Likewise, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a major lobbying think tank for the military-industrial-Zionist alliance, can boast of being the metaphorical alma mater of a number of powerful members of the Bush administration. For example, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne Cheney, State Department arms control official John Bolton (now U.S. ambassador to the UN), and former chair of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle all have had long-standing ties with the Institute. The Institute played a key role in promoting Ahmed Chalabi's group of Iraqi exiles as a major Iraqi opposition force "that would be welcomed by the Iraqi people as an alternative to the regime of Saddam Hussein." The group, working closely with the AEI, played an important role in the justification of the invasion of Iraq. It served, for example, as a major source of (largely fabricated) intelligence for the militaristic chicken hawks whenever they found the intelligence gathered by the CIA and the State Department at odds with their plans of invading Iraq. [6]
Another example of the interlocking network of neoconservative forces in the Bush administration and the militaristic think tanks that are dedicated to the advancement of the military-industrial-Zionist agenda is reflected in the affiliation of a number of influential members of the administration with the Jewish Institute for the National Security Affairs (JINSA). These include, for example, Douglas Feith, assistant secretary of defense during the first term of the Bush administration, General Jay Garner, the initial head of the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq, and Michael Ladeen, who unofficially advises the Bush administration on Middle Eastern issues. JINSA "is on record in its support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and against the Oslo Accord. . . . In its fervent support for the hard-line, pro-settlement, anti-Palestinian Likud-style policies in Israel, JINSA has essentially recommended that 'regime change' in Iraq should be just the beginning of a cascade of toppling dominoes in the Middle East." [7]
The fact that neoconservative militarists of the Bush administration are organically rooted in the military-industrial-Zionist alliance is even more clearly reflected in their incestuous relationship with the warmongering think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Like most of its lobbying counterparts within the extensive network of neoconservative think tanks, PNAC was founded by a circle of powerful political figures a number of whom later ascended to key positions in the Bush administration. The list of signatories of PNAC's Founding Statement of Principles include Elliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Elliot Cohen, Frank Gaffney, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Add the signature of Vice President Dick Cheney to the list of PNAC founders, "and you have the bulwarks of the neo-con network that is currently in the driver's seat of the Bush administration's war without end policies all represented in PNAC's founding document." [8]
A closer look at the professional records of the neoconservative players in the Bush administration indicates that "32 major administration appointees . . . are former executives with, consultants for, or significant shareholders of top defense contractors." For example, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is an ex-director of a General Dynamics subsidiary, and his deputy during the first term of the Bush administration, Paul Wolfowitz, acted as a paid consultant to Northrop Grumman. Today the armaments lobby "is exerting more influence over policymaking than at any time since President Dwight D. Eisenhower first warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex over 40 years ago." [9]
This sample evidence indicates that the view that the neoconservative militarists' tendency to war and aggression is inspired by an ideological passion to spread American ideals of democracy is clearly false. Their successful militarization of US foreign policy stems largely from the fact they operate essentially on behalf of two immensely powerful special interests, the military-industrial complex and the influential Israeli lobby. Neoconservative architects of war and militarism derive their political clout and policy effectiveness primarily from the political machine and institutional infrastructure of the military-industrial-Zionist alliance.
It is necessary to note at this point that, despite its immense political influence, the Zionist lobby is ultimately a junior, not equal, partner in this unspoken, de defacto alliance. Without discounting the extremely important role of the Zionist lobby in the configuration of the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, I would caution against simplifications and exaggerations of its power and influence over the U.S. policy in the region. It is true that most of the neo-conservative militarists who have been behind the recent U.S. military aggressions in the Middle East have long been active supporters of Israel's right-wing politicians and/or leaders. It is also no secret that there is a close collaboration over issues of war and militarism between militant Zionism, neoconservative forces in and around the Bush administration, and jingoistic think tanks such as AEI, PNAC, CSP, and JINSA.
