate elite
nor motivated by a desire to advance the interests of the corporate elite as
opposed to the national interest of the United States. In order for any type
of elite to be successful, it is essential that it attract significant
numbers of people outside of itself, which Chomsky himself has discussed at
length regarding the corporate elite. This is also the very purpose of the
neoconservative network and the information that it disseminates.
Acknowledging as much as he did, it is hard to see how Chomsky can fail to
discern that the neocons identify with Israel. The evidence is overwhelming.
The following are a few examples of this connection.
The effort to prevent Chuck Hagel from becoming the Secretary of Treasury
has been spearheaded by the Emergency Committee to Defend Israel, the
creation of which in 2010 was in large part the work of leading neocon, Bill
Kristol, and which claims "to provide citizens with the facts they need to
be sure that their public officials are supporting a strong U.S.-Israel
relationship." As Bill Kristol states: "We're the pro-Israel wing of the
pro-Israel community." Kristol had co-founded the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), which promoted the war on Iraq. Kristol's father,
the late Irving Kristol, a godfather of neoconservatism, is noted for his
identification with Israel. In 1973, he said: "Jews don't like big military
budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful
military establishment in the United States . . . American Jews who care
about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don't want to
cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big,
so that we can defend Israel." [Congress Bi-Weekly (1973), published by the
American Jewish Congress]
Noah Pollak, a contributor to "Commentary" magazine, is the Emergency
Committee's executive director and, while living in Israel for two years,
was an assistant editor at the Jerusalem-based Shalem Center
Eliot Cohen, a veteran neocon, was a founding signatory of the Project for
the New American Century and advised the Committee for the Liberation of
Iraq. He coined the term "World War IV" for the war on terror. During the
George Bush administration, he served on the Defense Policy Board in Bush's
first term and was closely affiliated with those neocons around Vice
President Cheney. He is on the International Academic Advisory Board of the
Began Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Israel, which is affiliated with
Bar Ilan University, and is involved in contract work for the Israeli
government.
Douglas Feith, who as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in George W.
Bush's first term set up and controlled the Office of Special Plans, which
spread the most specious war propaganda, was closely associated with the
right-wing Zionist group, the Zionist Organization of America. In 1997, he
co-founded One Jerusalem, a group whose objective was "saving a united
Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel." Before entering the Bush
administration, Feith ran a small Washington-based law firm, which had one
international office - in Israel. And the majority of the firm's work
consisted of representing Israeli interests.
Richard Perle has had very close personal connections with Israeli
government officials, and has been accused of providing classified
information to that country on a number of occasions. Perle not only
expounded pro-Zionist views, but was a board member of the pro-Likud
"Jerusalem Post" and had worked as a lobbyist for the Israeli weapons
manufacturer Soltam.
Norman Podhoretz is considered a godfather, along with Irving Kristol, of
the neoconservative movement. When editor of "Commentary" magazine, he wrote
that "the formative question for his politics would heretofore be, 'Is it
good for the Jews?'" ("Commentary," February 1972) In 2007, Podhoretz
received the Guardian of Zion Award, which is given to individuals for their
support for Israel, from Bar-Ilan University in Israel. Neocon Charles
Krauthammer was the 2002 winner of the Guardian of Zion Award.
Max Singer, co-founder of the neocon Hudson Institute and its former
president, who pushed for the war on Iraq, has moved to Israel, where he is
a citizen and has been involved with the Institute for Zionist Strategies,
which advocates the need to better infuse Zionist ideology in the Jewish
people of Israel.
The neocons' support for Israel does not necessarily mean that they were
deliberately promoting the interest of Israel at the expense of the United
States. Instead, as I point out in "The Transparent Cabal," they maintained
that an identity of interests existed between the two countries - Israel's
enemies being ipso facto America's enemies. However, it is apparent from
their backgrounds that the neoconservatives viewed American foreign policy
in the Middle East through the lens of Israeli interest, as Israeli interest
was perceived by the Likudniks.
Despite this professed view of the identity of American and Israel
interests, sometimes the neocons' actions verged on putting Israel interests
above those of the United States government. For example, some leading
neocons-David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith-developed the "Clean
Break" proposal outlining an aggressive policy for Israel intended to
enhance its geostrategic position, which they presented in 1996 to
then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One part of the plan was to
get the United States to disassociate itself from peace negotiations between
Israel and Palestine and simply let Israel treat the Palestinians as it saw
fit. "Israel," stated the report, "can manage it's own affairs. Such
self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a
significant lever of [US] pressure used against it in the past." It was
highly noteworthy that the neocons would devise a strategy to enable Israel
to become free from adhering to the goals of their own country.
