World War Four (and Three)
Counting …. 3,2,1, …. blast off
World War III – Who,What,Where,When,How,Why?
The short answer:
Because God Almighty preordained and foretold us about the end times and the wars and conflicts of those times, and that eventually, after trials and tribulations, those that worship “The One God” with sincerity and without idolatry, and follow the Messengers sent by God the Mighty and Majestic, will prevail, and that the armies of idolatry, evil, tyranny, and selfish greed, luxury and hedonism, will be utterly destroyed.
Because certain “powers that be” desire, plan, and implement Wars and Massive Violence, since that is how they move and manipulate their agenda, and how they gain ever more power and wealth, in their greed for to endlessly increase power and wealth, and in their desire to implement newer systems of control of the human and natural resources of the world, and in their utter selfishness to sustain their luxurious lifestyles and their self aggrandizement as the self proclaimed ruling elite.
Because war is the greatest interest bearing debt generator known to mankind, and the Banksters use it with brutal efficiency for their purposes, and for urban, rural and human ” renewal ” projects
Because there are many historical indicators, for those that are aware.
World War III – Who,What,Where,When,How,Why?
Some few pieces of information and indicators below, for those that will receive, reflect, plan and act to repent to their One and Only Lord Creator and God, and enter on the path to one of the two victories in this life and eternal salvation in the Hereafter.
I am grateful to Allah the One God of all Mankind and the Lord Sovereign of the Universe, that I mentioned some of these details in my Doctoral Research in the 1990′s, and these days we are seeing before our eyes what has been foretold and explained. Of course new information comes to light, and events progress with new contributing factors, and as the Prophet may the salutations of peace and blessings be upon him and his family and faithful followers, said:
“The one who witnesses (firsthand) is not like the one who was informed (secondhand).”
All praise to Allah the Wise and Just, Who is the Ruler, King, Law Giver, Master, and Judge this day, yesterday and tomorrow, but many men will not realize until they stand before Him on the Day of Resurrection, the Day of Retribution, the Day of Judgement, the Day of Final and Absolute Just Judgement, the Day that leads them to their final eternal abode in either Paradise of Bliss, or Hellfire of Torture.
Some of these articles are of purely secular nature since many people only seek the life of this world, and its signs and proofs:
All words are to and from the authors who are solely responsible, and we only seek to inform and prompt further investigation;
Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces ‘World War IV’
Former CIA Director James Woolsey said Wednesday the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could continue for years.
In the address to a group of college students, Woolsey described the Cold War as the third world war and said “This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us. Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold War.”
Woolsey has been named in news reports as a possible candidate for a key position in the reconstruction of a postwar Iraq.
Woolsey told the audience of about 300, most of whom are students at the University of California at Los Angeles, that all three enemies have waged war against the United States for several years but the United States has just “finally noticed.”
“As we move toward a new Middle East,” Woolsey said, “over the years and, I think, over the decades to come … we will make a lot of people very nervous.”
It will be America’s backing of democratic movements throughout the Middle East that will bring about this sense of unease, he said.
“Our response should be, ‘good!'” Woolsey said.
Singling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi Arabia, he said, “We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you — the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family — most fear: We’re on the side of your own people.”
Woolsey, who served as CIA director under President Bill Clinton, was taking part in a “teach-in” at UCLA, a series of such forums at universities across the nation.
A group calling itself “Americans for Victory Over Terrorism” sponsors the teach-ins, and the Bruin Republicans, UCLA’s campus Republicans organization, co-sponsored Wednesday night’s event.
The group was founded by former Education Secretary William Bennett, who took part in Wednesday’s event along with Paul Bremer, a U.S. ambassador during the Reagan administration and the former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism.
“A little more than a month after the September 11 attacks, Eliot Cohen, the director of strategic studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, declared in The Wall Street Journal that the struggle against terrorism was more than a law-enforcement operation, and would require military conflict beyond the invasion of Afghanistan. Cohen, like Marenches, considered World War III to be history. “A less palatable but more accurate name is World War IV,” he wrote. “The Cold War was World War III, which reminds us that not all global conflicts entail the movement of multi-million-man armies, or conventional front lines on a map.”
“Right-wing media divided: Is U.S. now in World War III, IV, or V?”. Media Matters for America. 14 July 2006. Retrieved 28 February 2011.
“On the July 10 edition of Fox News’ The Big Story, host John Gibson interviewed Michael Ledeen, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and said: “Some are calling the global war on terror something else, something more like World War III.” But Ledeen responded: “It’s more like World War IV because there was a Cold War, which was certainly a world war…Probably the start of [World War IV] was the Iranian revolution of 1979.” Similarly, on the 24 May edition of CNBC’s Kudlow and Company, host Lawrence Kudlow, discussing a book by former deputy Under-secretary of Defense Jed Babbin, said: “World War IV is the terror war, and war with China would be World War V.”
Bush Likens War On Terror To WWII
Colorado is important to Mr. Bush for more than the Air Force Academy. He wants the nine electoral votes from a state he won four years ago, 51 percent to 42 percent for Al Gore. Republicans also want to keep the Senate seat of retiring Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
© 2007 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The United States Congress is set to vote on legislation that authorizes the official start of World War 3.