It does not follow, however, that, as some critics argue, the U.S.-Israeli relationship represents a case of "tail wagging the dog," that is, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is shaped by the Israeli/Zionist leaders. While, no doubt, the powerful Zionist lobby exerts considerable influence over U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, the efficacy and the extent of that influence depend, ultimately, on the real economic and geopolitical interests of U.S. foreign policy makers. In other words, U.S. policy makers in the Middle East would go along with the desires and demands of the radical Zionist lobby only if such demands also tend to serve the special interests that those policy makers represent or serve, that is, if there is a convergence of interests over those demands. [10]
Aggressive existential tendencies of the U.S. military-industrial empire to war and militarism are shaped by its own internal or intrinsic dynamics: continued need for arms production as a lucrative business whose fortunes depend on permanent war and international convulsion. Conjunctural or reinforcing factors such as the horrors of 9/11, or the Zionist lobby, or the party in power, or the resident of the White House will, no doubt, exert significant influences. But such supporting influences remain essentially contributory, not defining or determining. The decisive or central role is played, ultimately, by the military-industrial complex itself-that is, by the merchants of arms or wars.
Author Bio: Ismael Hossein-zadeh is an economics professor at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. US. This article draws upon his newly released book, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism, by Palgrave-Macmillan Publishers.
_______________________________
References
1. See, for example, Seymour M. Hersh, "The military's problem with the President's Iran policy," The New Yorker (July 10, 2006): ; Evan Eland, "Military Action Against Iran?" antiwar.com (January 24, 2006): http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=8433 2. Hersh, "The military's problem with the President's Iran policy." 3. Ibid.; see also Ismael Hossein-zadeh, "U.S. Iran Policy Irks Senior Commanders: The Military vs. Militaristic Civilian Leadership," OpEdNews.com (July 24, 2006): http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ismael_h_060724_u_s__iran_policy_irk.htm 4. A detailed discussion of this issue, and of the de facto alliance between militant Zionism and the powerful beneficiaries of war dividends, can be found, among other places, in Chapter 6 of my recently released book, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2006). 5. William D. Hartung, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? (New York: Nation Books, 2003), P. 101; William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, "The Military-Industrial-Think Tank Complex," Multinational Monitor 24, nos. 1 &2 (Jan/Feb 2003): . 6. Hartung, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? PP. 103-106. 7. Ibid., PP. 109-11. 8. Ibid., P. 113. 9. William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, "The Military-Industrial-Think Tank Complex." 10. I have provided a longer discussion of the role of the Zionist lobby in the configuration of the U.S. policy in the Middle East in Chapter 6 of my recently published book, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2006).
re the neo-con/AIPAC/military industrial complex...plus one!
Great commentary by Ismael Hossein-zadeh.
There is actually a third major, huge component of the neo-con/AIPAC/military-industrial-complex alliance of convenience that is driving so many aggressive domestic policies in America, and aggressive policies abroad, and that is the neo-Confederate agenda. When the Bush campaign (of 2000) settled on the slogan "Compassionate Conservative" to define their goals and agenda, millions of American voters, particularily those in the Deep South, had an instant cultural affinity for this moder Repub. slogan: "compassionate" was a term used by the Confederate-era South to mask and justify the cruelty of slavery. Slavery as an institution was justified as being for the benefit of slaves; slaves were prohibited from learing to read "for their own good" by their "compassionate" masters; and slaves were tortured, exposed to the elements and executed as a "compassionate" means of detering other slaves from attempting escape. (In all due objectivity, author Adam Nicolson depicts the same savage discipline being inflicted on British sailors by their own officers before and after the Battle of Trafalgar. Nicolson recounts the 36 lashes per sailor meted out on board the HMS Victory after that ship survived 10% killed and wounded in Nelson's great victory - hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of lashings meted out - a brutal testimony to the savage times. And Hollywood is conversant in this cruel "compassion" in at least two movies, #1. the sadistic prison warden in the movie "Cool Hand Luke" saying "What we have hea is a failure.. to communicate" as he inflicts yet another torturous punishment on Paul Newman's character; and #2. the executioner in the movie "Braveheart" 'tenderly' disembowling Mel Gibson's character as part of a three-pronged execution ('hung, drawn, and quartered').
"Compassionate Conservative" is only a small facet of this neo-Confederate agenda, which is explained in great depth and authority by author Michael Lind, in his book "Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the SOUTHERN TAKEOVER of American Politics."
