<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
The central fact overlooked by the discussion about the draft is that
the military and the Republicans do not want a draft. There are plenty
of willing and patriotic volunteers. The draft is simply a red herring
manufactured whole cloth by social justice (<i>née</i>
socialists-marxists) democrats to attack the republicans. Hey, red
herring. Get it?<br>
<br>
Frank's point is that automation reduces the employment opportunities
for the least skilled. Thomas Sowell has pointed out that those are
overwhelmingly first generations immigrants, and has shown that their
children move up the social / educational ladder. I am pretty close to
the Mexican community, and their apathy toward education might
short-circuit that process.<br>
<br>
However, there is some hope. In mexican maquiladoras there is a new
emphasis on quality. They cannot compete with China on wages, their
traditional niche. They have to move to education and quality, and that
may eventually transform the Mexican culture, just as listening to
Demming transformed post war Japan.<br>
Lynn<br>
<br>
Steve Hovland wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid01C4B523.F6BD4B20.shovland@mindspring.com">
<pre wrap="">I'm glad we have a shared vision of our wonderful future :-)
Steve Hovland
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.stevehovland.net">www.stevehovland.net</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: Premise Checker [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:SMTP:checker@panix.com">SMTP:checker@panix.com</a>]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 3:02 PM
To: The new improved paleopsych list
Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Stephen J. Sniegoski: Next Stop, Iran
It would not reduce the population of useless eaters very much, since not
many of them would get killed, fewer than if they stayed at home and
engaged in hot rodding. But it would give them jobs and a sense of
accomplishment.
Or we could create U.S. Department of Reorganization, where half the
employees would be reorganizing the other half. THe usual competition over
perks and office space would continue, though nothing would be produced.
This is very much like the U.S. Department of Education, where I work,
except that cash does get dispersed, to the tune of $63 billion a year,
most of it going to educrats outside of E.D. but none of it benefiting
students. In fact it harms them.
On 2004-10-18, Steve Hovland opined [message unchanged below]:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Concentrating the draft on the lower classes
would be a good way to reduce the population
of "useless eaters."
Steve Hovland
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.stevehovland.net">www.stevehovland.net</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: Premise Checker [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:SMTP:checker@panix.com">SMTP:checker@panix.com</a>]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 2:37 PM
To: The new improved paleopsych list
Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Stephen J. Sniegoski: Next Stop, Iran
You again are not paying attention. The student deferments will by and
large go to those who can compete with the Chinese and Japanese. Those
that can should not only get derements but should not be drafted at all.
Only those that are in what the Marxoids called the reserve army of the
unemployed should be drafted.
On 2004-10-18, Steve Hovland opined [message unchanged below]:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If they do a draft, I hope that there won't be any
student deferments :-)
Steve Hovland
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.stevehovland.net">www.stevehovland.net</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: Premise Checker [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:SMTP:checker@panix.com">SMTP:checker@panix.com</a>]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 2:08 PM
To: The new improved paleopsych list
Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Stephen J. Sniegoski: Next Stop, Iran
There wouldn't be much political fallout if those who can complete with
the Chinese and Indians don't get drafted. Those who can't will be glad to
have jobs.
On 2004-10-18, Steve Hovland opined [message unchanged below]:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Going to war against Iran would be a good way to
employ all of those useless young Americans who
can't compete with Chinese who make 37 cents
per hour, not to mention Indian PhD's who think
$6,000 a year is a lot of money.
Since we won't be able to continue the war in Iraq
without using conscription, we will be able to get
a two-fer-one by attacking Iran as well. What I
mean is that the political consequences of starting
a draft will be so high that any President who does
it may as well knock out all of them at once, including
Korea.
And once Baby Boomers start dying from the
fallout from the Korean bomb, the problem with
Social Security will be solved as well.
Great days lie ahead!
Steve Hovland
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.stevehovland.net">www.stevehovland.net</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: Premise Checker [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:SMTP:checker@panix.com">SMTP:checker@panix.com</a>]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 1:30 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a>
Subject: [Paleopsych] Stephen J. Sniegoski: Next Stop, Iran
Stephen J. Sniegoski: Next Stop, Iran
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future.htm">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future.htm</a>
4.10.14
[The author is quite biased against neocons and American empire policy,
but read it anyhow. It warns of the impossible quagmire the United States
is heading toward. But remember this may be a blessing in disguise if we
can somehow rope 30 surplus MegaChinese males into it instead of attacking
us.]