The legislation authorizes the President of the United States to take unilateral military action against all nations, organizations, and persons, both domestically and abroad, who are alleged to be currently or who have in the past supported or engaged in hostilities or who have provided aid in support of hostilities against the United States or any of its coalition allies.
The legislation removes the requirement of congressional approval for the use of military force and instead gives the President totalitarian dictatorial authority to engage in any and all military actions for an indefinite period of time.
It even gives the President the authority to launch attacks against American Citizens inside the United States with no congressional oversight whatsoever.
Just to recap, because that was a mouthful:
- Endless War – The war will continue until all hostilities are terminated, which will never happen.
- No Borders – The president will have the full authority to launch military strikes against any country, organization or person, including against U.S citizens on U.S soil.
- Unilateral Military Action – Full authority to invade any nation at any time with no congressional approval required.
- No Clearly Defined Enemy – The US can declare or allege anyone a terrorist or allege they are or have been supporting “hostilities” against the US and attack at will.
- Authorization To Invade Several Countries – The president would have full authority to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, along with several other nations in Africa and the Middle East and even Russia and China under the legislation all of which are “know” to have supported and aided hostilities against the United States.
The Hill writes:
House Dems protest GOP’s plans for permanent war against terror
Nearly three dozen House Democrats are calling on Republicans to withdraw a section of the 2012 defense authorization bill that they say would effectively declare a state of permanent war against unnamed Taliban and al Qaeda operatives.
A Tuesday letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and 32 other Democrats argues that affirming continued war against terrorist forces goes too far, giving too much authority to the president without debate in Congress.
Their letter cites language in the authorization bill that incorporates the Detainee Security Act, which affirms continued armed conflict against terrorists overseas.
“By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations and nations ‘associated’ with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee Security Act would appear to grant the president near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval,” Democrats wrote. “Such authority must not be ceded to the president without careful deliberation from Congress.”
The specific language in the bill is found in section 1034 of H.R. 1540, which affirms that the U.S. is “engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” It also affirms that the president has the authority to detain “certain belligerents” until the armed conflict is over.
“Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national security,” the bill says. “The Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups.”
The America Civil Liberties Union writes:
New Authorization of Worldwide War Without End?
Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies. A “sleeper provision” deep inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history.
President Obama has not sought new war authority. In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.
But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.
Of all of the powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” That is why, in 2002, when Congress was considering whether to authorize war in Iraq, it held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective. Now, Congress is poised to give unchecked authority to the executive branch to use military force worldwide, with profoundly negative consequences for our fundamental democratic system of checks and balances. Once Congress expands the president’s war power, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in. The ACLU strongly opposes a wholesale turnover of war power from Congress to the president – and all of his successors.
The offending text (Here In The Full Text Of H.R. 1540 – section 1034) uses doublespeak to declare World War 3. Specifically, the text uses the phrase “affirms” “armed conflict” which is the terminology used by congress declare war in every war since World War 2.
Congress affirms that —
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who—
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al‐Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.
A joint letter regarding the proposed legislation has been sent to congress condemning the proposed legislation.
All Members of the House Committee on Armed Services
American Civil Liberties Union
Appeal for Justice
Brave New Foundation
Center for Constitutional Rights
Defending Dissent Foundation
High Road for Human Rights
Human Rights First
International Justice Network
Just Foreign Policy
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Muslim Public Affairs Council
New Security Action
Pax Christi USA
Physicians for Human Rights
Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
Win Without War
May 9th, 2010
Oppose Section 1034 and Any Similar New Declaration of War or New Authorization for Use of Military Force in the National Defense Authorization Act
The undersigned organizations strongly oppose the new Declaration of War, which is in Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). We urge you to oppose the provision and any other similar new Declaration of War or new Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”) in the NDAA.
While we have written separately, and met with many of you and your military legislative assistants, on our concerns with other provisions of the Chairman’s mark, we are writing on this new Declaration of War specifically because it is a provision that has received almost no review, despite its likely tremendous effect on almost every facet of United States national security policy. At minimum, Congress should hold hearings andfollow regular order before even considering such sweeping legislation.
This monumental legislation–with a large-scale and practically irrevocable delegation of war power from Congress to the President–could commit the United States to a worldwide war without clear enemies, without any geographical boundaries (the use of military force within the United States could be permitted), and without any boundary relating to time or specific objective to be achieved. Unlike the AUMF that authorized the Afghanistan War and the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, the proposed new Declaration of War does not cite any specific harm, such as the 9/11 attacks, or specific threat of harm to the United States. It appears to be stating that the United States is at war wherever terrorism suspects reside, regardless of whether there is any danger to the United States.
Under the guise of a “reaffirmation” of authority, Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA would give the President unchecked authority–and if the section constitutes a declared “war,”1 possibly the unchecked duty2 –to use military force worldwide against or within any country in which terrorism suspects reside. The proposed new Declaration of War would be without precedent in the scope of war authority or duties transferred by Congress to the President:
- The President would be able to use this authority–or might be required to use this authority–regardless of whether there has been any harm to United States citizens, or any attack on the United States or any imminent threat of any attack. There is not even any requirement of any threat whatsoever to the national security of the United States.