["Transparent Cabal," p. 93]
In conclusion, while Chomsky's change was far from being complete, his
acknowledgement that that the neoconservatives were the "dominant force" in
driving the U.S. to the war on Iraq in 2003 is, nonetheless, very
significant. Chomsky, who was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in
a 2005 poll, certainly influences many people, most particularly on the
anti-war left, and his new view should make them rethink their belief that
the war was all about oil. It is to be hoped that Chomsky's words were not a
one-time aberration and that he will not revert to his previous
publicly-espoused position. Rather, it is to be hoped that he will now look
more deeply into the neocons' activities and thus discern their close
connection to Israel.
Posted in Zionist Threat
http://tinyurl.com/chomskyconfirms
What Chomsky said pertaining to the neocons being the leading force for the
Iraq war is essentially identical to my position in "The Transparent Cabal."
And it is not only the opposite of what it appeared that he used to hold but
what his protégé Norman Finkelstein continues to expound, as I discuss in my
article, "Norman Finkelstein and Neocon Denial."
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2012/10/norman-finkelstein-and-neocon-denial/
http://tinyurl.com/aqsuovz
Finkelstein denies that the neocons were a factor in causing the U.S. to go
to war-and has nothing to do with my book, describing it as conspiracist-but
he does not seem to realize that his position contrasts with that of his
mentor. Since the two are quite close, it would seem that Chomsky has not
even expressed this new view to Finkelstein in private conversation. When
Finkelstein finds out that his mentor holds that the neocons were the
"dominant force" for war with Iraq, one wonders if he will then charge him
with believing in a conspiracy.
Unfortunately, however, Chomsky still stops far short of the full truth. For
in his response to Morris, he went on to maintain that the neocons are
different from the Israel lobby-definitely implying, though not explicitly
stating, that the neocons are not motivated by the interests of Israel. He
quickly put forth two arguments for this contention. First, he claimed that
the neocons are simply a mainstream force in American conservatism going
back to the Reagan administration. Even if true, this would not necessarily
preclude their being biased in favor of Israel. However, it is not true-the
neocons did not just fit into existing mainstream conservatism, but altered
it to fit their own goals.
As I bring out in "The Transparent Cabal" (with numerous citations from
secondary sources, this being a rather conventional view), the neocon
movement originated among liberal Democrats, mainly Jewish, who gravitated
to the right in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In significant part, this
reflected a concern that American liberalism was moving leftward in ways
detrimental to Jewish interests. In foreign policy, this involved diminished
support by American liberals for Israel-in line with the world left's
support for Third World movements that included the Palestinians-and the
liberals' turn against an anti-Communist
foreign policy, as a reaction to the Vietnam imbroglio, at a time when the
Soviet Union's policies were exhibiting discrimination against Soviet Jewry
and opposition to Israel in support of its Arab enemies. In opposing what
they saw as liberalism's move to the left, these proto-neoconservatives did
not see themselves as becoming conservative, but were dubbed with the
moniker "neoconservative" by left-wing social critic Michael Harrington, who
intended it as a pejorative term, and the name soon stuck.
Neoconservatives basically wanted to return mainstream American liberalism
to the anti-Communist Cold War positions exemplified by President Harry
Truman (1945-1953), which had held sway through the administration of Lyndon
B. Johnson (1963-1969). When this effort failed to achieve success, neocons
would turn to Ronald Reagan in the 1980. Despite being newcomers to the
conservative camp, neoconservatives were able to find significant places in
the Reagan administration, especially in the national security and foreign
policy areas, although at less than Cabinet-level status.
Neoconservatives, however, did not become traditional conservatives, but
instead altered the content of conservatism to their liking. "The
neoconservative impulse," pro-neocon Murray Friedman maintains in his book
"The Neoconservative Revolution," "was the spontaneous response of a group
of liberal intellectuals, mainly Jewish, who sought to shape a perspective
of their own while standing apart from more traditional forms of
conservatism."[Quoted in "Transparent Cabal," pp. 39-40]
In domestic policy, neoconservatives supported the modern welfare state, in
contrast to the traditional conservatives, who emphasized small government,
states' rights, and relatively unfettered capitalism. Most importantly, they
differed significantly from the conservative position on foreign policy.
Although the American conservatives of the Cold War era were anti-Communist
and pro-military, they harbored a strain of isolationism. Their
interventionism was limited largely to fighting Communism, but not to
nation-building and the export of democracy, the expressed goals of the
neocons. Nor did traditional conservatives view the United States as the
policeman of the world. Most significantly, traditional conservatives had
never championed Israel.