Editor's note. Dr. Sniegoski presented an earlier version of this
article as a paper at the 12th [2]Mut zur Ethik Conference held
September 3-5, 2004, in Feldkirch/Vorarlberg, Austria. The
conference theme was "Giving Inner Courage: democracy, values,
education, and dialogue."
That version is to be published by [3]Zeit-Fragen ([4]Current
Concerns). Zeit-Fragen/Current Concerns is published in Zurich,
Switzerland.
-- Nicholas Strakon
___________________________________
The future of the global War on Terror:
Next stop, Iran
By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
If you find this column of value, please send a donation of $4 to TLD.
More information appears below.
What will be the next front in the war on terror? I don't claim to be
Nostradamus and I don't have a crystal ball, but I can confidently say
that the current situation points to a wider war in the Middle East.
That result has been sought and planned for by the American
neoconservatives; it is what they have referred to as World War IV. It
is all in the published record; no conspiracy-theorizing is necessary
to see it.
Also on the record, but receiving much less attention, is the fact
that the drive toward World War IV reflects the long-held Israeli
Likudnik goal of destabilizing and fragmenting Israel's Middle Eastern
enemies in order to ultimately facilitate the elimination of the
single greatest danger to the Jewish state -- its large and
ever-growing Palestinian population. (I will not repeat here all of
[5]what I have written elsewhere about the neocon/Likudnik background
for the war in the Middle East -- how the neocons were the driving
force for the war on Iraq and how the war plans were conceived in
Israel.)
Neoconservatives do not control American policy to the extent that
they can lead the country directly into the wider war in the Middle
East. Other U.S. elites, especially the financial elite, do not want
such a wider war. Instead, it seems likely that the neocons will use
the momentum of their invasion and occupation of Iraq to thrust the
United States into the wider war, and it seems likely that it will
begin with an attack on Iran.
The neocons have been focusing on the danger of Iran for some time,
and it now appears that much of what they have said about that country
may actually be true. Numerous experts now report that the Islamic
Republic of Iran possesses an extensive and intensive nuclear program
that could develop weapons. Moreover, Iran has developed substantial
ballistic-missile capabilities; it can probably hit targets throughout
the Middle East, including Israel. An interesting point, however, is
that Iran does not seem to be violating any international laws in
importing materials for its suspected nuclear-weapons program. That
program uses the same basic technology involved in a civilian
nuclear-energy program, which Iran is permitted to have under the 1968
Non-Proliferation Treaty. [6][1]
[future_qt1.gif] If Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, that
would fit with its declared strategy of "deterrent defense," as
opposed to an offensive threat to Israel or, certainly, to the United
States. Iran wants to be a regional power able to defend itself
against Israel and the United States, which it apparently believes are
more apt to attack weak countries unable to fight back. As Middle East
news commentator Youssef Ibrahim writes: "I have little doubt Iran is
pursuing nuclear weapon systems. Its officials privately assert it is
so because they view Israel as a real menace to them and the region
with its 200 nuclear warheads.... The United States completely ignores
that double standard, which resonates widely among Arabs and Muslims.
Added to that is the suspicion the Bush administration is still bent
on, or addicted to, more American-induced regime changes." [7][2]
Commentator Edward S. Herman aptly observes: "Iran is the next U.S.
and Israeli target, so the mainstream U.S. media are once again
serving the state agenda by focusing on Iran's alleged menace and
refusing to provide context that would show the menace to be pure
Orwell -- that is, while Iran is seriously threatened by the U.S. and
its aggressively ethnic-cleansing client, Iran only threatens the
possibility of self-defense." [8][3]
Iran's very effort to develop strategic weapons prompts Israel and the
United States to press for a pre-emptive attack. It might be also
argued that while the rulers of Iran certainly want to avoid a
destructive American or Israeli attack, at the same time they can use
a war atmosphere to unify their country, now divided between religious
militants and moderates.