- There is no geographical limitation–the new Declaration of War has no specification of countries against which military force could be used, and no specification of countries where U.S. armed forces could be deployed with or without the permission of the host country. Military force could even be used within the United States and against American citizens.
- There is no specific objective for the new Declaration of War, which means that there is no clear criteria after which the President’s authority to use military force would expire. Although the proposed new Declaration of War lists “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces” as the “threat,” there is no definition for any of these entities, which historically have been amorphous, with shifting names, memberships, and organizational relationships.
- If Congress broadly turns over to the President the power that Article I of the Constitution provides to Congress to declare war, it very likely will never get the power back. The broad terms of the proposed new Declaration of War could last for decades.
- Whether Congress realizes it or not, the proposed new Declaration of War would authorize the President to use the United States military against countries such as Somalia, Iran, or Yemen, or send the American military into any of the scores of countries where suspected terrorists reside, which include not only nearly all Middle East, African, and Asian countries, but also European countries and Canada–and of course, the United States itself. Under the expansive terms used for organizations in the proposed new Declaration of War, targets could include suspects having no connection to the 9/11 attacks or to any other specific harm or threat to the United States. The President would have the power to go to war almost anywhere, at any time, and based on the presence of suspects who do not have to pose any threat to the national security of the United States.
- If Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA constitutes a declaration of war–which Congress has not declared since 1942–the declaration would trigger various exemptions from federal statutes and even broader authority for the President to control more aspects of both government and private businesses. The March 17, 2011 report from the Congressional Research Service, “Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications,” lists all of the statutory provisions, ranging from exemptions from budgetary limitations to new government claims over oil and mineral resources, that are triggered by a declaration of war.
- Of course, if Congress believes that there is a significant new threat to the national security of the United States that requires significant military force as a response, it can declare war or enact a new AUMF, but Congress should, at minimum, follow what it did in 2002 with the AUMF for the Iraq War, where it held fifteen hearings on the proposed war and passed an AUMF that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective that, if met, would effectively terminate the AUMF. A specific declaration of war or a specific AUMF would better preserve the system of checks and balances and make an endless, worldwide war less likely.
To be clear, President Obama has not sought enactment of the proposed new Declaration of War. To the contrary, his Administration has made clear its position that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism. But if the proposed new Declaration of War becomes law, President Obama and all of his successors, until and unless a future Congress and future President repeal it, will have the sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere.
Of all of the powers that Article I of the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” We urge you to use this power carefully, and to oppose this wholesale turnover of war power, without any checks–and without even holding a single hearing. Thank you for your attention to this issue, and we would be pleased to meet with you or your staff to discuss our concerns further.
1 The most critical sentence of section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA is “Congress affirms that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad.” If “affirms” is replaced with the synonym “declares” and “armed conflict” is replaced with the synonym “war,” the result is “Congress declares that the United States is in a war with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces . . . “, which is very similar to the declaration of war clauses of the eleven declarations of war made by Congress, from the War of 1812 through World War II. Since 1942, Congress has passed several authorizations for use of military force, but has not made any declarations of war.
2 Although the question of whether a declaration of war imposes a duty on the President to carry out the war has only rarely come up in court decisions, at least one federal court, in comparing the legal consequences of a declaration of war with an authorization for use of military force, stated, “If war existed why empower the President to apprehend foreign enemies? War itself placed that duty upon him as a necessary and inherent incident of military command.” Gray v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 340, 373 (1886) (emphasis added).
The bill has many other shocking elements as well, such as the requirement that all arrests related to terrorism be treated as military arrests (section 4), thus circumventing the constitution. Furthermore, legislation introduce under the McCain bill would make it illegal for military prisoners in US overseas torture prisons to be returned to US Facilities.
Indeed, the moment we all feared has come before us as the Congress meddles giving the President absolute power over the military, including the authority to launch military strikes within the United States against U.S. Citizens. With the assassination of Osama Bin Laden on Pakistan soil many of were naïve in believing that the War on Terror would come to an end.
Instead, the reported success of the raid is being used as a crutch to push through new legislation in the defense bills up for vote before congress which literally authorize World War 3, which will be declared as an endless war with no defined enemies and no borders. Short of committing genocide the termination of the hostilities will never come and as such the war will never come to end.
We have already learned that officials falsified reports that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq for the “prize” of oil. If a whole government of top officials can not be trusted then surely a single president cannot be trusted either.
We have seen the U.S Government turn Nazi and buy and burn every copy of a book that had evidence of a 9/11 coverup. The Department of Justice has already published a memo calling constitutionalists and survivalist as potential terrorists.
Is it not bad enough that the U.S courts have already legalized the abduction of U.S Citizens along with their indefinite detention and torture in overseas prison camps? Or that the U.S Government openly admits to gunning down, kidnapping and torturing American college students?