In a nutshell, this book outlines an agenda that holds that "if you are not with us, you are against us." Where have we heard that before? Those who weren't in full, 100% support of the Southern autocratic, militaristic, hierarchical slave society were deemed to be "enemies of the state" and could be subjected to corporal and capital punishment. (Even today, of course, prisons in American and esp. third-world countries can be so brutal and hazardous that even a short term of imprisonment can be a death sentence.) In the Deep South at the height of the slave era, even teaching slaves to read was considered a capital crime, akin to inciting insurrection - the very definition, in slave states, of being an "Enemy of the State."
Other components of the slave state culture and economy were: ruthless, relentless subjugation of captured minorities (especially, but not limited to slaves); an agricultural and resource extraction economy based on control of large swaths of territory by a handful of hyper-wealthy owners relying on cheap (or forced) labor (yesterday's cotton, rice, and tobaco economies now dominated by oil extraction); ruthless EXPANSION vs. neighboring tribes and nations, especially those portrayed as subhuman, savage, or treacherous (native Americans, escaped slaves, Mexicans, even anti-slavery white Americans, as with "Bleeding Kansas"), and, of course, the fundamental role that RELIGION plays in all the above, justifying not just slavery, but raw violence and war as well. If I have time, I will transcribe Adam Nicolson's observations on violence in these state settings as an example of God's divine wrath, a divine purging of evil and wrongful impulses that is a necessary prerequisite for either the assumption of the "Promised Land" or the fundamentalist vision of the apocalypse.
But what is important is that right-wingers and neo-Confeds are free to play to these themes - for example, that abortion is a sin of murder that must be cleansed from the national blotter, as is "free love" and the even more sinful "miscegenation" - while moderates, Democrats, 'liberals,' and progressives (especially elected ones) keep playing by the rules that "All Americans are created equal."
In sum, Lind's book is a must read for any Americans who seek to comment on the present and future course of American politics - when he says "the Southern Takeover of American Politics" he is not kidding. It (his book) is undoubtably the most important single book of the decade, quite possibly of the next two decades. (Certainly if a democracy-voiding martial law state of emergency is declared in the future.)
And finally, one other observation that ties all the above together: it is remarkable that the right-wing (led by the neo-confeds) have gotten to this prominence in American politics by pushing their agenda and slogan of "Tax and Spend Democrats", when of course not only are the Bush Republicans running up the national deficits as if there were not tomorrow (which their captive, corporate media refuses to comment on), but, in creating huge tax cuts for the hyper wealthy and SLASHING social services to middle- and working-class Americans, the right-wing Repubs are actually SHIFTING billions and billions and billions of dollars worth of debt ON TO those middle- poor-, and working-class Americans. This propaganda masterpiece - telling us they are going to REDUCE our taxes, while actually greatly increasing our taxes (share of the deficit) and ability to pay for them (cuts in wages, benefits, social services, and take-home pay) - is testimony not only to the social cohesion of the aggressive, apolcalyptic neo-Confederate cultural vision, but the absolute clueless myopia of "the liberal" media, elite, and voters as well.
by
verifi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Monday, August 28, 2006 at 1:10:01 PM
Both communist Russia and Brittain made "piece" agreements with Nazi Germany in 1939 - giving land and supplies for guarantees. We know the outcome. It is good to note that Bath Party in Syria, Iraq/Hussain is modeled after Nazi's -it is the Suni version. Iran has its own variety - Shia version - of Anti Semitism and domination of Middle East. To correct Ismael's thinking - there are NO diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. They are sworn enemies. Iran's comments about Israel are unprecedented and hostile. Poland called them a "call to war".
Ismael is cloaking his Anti Semitic views to distort reality of Iran's pursuits. Iran is building nukes for Saudi's too. They want to dominate the region more then anyone.
One thing is clear - not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim. Ismael could do more in his own back yard to peacefy the region then attacking Zionists. Start by reforming the schools in the Arab countries. Text books in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere proclaim Irael does not exist. Text books teach to "kill Chrstians and Jews". And Hindu's and other non-believers. Change the schools and no need to nukes.
Muslim schools teach Jeehad. It's not a war against Islam. It's the war against the West by Islam.
by
alex smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 10:34:14 AM
3 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