Israel is especially concerned -- it is obsessed, even -- about Iran's
developing nuclear weapons because it regards its regional nuclear
monopoly as a fundamental pillar of its security. We might recall that
Israel bombed Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981 when it feared
that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons there. Iran is, of
course, an active enemy of Israel, providing support to Hezbollah in
Lebanon and to a number of Palestinian resistance groups. In the past
couple of years numerous Israeli officials have sounded grave warnings
about the potential Iranian nuclear threat. For example, in November
2003 testimony before the Israeli parliament's Foreign Affairs and
Defense Committee, Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned that Iran's nuclear
program posed "the biggest threat to Israel's existence since its
creation" in 1948. [9][4]
And addressing a conference on national security in December 2003, Avi
Dichter, the head of Shin Bet, Israel's internal-security agency, said
that Iran was sponsoring terrorism and developing non-conventional
weapons, which posed "a strategic threat to Israel." Dichter declared
that "Iran is the No. 1 terror nation in the world." [10][5]
Israeli leaders emphasized concern about Iran before the U.S. attack
on Iraq. In January 2002, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, a leading
member of the Labor Party and a former prime minister, claimed that
Iran posed a grave missile threat to Israel: "The ayatollah leadership
in Iran is also threatening to destroy Israel ... inflicting genocide
through the use of missiles." [11][6]
And in an interview with the New York Post in November 2002, Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon said that as soon as Iraq had been dealt with,
he would "push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do' list." Sharon
called Iran the "center of world terror" and declared that "Iran makes
every effort to possess weapons of mass destruction ... and ballistic
missiles.... That is a danger to the Middle East, and a danger to
Europe." [12][7]
As usual, neoconservatives acted in tandem with Israel. The point man
here would seem to be veteran neoconservative Michael A. Ledeen. On
April 30, 2003, in an address titled "Time to Focus on Iran -- the
Mother of Modern Terrorism" at a policy forum of the Jewish
Institutite for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Ledeen declared:
"The time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free
Syria and free Lebanon." [13][8]
Elsewhere Ledeen would write: "We are now engaged in a regional
struggle in the Middle East, and the Iranian tyrants are the keystone
of the terror network. Far more than the overthrow of Saddam Hussein,
the defeat of the mullahcracy and the triumph of freedom in Tehran
would be a truly historic event and an enormous blow to the
terrorists." [14][9] Ledeen actually argued that the United States
should first attack Iran, which he portrayed as the "keystone of the
terror network," even while the Bush administration was preparing its
attack on Iraq. "I have long argued that it would be better to
liberate Iran before Iraq," he wrote in November 2002, "and events may
soon give us that opportunity." [15][10]
In early 2002 Ledeen set up the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI),
an action group focusing on producing regime change in Iran. His
principal collaborator is Morris Amitay, vice chairman of JINSA and a
former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC), Israel's ultra-powerful lobby in the United States.
CDI also includes members of key neoconservative policy institutes and
think tanks, including Raymond Tanter of the Washington Institute for
Near East Affairs (WINEA) -- an off-shoot of AIPAC -- Frank Gaffney,
president of the Center for Security Policy, American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) scholars Joshua Muravchik and Danielle Pletka, and
former CIA director James Woolsey. The organization proclaims that
diplomatic engagement with Iran has proved to be an utter failure, and
that the only way to end the reign of Iran's "terror masters" is to
actively support opponents of the regime in their efforts to topple
the reigning mullahs. [16][11]
[future_qt2.gif] The move on Iran enlisted broad support among
neocons. On May 6, 2003, AEI hosted an all-day conference titled "The
Future of Iran: Mullahcracy, Democracy, and the War on Terror," whose
speakers included Ledeen, Amitay, and Uri Lubrani from the Israeli
Defense Ministry. The convenor, Hudson Institute Middle East
specialist Meyrav Wurmser (whose husband David worked as her AEI
counterpart until joining the Bush administration), set the tone. "Our
fight against Iraq was only one battle in a long war," she said. "It
would be ill-conceived to think that we can deal with Iraq alone....
We must move on, and faster." [17][12]
As Marc Perelman pointed out in the Jewish newspaper Forward in May
2003, "A budding coalition of conservative hawks, Jewish
organizations, and Iranian monarchists is pressing the White House to
step up American efforts to bring about regime change in Iran."