Under the definition of the legislation, the President could authorize the military to attack the ACLU building because they have supported the “terrorists” by arguing for their civil rights.
It will not be long before they are assassinating activists. The have already labeled conspiracy theories as “dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence” and have even specifically called The Intel Hub, which routinely publishes my articles, as an echo chamber pushing out these “dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence”.
Uncle Sam openly admits to turning its multi-billion dollar espionage network against U.S Citizens which has produced such great fruits as innocent activists exercising their first amendment rights being placed on the terrorist watch list by the FBI and DHS.
Seriously, this is so out of control and it is only a time that the World War 3 is being fought against you and me. Just remember as long as we are in a state of war your civil liberties and constitutional rights are pretty much null and void, only enforceable if the Government allows you to have them. Even then, they can declare you as a terrorist, enemy combatant or a threat to national security to revoke your constitutional rights anyway. Then they can play the national security card when they are asked to explain their allegations.
All around this is rotten and the first step to getting our rights back is to end the perpetual wars.
Contact your congressman and tell them No Way To this egregious bill!
Update – Here is some corporate media coverage of this story, since some people like to see it in the mainstream media to believe it.
Critics: GOP bill a declaration of constant war
House Republicans want to reaffirm war against al-Qaida, the Taliban — and anyone else — with controversial bill
Republican chair of the Armed Services Committee, Howard McKeon, R-Calif., revealed The National Defense Authorization Act on Monday, which includes a bill renewing an act passed just days after 9/11, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). AUMF gave then-President George W. Bush carte blanche to hunt down the 9/11 perpetrators and their allies. The renewed bill, however, makes no reference to the 9/11 attackers and some critics have called it “the first full-scale declaration of war by the U.S. since World War II,” since it makes no reference to the capturing of parties guilty of a specific act. Indeed, the section of The National Defense Authorization Act under question here is called the Declaration of War.
According to POLITICO:
The new language drops any reference to 9/11 and “affirms” a state of “armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” The measure also explicitly gives the president the right to take prisoners “until the termination of hostilities” – something the courts have found to be implicit in the current version of the AUMF, though the new proposal could be seen to extend that power.
The argument from proponents of the Republican-backed bill is that, in the decade since AUMF was enacted, terror groups with no connection to 9/11 have come into the picture. Critics say such terror suspects should be dealt with using law enforcement and that we should not be affirming a commitment to war without specific aims or boundaries. The bill would also give the president the ability to attack an individual, group, or nation without Congressional approval.
ALERT: Congress is About to Vote on Worldwide War Authority
The time is now to restore respect for the Constitution. Tell Congress that a blank check on war isn’t just unnecessary — it’s truly dangerous.
They have to be kidding. Congress is about to vote on worldwide war authority. This was long on the Bush administration’s wish list. Now, a few top congressional insiders see an opportunity to sneak it in to a “must pass” piece of legislation: the Defense Authorization bill.
This expanded war authority would give the president — any president — the power to use military force, whenever and however he or she sees fit. It would essentially declare a worldwide war without end.
It is shocking that Congress is entertaining such legislation at a time when many are looking to see an end to escalating conflict and abuses of power in the name of fighting terrorism.
Oppose New Worldwide War Authority
A few top congressional insiders are aiming to sneak new worldwide war authority in to a “must pass” piece of legislation: the Defense Authorization bill.
This new war authority would give the president — any president — the power to unilaterally take our country to war wherever, whenever and however he or she sees fit. It would essentially declare a worldwide war without end.
It is shocking that Congress is entertaining such legislation at a time when many are looking to see an end to escalating conflict and abuses of power in the name of fighting terrorism.
Take action! Tell your representative to oppose new worldwide war authority.
GOP seeks to redefine war on terror
A little over a week after the United States finally succeeded in its long-sought goal of killing Osama bin Laden, Congress is set to engage in a debate over whether to extend the war on terror indefinitely or leave in place legislation that could eventually wind it down.
Enacted over a lone dissenting vote just three days after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force,” or AUMF, authorized President George W. Bush to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those involved in the 9/11 attacks as well as anyone who harbored the perpetrators.
The new language drops any reference to 9/11 and “affirms” a state of “armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” The measure also explicitly gives the president the right to take prisoners “until the termination of hostilities” – something the courts have found to be implicit in the current version of the AUMF, though the new proposal could be seen to extend that power.
But critics say the Republican-sponsored measure amounts to the first full-scale declaration of war by the U.S. since World War II – at a moment when counter-terrorism efforts are succeeding, the U.S. is withdrawing from Iraq, and about to begin a withdrawal from Afghanistan. And, they say, it gives Obama and any successor carte blanche to attack any individual or any nation without further approval from Congress.
The Wall Street Journal.
Defense Bill Would ‘Affirm’ War With al Qaeda
Even though Osama bin Laden is dead, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.) wants to remind Washington: The war on terror ain’t over.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard McKeon (R., Calif.) (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
And with that in mind, Rep. McKeon, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, is pushing for Congress to renew the 2001 authorization to use military force against terrorists.