While traditional conservatives welcomed neoconservatives as allies in their
fight against Soviet Communism and domestic liberalism, the neocons in
effect acted as a Trojan Horse within conservatism: they managed to secure
dominant positions in the conservative political and intellectual movement,
and as soon as they gained power, they purged those traditional
conservatives who opposed their agenda, particularly as it involved Israel.
Support for Israel and its policies had become, and remains, a veritable
litmus test for being a member of the multitudinous political action groups
and think tanks that comprise the conservative movement.
In his 1996 book, "The Essential Neoconservative Reader," editor Mark
Gerson, a neocon himself who served on the board of directors of the Project
for the New American Century, jubilantly observed: "The neoconservatives
have so changed conservatism that what we now identify as conservatism is
largely what was once neoconservatism. And in so doing, they have defined
the way that vast numbers of Americans view their economy, their polity, and
their society." [Quoted in "Transparent Cabal", p. 42]
While in domestic policy Gerson's analysis might not be completely accurate,
it would seem to be so in US national security policy, as illustrated by the
near unanimous Republican opposition in the US Senate to the nomination of
Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense because of his past statements critical
of both US all-out support for Israel and its hardline position toward Iran
(currently Israel's foremost enemy) that might lead to war.
Now the fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld may not be motivated by a desire to
aid Israel in their support for neocon Middle East policy, the Middle East
policies they have supported have been formulated by those who identify with
Israel. Since both of them have been closely associated with the neocons,
Cheney moreso than Rumsfeld, they were undoubtedly influenced by the
pro-Israel neocons. Cheney even went so far as to serve on JINSA's Advisory
Board. And JINSA was set up in 1976 to put "the U.S.-Israel strategic
relationship first."
http://www.fact-index.com/j/ji/jinsa.html
Moreover, as Vice President, Cheney specifically relied on advice from the
eminent historian of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, a right-wing Zionist
and one of the neocons' foremost gurus, who strongly advocated war against
Iraq and other Middle Eastern states. (Barton Gellman, "Angler: The Cheney
Vice Presidency," p. 231) Chomsky has said that "Bernard Lewis is nothing
but a vile propagandist," and he presumably means a propagandist for Israel.
The influence of ideas per se was not the only factor that likely motivated
Cheney. The fact that Cheney and his wife, Lynne, who was with the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI-known as "neocon central"), had close personal and
professional relations with the neocons also would have predisposed him to
give his support to the neoconservatives and their agenda.
The same arguments would apply for Rumsfeld, with one additional one: a war
on Iraq would give him the chance to demonstrate the value of his concept of
a smaller, mobile, high tech American military. Rumsfeld held that a small,
streamlined invasion force would be sufficient to defeat Iraq. As Bob
Woodward writes in his book, "State of Denial": "The Iraq war plan was the
chess board on which Rumsfeld would test, develop, expand and modify his
ideas about military transformation. And the driving concept was 'less is
more' - new thinking about a lighter, swifter, smaller force that could do
the job better. Rumsfeld's blitzkrieg would vindicate his leadership of the
Pentagon."["State of Denial," p. 82]
For the neocons, Rumsfeld's approach would not have the drawbacks of the
conventional full-scale invasion initially sought by the military brass. The
neocons feared that no neighboring country would provide the necessary bases
from which to launch such a massive conventional attack, or that during the
lengthy time period needed to assemble a large force, diplomacy might avert
war or that peace forces in the U.S. might increase their size and political
clout and do likewise. In short, it was this convergence on interests
between the Rumsfeld and the neocons that made them so supportive of each
other in the early years of the George W. Bush administration.
It must be acknowledged that the neocon Middle East war agenda did resonate
with both Cheney's and Rumsfeld's general positions on national security
policy, but there is little reason to think that they would have come up
with the specifics of the policy, including even the identification of Iraq
as the target, if it had not been for their neocon associates, whose policy
reflected their close identification with Israel. It should also be pointed
out that in Chomsky's usual presentation of an American foreign policy
shaped by the corporate elite, the actual government officials who
implemented the policy were not necessarily members of the corporate elite
nor motivated by a desire to advance the interests of the corporate elite as
opposed to the national interest of the United States. In order for any type
of elite to be successful, it is essential that it attract significant
numbers of people outside of itself, which Chomsky himself has discussed at
length regarding the corporate elite. This is also the very purpose of the
neoconservative network and the information that it disseminates.
Acknowledging as much as he did, it is hard to see how Chomsky can fail to
discern that the neocons identify with Israel. The evidence is overwhelming.
The following are a few examples of this connection.