[18][13]
It is worth noting that despite their reputation as advocates of
global democracy, the neoconservatives have proposed restoring the
monarchy in Iran, in the person of Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the
former shah. Perelman wrote: "The emerging coalition is reminiscent of
the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, with Pahlavi possibly assuming
the role of Iraqi exile opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi, a favorite of
neoconservatives. Like Chalabi, Pahlavi has good relations with
several Jewish groups. He has addressed the board of the hawkish
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and gave a public
speech at the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance in Los
Angeles, and met with Jewish communal leaders." [19][14]
A strong Israeli connection was apparent here. According to Perelman,
Pahlavi has had direct contacts with the Israeli leadership: "During
the last two years ... [Pahlavi] has met privately with Prime Minister
Sharon and former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as
Israel's Iranian-born president, Moshe Katsav." [20][15]
Another writer, Iraj Pakravan, maintained that the neocon and overall
Zionist support for Pahlavi was to be reciprocated by his support for
Israel, should he ever take power. Pahlavi and his supporters must
"give guarantees that they will conduct a policy that supports
Israel's position against the Palestinians and abide by the U.S.'s
energy needs. Furthermore, and most importantly, the opposition group
must accept that Israel will be the leading state in the hierarchy of
the regional system, a position that many states in the Middle East
covet." [21][16]
Indicating the seriousness of the American move to destabilize Iran
was the fact that preparations were being made by the Defense
Department's Office of Special Plans (OSP), which played such a key
role in the U.S. attack on Iraq. Perelman wrote in May 2003: "Iran
expert Michael Rubin is now working for the Pentagon's 'special plans'
office, a small unit set up to gather intelligence on Iraq, but
apparently also working on Iran. Previously a researcher at the
Washington Institute for Near East policy, Rubin has vocally advocated
regime change in Tehran." [22][17]
As a result of a leaked FBI probe in the late summer of 2004, it has
come out that Israel might have had direct contacts with members of
the OSP on the Iran issue. The implication is not simply that
individuals involved were pro-Israel but that some of them might be
conspirators in a clandestine operation launched by Sharon's Likud
Party. Robert Dreyfuss, writing in the Nation, has called them "agents
of influence" for a foreign government.
Dreyfuss reports that "the point of the FBI probe, sources believe, is
not to examine the push to war but rather to ascertain whether Sharon
recruited or helped place in office people who knowingly, and
secretly, worked with him to affect the direction of U.S. policy in
the Middle East." Tom Barry of In These Times writes that, unbeknownst
to the CIA or the State Department, the office of Douglas Feith
(assistant secretary of defense for policy) engaged in "back-channel
operations" and over the past three years participated in clandestine
meetings in Washington, Rome, and Paris "to discuss regime change in
Iraq, Iran, and Syria." Attending the meetings, Barry writes, were
"Office of Policy officials and consultants ... [Lawrence] Franklin,
Harold Rhode, and Michael Ledeen..., an expatriate Iranian arms dealer
(Manichur Ghorbanifar), AIPAC lobbyists, Ahmed Chalabi, and Italian
and Israeli intelligence officers, among others." The direct link to
Sharon's government was most obvious in the plan for regime change in
Iran, which Barry says would most likely involve "a combination of
preemptive military strikes (either by the United States or Israel)
and support for a coalition of Iranian dissidents." [23][18]
[future_qt3.gif] It was not just the neoconservatives in the Bush
administration who were moving to attack Iran: President George W.
Bush himself identified Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil" in his
first State of the Union Address in January 2002. And National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made this aspect of U.S. policy
clear in her August 8, 2004, appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press": "We
cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon." [24][19]
The next day, while campaigning for re-election, Bush asserted that
Iran "must abandon her nuclear ambitions," and he vowed to stand with
U.S. allies to pressure Tehran to do so. [25][20]
Ominously, on May 6, 2004, a U.S. House of Representatives resolution
authorized "all appropriate means" to put an end to Iranian
nuclear-weapons development; the administration could use that
resolution as legal justification to launch an attack. [26][21]
There are strong rumors floating that Israel plans to attack Iran's
nuclear installations, as it attacked Iraq's reactor in 1981. "For
Israel it's quite clear, that we're not going to wait for a threat to
be realized," says Ephraim Inbar, head of the Jaffee Center for
Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. "For self-defense we have to
act in a preemptive mode." [27][22]
But some Israeli authorities believe that destroying Iran's nuclear
capabilities would be a far more difficult mission than the 1981
attack. "I don't think there's an option for a pre-emptive act because
we're talking about a different sort of a nuclear program," maintained
Shmuel Bar, a fellow at the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the
Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. "A hit-and-run
preemptive attack can't guarantee much success." [28][23]
In late September 2004, however, Israel announced that it would
purchase 500 "bunker-busting" bombs from the United States (paid for
by U.S. military aid) -- weapons that could destroy Iran's underground
nuclear stores and laboratories. [29][24]
[future_qt4.gif] In the event of any Israeli strike on its nuclear
installations, Iran has threatened to unleash its forces in an all-out
retaliation, including long-range missile attacks and terror attacks
from Lebanon. Iran's claim to be able to wreak great damage on Israel
may just be bluster to ward off an attack, but defense experts do
report that the latest version of Iran's Shahab-3 medium-range
ballistic missile can reach Israel.