The chairman on Monday revealed his version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2012, and his mark of the bill includes a provision that “would affirm that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces.”
Critics say provisions in the bill are tantamount to a congressional declaration of war that could give the president broad new powers over private business and government spending.
One provision seeks to bolster the Authorization for Military Force, passed by Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, which the Bush and Obama administration have used as legal authority to conduct military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan and other countries where al Qaeda affiliates have sprung up.
The American Civil Liberties Union and more than a dozen mostly left leaning groups wrote a letter to members of the House Armed Services Committee to oppose the “reaffirmation” saying that it essentially declares war and gives broad powers to the president that normally belong to Congress.
TAKE ACTION NOW!
Now sign the ACLU Petition and share this post to get the word out so we can stop this before it happens.
World War III?
‘We’re in the early stages of what I would describe as the Third World War, and, frankly…we don’t have the right attitude.’ — Newt Gingrich, on NBC’s Meet the Press, July 16, 2006
LUIZA CH. SAVAGE | Jul 25, 2006
In the Clinton era, Newt Gingrich was the most powerful Republican in the United States, leading his party to a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. He’s been out of office for the better part of a decade now, but he still packs a punch. The former House Speaker sits on the influential Defense Policy Board, which advises Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He’s even flirting with a run for president. And so it was that Gingrich was chatting with Tim Russert on Meet the Press last weekend about the escalating conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. It’s more than a squabble, he said. It’s much more ominous. In fact, it’s the next world war.
“We are in the early stages of what I would describe as the Third World War,” Gingrich declared. “And frankly, our bureaucracies aren’t responding fast enough, we don’t have the right attitude about this.” Missile launches by North Korea, bombs in Mumbai, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq “funded largely by Saudi Arabia and supplied largely from Syria and Iran,” terrorist plots in Britain, Miami, Toronto and New York — are all connected, in Gingrich’s view. “I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you’d have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III. You’ve got to understand these dictatorships all talk to each other,” he continued. “There’s public footage from North Korean television of the Iranians visiting with Kim Jong Il the dictator, and a North Korean missile manufacturing facility. The Iranians have now unveiled a statue of Simón Bolívar in Tehran to prove their solidarity with Venezuela. I mean, these folks think on a global basis.”
For adherents of this view, calling it a world war is not just a matter of taxonomy. It implies a course of action for the United States, if not all the West. If, for example, the current fighting between Hezbollah and Israel leads to an attack on Israel by Syria or Iran, Gingrich asserted, it should be considered an attack on the United States. “I’m saying the first step has to be to understand, this is an alliance — Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas — and you can’t deal with it in isolation.”
Perhaps testing to see whether this was merely one controversialist’s off-the-cuff remark, CNN’s Larry King tried the quote out on another Republican presidential contender, Arizona Senator John McCain, who serves on the armed services committee and spent years as a POW in Vietnam. McCain said he agreed with Gingrich “to some extent. I think it’s important to recognize that we have terrorist organizations who are dangerous by themselves, and are now being supported by radical Islamic governments.”
Gingrich and McCain were only the highest profile voices in a flurry of discussion about whether a third world war is indeed underway. “This is like Hitler taking over Czechoslovakia. That’s the stage we’re at right now,” former CIA officer Robert Baer told CNN Headline News last week.(Baer was the inspiration for George Clooney’s character in the Oscar-winning film Syriana.)American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Ledeen told Fox News on July 10 that we are in World War IV(the third having been the Cold War)and that it began with the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979. The world war talk proliferated to the point that the liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America, began keeping a tally on their website.
But the discussion has not been confined to talk-show sabre-rattling. Serious players in the unfolding crisis have been talking this way since long before this latest round of violence in the Middle East. Speaking to The Economist magazine in 2004, the former head of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, Efraim Halevy, said of former CIA director George Tenet: “Mr. Tenet was in office for seven years and his many successes cannot be publicly revealed. But there is one achievement of which one can speak: the rare knack he had of pulling together a genuine international effort in this third world war against Islamic terror and the proliferation of WMD.”
More recently, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, told the Security Council on May 30: “Today we must sadly and emphatically state that terrorism is indeed the third world war. This is World War Three. As this is a world war, the allies should fight this axis of terror, just as 60 years ago the Allies fought the Axis.” He singled out Iran, Syria and “the terror organizations they finance, harbour, nurture and support,” accusing them of targeting “innocents wherever they are.” The Syrian diplomat, Ahmed Alhariri, countered that if it was a world war, Israel was to blame. “The constitution of UNESCO tells us that ‘wars begin in the minds of men,’ and it appears that this is what is in the mind of Israel,” he said.
Even U.S. President George W. Bush, who has emphasized diplomacy over confrontation in dealing with the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran, has himself used the phrase. In May, referring to the passenger revolt on hijacked Flight 93 on Sept. 11, 2001, he said, “I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.”(The President was commenting on a Wall Street Journal essay by David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, and who called the act “our first successful counterattack in our homeland in this new global war — World War III.”)