The effort to prevent Chuck Hagel from becoming the Secretary of Treasury
has been spearheaded by the Emergency Committee to Defend Israel, the
creation of which in 2010 was in large part the work of leading neocon, Bill
Kristol, and which claims "to provide citizens with the facts they need to
be sure that their public officials are supporting a strong U.S.-Israel
relationship." As Bill Kristol states: "We're the pro-Israel wing of the
pro-Israel community." Kristol had co-founded the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), which promoted the war on Iraq. Kristol's father,
the late Irving Kristol, a godfather of neoconservatism, is noted for his
identification with Israel. In 1973, he said: "Jews don't like big military
budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful
military establishment in the United States . . . American Jews who care
about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don't want to
cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big,
so that we can defend Israel." [Congress Bi-Weekly (1973), published by the
American Jewish Congress]
Noah Pollak, a contributor to "Commentary" magazine, is the Emergency
Committee's executive director and, while living in Israel for two years,
was an assistant editor at the Jerusalem-based Shalem Center
Eliot Cohen, a veteran neocon, was a founding signatory of the Project for
the New American Century and advised the Committee for the Liberation of
Iraq. He coined the term "World War IV" for the war on terror. During the
George Bush administration, he served on the Defense Policy Board in Bush's
first term and was closely affiliated with those neocons around Vice
President Cheney. He is on the International Academic Advisory Board of the
Began Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Israel, which is affiliated with
Bar Ilan University, and is involved in contract work for the Israeli
government.
Douglas Feith, who as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in George W.
Bush's first term set up and controlled the Office of Special Plans, which
spread the most specious war propaganda, was closely associated with the
right-wing Zionist group, the Zionist Organization of America. In 1997, he
co-founded One Jerusalem, a group whose objective was "saving a united
Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel." Before entering the Bush
administration, Feith ran a small Washington-based law firm, which had one
international office - in Israel. And the majority of the firm's work
consisted of representing Israeli interests.
Richard Perle has had very close personal connections with Israeli
government officials, and has been accused of providing classified
information to that country on a number of occasions. Perle not only
expounded pro-Zionist views, but was a board member of the pro-Likud
"Jerusalem Post" and had worked as a lobbyist for the Israeli weapons
manufacturer Soltam.
Norman Podhoretz is considered a godfather, along with Irving Kristol, of
the neoconservative movement. When editor of "Commentary" magazine, he wrote
that "the formative question for his politics would heretofore be, 'Is it
good for the Jews?'" ("Commentary," February 1972) In 2007, Podhoretz
received the Guardian of Zion Award, which is given to individuals for their
support for Israel, from Bar-Ilan University in Israel. Neocon Charles
Krauthammer was the 2002 winner of the Guardian of Zion Award.
Max Singer, co-founder of the neocon Hudson Institute and its former
president, who pushed for the war on Iraq, has moved to Israel, where he is
a citizen and has been involved with the Institute for Zionist Strategies,
which advocates the need to better infuse Zionist ideology in the Jewish
people of Israel.
The neocons' support for Israel does not necessarily mean that they were
deliberately promoting the interest of Israel at the expense of the United
States. Instead, as I point out in "The Transparent Cabal," they maintained
that an identity of interests existed between the two countries - Israel's
enemies being ipso facto America's enemies. However, it is apparent from
their backgrounds that the neoconservatives viewed American foreign policy
in the Middle East through the lens of Israeli interest, as Israeli interest
was perceived by the Likudniks.
Despite this professed view of the identity of American and Israel
interests, sometimes the neocons' actions verged on putting Israel interests
above those of the United States government. For example, some leading
neocons-David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith-developed the "Clean
Break" proposal outlining an aggressive policy for Israel intended to
enhance its geostrategic position, which they presented in 1996 to
then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One part of the plan was to
get the United States to disassociate itself from peace negotiations between
Israel and Palestine and simply let Israel treat the Palestinians as it saw
fit. "Israel," stated the report, "can manage it's own affairs. Such
self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a
significant lever of [US] pressure used against it in the past." It was
highly noteworthy that the neocons would devise a strategy to enable Israel
to become free from adhering to the goals of their own country.
["Transparent Cabal," p. 93]
In conclusion, while Chomsky's change was far from being complete, his
acknowledgement that that the neoconservatives were the "dominant force" in
driving the U.S. to the war on Iraq in 2003 is, nonetheless, very
significant. Chomsky, who was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in
a 2005 poll, certainly influences many people, most particularly on the
anti-war left, and his new view should make them rethink their belief that
the war was all about oil. It is to be hoped that Chomsky's words were not a
one-time aberration and that he will not revert to his previous
publicly-espoused position. Rather, it is to be hoped that he will now look
more deeply into the neocons' activities and thus discern their close
connection to Israel.
Posted in Zionist Threat
No comments:
Post a Comment