Threats of an Israeli attack, which could ignite an all-out Middle
East war, might induce the United States to move on Iran. Moreover,
American attacks on Iranian missile sites would probably be more
effective than anything Israel could carry out and would make it less
likely that Israel would suffer from Iranian retaliation. Thus, the
safety of Israel would likely motivate those influential Americans who
identify with Israel to push for an American attack.
Ironically, by eliminating the hostile regimes bordering Iran --
Afghanistan and Iraq -- the United States provided Tehran with
opportunities to greatly expand its power in the region. At the same
time, however, the presence of American forces in those bordering
countries puts considerable geopolitical pressure on Iran. The
stabilization of those neighbors under American domination would
seriously endanger Iran, especially since the United States already
controls the Persian Gulf. Historian Juan Cole describes the situation
this way: "The Iranians are very afraid that the United States will
find a way to maneuver an anti-Iranian government into power" in Iraq.
[30][25]
The current Iraqi government of Iyad Allawi definitely seems
anti-Iranian; thus it is in Iran's interest to work against stability
for the existing Iraqi government.
With American occupation forces in neighboring Iraq, the situation
with Iran is a veritable powder keg. American officials and Prime
Minister Allawi have claimed that Iran is aiding the violent Shi'ite
resistance in Iraq led by the radical cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr. [31][26]
The situation is ripe for incidents leading to conflict. Iranian
Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV on August 18, 2004,
that Iran might even launch a preemptive strike against U.S. forces in
the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities. "We will
not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some
military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations
which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly." Shamkhani
continued: "The U.S. military presence (in Iraq) will not become an
element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is
true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in the event of
an attack. [32][27]
In light of the American public's disenchantment with the bloody
quagmire in Iraq, it is highly unlikely that the Bush administration
would dare to attack Iran before the November election. But what could
the United States do after the election? Although the Iranian military
is not in any way comparable to that of the United States, it is
larger and better equipped than the Iraqi forces that the United
States faced in 2003. The Iranians also have the benefit of having
learned from U.S. military operations in Iraq. And Iran's military
power has not been sapped by a decade of bombing, as Iraq's had been.
The occupation of Iraq has stretched the U.S. Army so thin that a
large-scale ground invasion of Iran, followed by a comparable military
occupation, seems to be out of the question. But bombing of Iran's
nuclear sites and military infrastructure is highly likely. After all,
neither the Air Force nor the Navy, with its cruise missiles, is mired
in Iraq. However, since many Iranian facilities are located in urban
areas, even "precision" bombing would cause extensive civilian
casualties. Furthermore, precision bombing alone might not knock out
Iran's nuclear installations, many of which are said to be built
underground. [33][28]
[future_qt5.gif] Neocons would undoubtedly press for the severest
attack possible, not just to set back Iran's nuclear program but also
to weaken its military and economic potential. That would dramatically
set the stage for regime change in Iran. Hence, a limited ground
invasion of Iran with air support would not be out of the question;
the aim would be not to occupy Iran but rather to destroy Iranian
forces. A ground invasion could oblige Iran to position its military
forces in defensive positions that American airpower could then
destroy.
What would be the impact of such an American attack on Iran? A war
against Iran is liable to set off a tidal wave of terror in the rest
of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, already shaken by terror, could fall
into chaos. The concomitant danger to the Saudi oil supply would
threaten the economy of the world. A call would arise in the United
States to militarily occupy the Saudi oil-producing regions; that is a
move for which Washington is reported to have had contingency plans
for a long time, and it has been publicly advocated by the neocons.
Since anti-Saudi feeling is high in the United States, such a move
might enjoy considerable support here even among those who identify
with the anti-war American Left (i.e., the moderate Left). It is worth
noting that Michael Moore's popular anti-war movie "Fahrenheit 9/11"
blames the Saudi government for the 9/11 attacks and the war on Iraq.