While the WWIII discussion seems to have sprung up suddenly in the post-9/11 world of conflict and threat, the notion has a longer pedigree. During the Cold War, there was much worry that any number of proxy wars could escalate into a mutually destructive Armageddon between the superpowers. Some historians, in fact, consider the Cold War to have been the third world war. One of these was the senior French intelligence officer and author Count Alexandre de Marenches, who is also believed to have been first to suggest that international terrorism and rogue states were about to unleash the next world war. In 1992, he published The Fourth World War: Diplomacy and Espionage in the Age of Terrorism with the journalist David Andelman. It called for a “Decent People’s Club” of nations to adopt a doctrine of certain destruction of extremists and dictators. The authoritative magazine Foreign Affairs felt his “extreme views” cast doubt on his judgment while running French intelligence.
It wasn’t until after the attacks of Sept. 11, however, that the idea of a new world war began to receive serious consideration. Eliot Cohen, the director of strategic studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, declared in the Wall Street Journal, a little more than a month after the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon, that the struggle against terrorism was more than a law-enforcement operation, and would require military conflict beyond the invasion of Afghanistan. Cohen, like Marenches, considered World War III to be history. “A less palatable but more accurate name is World War IV,” he wrote. “The Cold War was World War III, which reminds us that not all global conflicts entail the movement of multi-million-man armies, or conventional front lines on a map.”
Cohen was no mere ivory tower spectator. Like Gingrich, he was a member of the Defense Policy Board, and also a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group that successfully pushed for the toppling of Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the Iraq War.(Cohen, who has a son serving in Iraq, has since criticized the way the war has been carried out.)
The coming war resembles the Cold War, Cohen wrote, in that “It is, in fact, global; that it will involve a mixture of violent and nonviolent efforts; that it will require mobilization of skill, expertise and resources, if not of vast numbers of soldiers; that it may go on for a long time; and that it has ideological roots.” The invasion of Afghanistan, he said, would be “just one front in World War IV.” The U.S. would have to continue to “target regimes that sponsor terrorism,” beginning with the invasion of Iraq.
Cohen’s use of the World War IV label was soon endorsed by James Woolsey, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the Clinton administration, who had urged the ouster of Saddam. He compared the war on terror to the struggle against Nazism, and warned that it would be longer than either world war that came before it. “I rather imagine it’s going to be measured, I’m afraid, in decades,” he said in a 2002 speech. He added: “I don’t believe this terror war is ever really going to go away until we change the face of the Middle East.”
Even the French leftist philosopher, Jean Baudrillard, adopted the expression to describe the war on terror, although he used it his own unique way: “There is no longer a front, no demarcation line, the enemy sits in the heart of the culture that fights it,” he told the German magazine Der Spiegel. “That is, if you like, the fourth world war: no longer between peoples, states, systems and ideologies, but, rather, of the human species against itself.”
Perhaps the most comprehensive take on the world war thesis has come from Norman Podhoretz, an influential author on the American right and former editor of Commentary magazine, on whom Bush bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honour the U.S. government can bestow on a civilian. In “World War IV: How It Started, What it Means, and Why We Have to Win,” Podhoretz traces the global conflict back to the 1970s and the beginnings of Islamic fundamentalist terror. A succession of American presidents avoided military retaliation, he argues, only emboldening their enemies. The clash between militant Islamists and the West, which had been underway for years, only became clear with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in which Americans were attacked on their own soil — “a feat neither Nazi Germany nor Soviet Russia ever managed to pull off.”
“The great struggle into which the United States was plunged by 9/11 can only be understood if we think of it as World War IV,” Podhoretz wrote in the September 2004 edition of Commentary. “We are only in the very early stages of what promises to be a very long war, and Iraq is only the second front to have been opened in that war: the second scene, so to speak, of the first act of a five-act play.”
Podhoretz was reprising Cohen’s theme at a time when the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq had surpassed 1,000, and public opinion polls showed that more than half of Americans considered the war to have been “not worth it.” In the face of these doldrums, Podhoretz invoked the patience and fortitude that were necessary to win past global conflicts. “In World War II and then in World War III, we persisted in spite of impatience, discouragement, and opposition for as long as it took to win,” he wrote. “And this is exactly what we have been called upon to do today in World War IV.”
He reminded Americans that the Cold War also had its moments where it looked like the other side was winning, and there were “plenty of missteps — most notably involving Vietnam — along the way to victory.”
Podhoretz also used the world war characterization to defend various tactics being used by the Bush administration. He argued that each war brought with it institutional changes on the world scene: World War II led to the creation of the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Court of Justice. The Cold War spawned NATO. Likewise, he wrote, World War IV necessitated the controversial Bush doctrine of pre-emptive warfare, among others.
The believers in the world war view have argued that it demands everything from much greater military spending and readiness, to a commitment to “regime change” in Iran and a more confrontational stance on North Korea. In Gingrich’s view, in the nearer term, it means supporting Israel’s attacks on Lebanon until every last Hezbollalh rocket has been removed from the country.
It’s a move of some consequence to recast a fight against terrorists and rogue dictators into a global conflict. The very term “world war” conjures up a conflict that required enormous sacrifice of blood and treasure by many nations over long periods of time. It entails sweeping changes in both domestic and international priorities. It suggests that the time for extraordinary measures has arrived.