While the U.S. military could manage to occupy Saudi Arabia's Eastern
Province, maintaining the oil supply would not necessarily be easy.
The pipelines would also have to be secured, including, presumably,
the vitally important pipeline that stretches across the country to
the Red Sea. Such an undertaking would further stretch the depleted
military and financial resources of the United States.
Any aggression directed against Saudi Arabia, the center of the
Islamic religion, would undoubtedly have a galvanizing effect on the
peoples of the entire Muslim world. Thousands of fanatical Muslim
fighters would not only pour into Saudi Arabia but would also attack
American and Western interests throughout the world. The pro-American
regimes in Jordan and Egypt would face destabilization.
[future_qt6.gif] The turmoil would cause oil prices to skyrocket,
which would have dire economic consequences around the world,
provoking social and political upheavals far beyond the Middle East.
Obviously, important American economic interests -- Big Oil,
international finance -- as well as the foreign-policy elite would not
want that nightmare scenario to develop. But those groups have
generally opposed the American war in the Middle East all along, with
little success. They are currently pushing for negotiation with Iran;
Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, headed a recent study for the
Council on Foreign Relations that recommended the diplomatic approach.
But the war skeptics among the elites -- defenders of the imperialist
status quo -- have been overtaken by events. Things have slipped
beyond their control. As the American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson
exclaimed during the American Civil War: "Events are in the saddle and
ride mankind."
As long as the United States stays in Iraq, the widening of the war is
very likely. Earlier I referred to the U.S. occupation of Iraq as a
powder keg; it is now ready to explode. And a couple of crucial actors
threaten to light the fuse. The Islamic regime in Iran believes its
survival depends on keeping Iraq unstable and on developing a powerful
military deterrent, probably including nuclear weapons. Militant
Islamic terrorists -- al Qaeda -- see an all-out war between the
United States and Islam as a chance to overthrow the existing Arab
regimes and gain power. Sharon and the American neocons realize that
destabilizing the Middle East can save the Jewish state by
facilitating a final solution to the Palestinian demographic threat,
which if ignored will soon overwhelm the Jewish population in the
areas controlled by Israel. Consequently, Israel and its influential
American supporters push for a U.S. hard line -- to bring about the
neoconservatives' World War IV.
It is probably beyond the power of the Bush administration to pull out
of Iraq, given the influence of the neocons and the fact that its
prestige is on the line. In fact, its justification for attacking Iraq
is even more applicable to attacking Iran, as many have pointed out.
The Bush administration is just not willing to throw in the sponge and
walk away from Iraq; to do so would be to admit that its whole policy
had been a failure.
Although John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, has the
support of most of the substantial anti-war vote, he is likely to
pursue a policy in the Middle East similar to Bush's. [34][29]
Kerry, in fact, doesn't even promise much change; some of his critics
have styled the Kerry program on the Middle East "an echo, not a
choice." [35][30] Kerry has said he would retain American troops in
the Middle East. Only recently, finding himself behind in the polls,
has he begun to actually admit that the invasion of Iraq was a
mistake. As late as August 2004, Kerry was saying that he would have
voted in the Senate to give the president the power to wage war on
Iraq even if he had known that the WMD danger was non-existent. In
regard to his plan for Iraq, Kerry differs with Bush only in respect
to the former's much-touted internationalism, though it is doubtful
that Kerry could attract much international support to occupy Iraq.
[future_qt7.gif] It should be added that Kerry's major organizational
backers -- the Democratic Leadership Council and the Progressive
Policy Institute -- are peopled by liberals who supported the war on
Iraq. Moreover, like the neocons, they identify closely with Israel.
Kerry himself has said that the "cause of Israel must be the cause of
America" -- at a time when the actual "cause" of the Sharon government
is to destabilize the Middle East in the interests of Israel. [36][31]
It also should be noted, however, that Kerry, under the guise of
progressive internationalism, could more effectively intensify and
widen the war in the Middle East than could the Bush administration,
whose credibility is much tarnished by lies, torture, and corruption.
The fact is that even if the neoconservatives themselves should lose
their grip on the reins of government power, the war policy that they
initiated in the Middle East has taken on a life of its own. And that
holds true despite the influence of the Establishment figures who,
unlike Kerry, opposed the American attack on Iraq. In large measure,
the neoconservatives have placed their Establishment adversaries in a
position where they cannot undo what the neocons have done. That is
because the American foreign-policy elite believes that withdrawing
from Iraq would destroy America's image as a world superpower. As
columnist Paul Krugman writes: "Even among harsh critics of the
administration's Iraq policy, the usual view is that we have to finish
the job. You've heard the arguments: We broke it; we bought it. We
can't cut and run. We have to stay the course." [37][32]
According to this line of thinking, if the United States looked like a
paper tiger in Iraq, it would not have the credibility to exercise its
necessary role of world leadership.
For the United States to pull out would put it on the defensive in the
rest of the world. That demonstration of weakness would invite attacks
on other parts of the American empire. Elite opinion on this issue is
supported by much of the general populace, who see American honor at
stake in staying the course and not giving in.
In stipulating that the United States must not retreat, the
foreign-policy elite inadvertently reveals the genius of
neoconservative foreign policy on Iraq. The neocons have driven
American policy into a position that their foreign-policy adversaries
-- insofar as they support the American global empire -- must accept.
Essentially, the neocons tied the interests of the American empire to
those of Israel, which the non-neoconservative foreign-policy elite
believes it cannot now abandon without undermining its own globalist
agenda.
But why can't the United States jettison its empire? Some say American
wealth depends on its military empire -- an economic view I reject.
Arnaud de Borchgrave, a critic of the attack on Iraq, presents the
non-economic rationale for global militarism: "Not to see this mission
[the Iraq business] through to a successful conclusion would relegate
the United States to the role of Sweden or Switzerland in a world
increasingly populated by pariah states. A new world disorder would be
well-nigh inevitable." [38][33]
But Sweden and Switzerland do quite well without a military empire.
And it seems unlikely that the United States could be the country
indispensable for maintaining prosperity for the rest of the world.
All producers have a vital self-interest in trade, as opposed to
self-sacrificing embargoes. If there arose [39][comment.gif] some
terrible threat to cut off vital resources to the industrial world,
other countries would undoubtedly intervene in some manner -- even by
bribing dictators, as the dastardly French are supposed to do on
occasion.
The standard of living in the United States does not depend on the
regime's global military empire. Unfortunately, the necessity of such
an empire is ingrained in the thinking of the foreign-policy elite and
of most educated Americans. Therefore it is hardly likely that the
United States will pull out of Iraq. And that means there is a global
debacle in the making.
References
1. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/reprint.htm">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/reprint.htm</a>
2. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mut-zur-ethik.ch/index_en.html">http://www.mut-zur-ethik.ch/index_en.html</a>
3. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/">http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/</a>
4. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://currentconcerns.ch/">http://currentconcerns.ch/</a>
5. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/conc_toc.htm">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/conc_toc.htm</a>
6. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note1">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note1</a>
7. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note2">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note2</a>
8. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note3">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note3</a>
9. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note4">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note4</a>
10. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note5">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note5</a>
11. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note6">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note6</a>
12. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note7">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note7</a>
13. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note8">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note8</a>
14. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note9">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note9</a>
15. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note10">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note10</a>
16. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note11">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note11</a>
17. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note12">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note12</a>
18. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note13">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note13</a>
19. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note14">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note14</a>
20. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note15">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note15</a>
21. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note16">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note16</a>
22. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note17">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note17</a>
23. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note18">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note18</a>
24. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note19">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note19</a>
25. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note20">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note20</a>
26. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note21">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note21</a>
27. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note22">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note22</a>
28. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note23">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note23</a>
29. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note24">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note24</a>
30. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note25">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note25</a>
31. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note26">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note26</a>
32. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note27">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note27</a>
33. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note28">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note28</a>
34. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note29">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note29</a>
35. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note30">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note30</a>
36. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note31">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note31</a>
37. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note32">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note32</a>
38. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note33">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note33</a>
39. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ditch@thornwalker.com?subject=StephenJ.Sniegoski--NEXTSTOP,IRAN">mailto:ditch@thornwalker.com?subject=StephenJ.Sniegoski--NEXTSTOP,IRAN</a>
40. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/donor_update_info.htm">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/donor_update_info.htm</a>
41. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/subscribe_tld.htm">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/subscribe_tld.htm</a>
42. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/index.html">http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/index.html</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</a>
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>