As a result of these arguments moving out of scholarly journals and think tanks and onto cable news, critics have begun to question the wisdom and motives of the world war theorists. “It’s too simplistic. I think it’s done primarily for political reasons and has no real strategic validity,” said P.J. Crowley, who served on the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. It’s also dangerous, he said. “Conceptualizing the war on terror as World War III potentially feeds the false perception that the West is at war with Islam, which is the way it is being perceived even though it is not the case,” said Crowley, the director of national defence and homeland security at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington.
At a time when America is already struggling with a two-front war, “President Bush is right to advance that we must resolve challenges like Iran and North Korea diplomatically. Number one, they do not lend themselves to military solutions, and number two, even the U.S. does not have the military capability to make this a four-front war around the world,” he said.
Critics also reject the parallels between the Cold War and the struggle against international terrorists. “There is strong U.S. support for having fought and won the Cold War. It was a long struggle, it was difficult and it was costly, but in the end the U.S. prevailed, hurray! There is a comfortable and popular narrative to tell,” said Christopher Preble, the director of foreign policy studies, at the libertarian Cato Institute. “The problem is that the frame is almost entirely wrong because the kind of threat we’re dealing with in terms of terrorism is much, much smaller than the dangers of many thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at the U.S., the Soviet Union and everywhere else. It is an order of magnitude at least different,” he said.
Moreover, state sponsorship is not necessary for major terrorist attacks like those of Sept. 11, which cost only a few hundred thousand dollars, he said. “We know from the London, Madrid and Mumbai attacks that groups that have no affiliations to al-Qaeda or to a state sponsor are capable of killing a large number of civilians. But that doesn’t fit in the frame,” he said. The struggle against international terrorism is better thought of as an intelligence and law enforcement operation “that occasionally but rarely requires the traditional kind of war where you do knock off a state and engage in regime change. The case of Afghanistan is rare,” he said.
And while the conversation about World War III or IV has been going on for half a decade, critics see the latest flare-up as having to do less with recent events around the globe, and more with the impending congressional elections in November, in which Republicans will face an electorate skeptical about the war in Iraq. “I think Mr. Gingrich is perhaps recasting this so that if it’s perceived as something larger than Iraq, then the specific failures in Iraq become a detail,” said Crowley.
Indeed, the Seattle Times reported that Gingrich told the newspaper in an interview that he is “very worried” about Republicans facing fall elections and says the party must have the “nerve” to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush’s record. The Times quotes him as saying that while Americans may be critical of the Iraq war, public opinion can change “the minute you use the language” of World War III. The message should be, “Okay, if we’re in the Third World War, which side do you think should win?” Gingrich said.
Gingrich denies that he is playing politics. “I think we need a national dialogue as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats,” he told Fox News. “But precisely in the experience of a world war, to say, what do we do as a people to defeat the terrorist alliance worldwide?”
Read Luiza Ch. Savage’s weblog, Savage Washington
To comment, email firstname.lastname@example.org
Something about the man called Albert Pike <^> Watch out and investigate for yourself, and remember these pages here are a few signs, just to jump start and begin you on your search <^>—–
Albert Pike also of Newbury Port moved to Arkansas where he became a prominent member of the secessionist movement. He was chosen by Mazzini to head the Illuminati operations in America and moved to Charleston, South Carolina, in 1852. During the war he was made a brigadier general and placed in charge of raising an army of Indians. Pike’s reign of terror was so despicable that foreign governments intervened to put an end to his savagery. Mazzini was not only the head of the Illuminati, he was the leading revolutionist in Europe. He was determined to establish a New World Order on the rubble of the old order and created a plan to accomplish his goal. He detailed his plan for world domination in a letter to Pike on January 22, 1870: “We must allow all the federations to continue just as they are, with their systems, their central authorities and their diverse modes of correspondence between high grades of the same rite, organized as they are at the present, but we must create a super rite, which will remain unknown, to which we will call those Masons of high degree whom we shall select. With regard to our brothers in Masonry, these men must be pledges to the strictest secrecy. Through this supreme rite, we will govern all Freemasonry which will become the one international center, the more powerful because its direction will be unknown. Lady Queensborough, Occult Theocracy, pp. 208-209.
This secret rite is called “The New and Reformed Palladian Rite.” It has headquarters in Charleston, S.C., Rome Italy, and Berlin Germany. Pike headed this rite in the Western Hemisphere while Mazzini headed it in the East. Pike wrote about his beliefs and goals in 1871 in “Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.” In this massive volume he explained that the “blind Force of the people is a Force that must be economized, and also managed. . . it must be regulated by intellect. “To attack the citadels (Institutions) built up on all sides against the human race by superstitions (religion), despotisms, and prejudices, the force must have a brain and a law (the Illuminati’s). Then its (Force) deeds of daring produce permanent results, and there is real progress. Then there are sublime conquests. . . When all forces combined, and guided by the Intellect (Illuminati), and regulated by the Rule of Right, and Justice, and of combined and systematic movement and effort, the great revolution prepared for the ages will begin to march. . . It is because Force is ill regulated that revolutions prove failures” Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry,1-2 (Rev. Ed. 1950).
Even though Pike was a confederate general who committed the most heinous atrocities of the war his tomb is located just 13 blocks from the Capitol Building. He was a high ranking member of the Illuminati who is still revered by the New World Order Gang. The god of the Illuminati and the New World Order Gang is Lucifer. “The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. . . Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay (Jesus) is also God. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two Gods: darkness being necessary to light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive. . .”The doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophic religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay (Jesus); but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of darkness and evil.” A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et l’enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, p. 588; Lady Queenborough, Occult Theocracy pp. 220-221.
Albert Pike’s plan for the Illuminati was as simple as it has proved effective. He required that Communism, Naziism, Political Zionism, and other International movements be organized and used to foment the three global wars and three major revolutions. The First World War was to be fought so as to enable the Illuminati to overthrow the powers of the Tzars in Russia and turn that country into the stronghold of Atheistic-Communism. The differences stirred up by agentur of the Illuminati between the British and German Empires were to be used to foment this war. After the war ended, Communism was to be built up and used to destroy other governments and weaken religions.
World War Two, was to be fomented by using the differences between Fascists and Political Zionists. This war was to be fought so that Naziism would be destroyed and the power of Political Zionism increased so that the sovereign state of Israel could be established in Palestine. During World War Two International Communism was to be built up until it equalled in strength that of united Christendom. At this point it was to be contained and kept in check until required for the final social cataclysm. Can any informed person deny Roosevelt and Churchill did put this policy into effect?
World War Three is to be fomented by using the differences the agentur of the Illuminati stir up between Political Zionists and the leaders of the Moslem world. The war is to be directed in such a manner that Islam (the Arab World including Mohammedanism) and Political Zionism (including the State of Israel) will destroy themselves while at the same time the remaining nations, once more divided against each other on this issue, will be forced to fight themselves into a state of complete exhaustion physically, mentally, spiritually and economically. Can any unbiased and reasoning person deny that the intrigue now going on in the Near, Middle, and Far East is designed to accomplish this devilish purpose?
After World War Three is ended, those who aspire to undisputed world domination will provoke the greatest social cataclysm the world has ever known. We quote his own written words taken from the letter catalogued in the British Museum Library, London, England.
“We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will be from that moment without compass (direction), anxious for an ideal, but with out knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view, a manifestation which will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time” (William Guy Carr, Pawns in the Game, p. xv-xvi).
This strategy is corroborated by Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy PhD. in The Power Elite’s use of Wars and Crises. pike.htm
This item above was from http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/
And we are Quran and Sunnah Believers, Muslims (those that submit to Allah – The ONE God – and worship Him without idolatry and innovation, by the will of Allah.
And of course you must search for yourself for the truth
THE POWER ELITE’S USE OF WARS AND CRISES
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
January 28, 2008
When Congressional Reece Committee research director Norman Dodd’s legal assistant Kathryn Casey looked at the planning documents for the founding of the Carnegie Endowment, she found something quite revealing. She found that they determined war would be helpful in furthering their objectives. Relevant to this, Rene Wormser in FOUNDATIONS: THEIR POWER AND INFLUENCE (1958) wrote that the head of the endowment, Nicholas Murray Butler, used the endowment’s funds to get the U.S. into World War I.
The year after the endowment was founded in 1910, Robert Minor’s cartoon in the ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH in 1911 depicted members of the power elite (John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J.P Morgan, etc.) welcoming Karl Marx and his “socialism” to Wall Street. The next year Woodrow Wilson ran for president, and his “handler” for the power elite, Colonel Edward M. House, assured his bosses that Wilson would support the Federal Reserve’s establishment in 1913.
The year after that (1914), the power elite arranged the first World War long before the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28 by members of the Narodna Odbrana (Black Hand) secret society. On May 29, Colonel House in Berlin wrote to President Wilson: “Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany and Austria.” The trick would be to make Germany think England would not enter the war. This was done by British Secretary of State Sir Edward Grey misleading German Ambassador to England Prince Karl Max Lichnowsky. Grey was close to the (Lord Alfred) Milner Group which was executing power elite member Cecil Rhodes’ plan for world government.
Milner was the power behind the scenes in British government. He, not Prime Minister David Lloyd George, actually ran British foreign affairs. Milner was favorably disposed to Marxian socialism, and pro-Bolshevist Sir Basil Zaharoff (an armaments dealer who had sold arms to both sides in several wars) was consulted by President Wilson and Prime Minister George before any major military operation. This is according to author Donald McCormick, who said Zaharoff sought to divert munitions away from anti-Bolshevists.
When World War I began, Helmuth Johannes Ludwig von Moltke was head of the German General Staff. Interestingly, he was married to Dorothy Rose-Innes, the daughter of Sir James Rose-Innes, a member of Rhodes’ Association of Helpers, as was their son Helmuth James von Moltke.
It was important for the power elite to drag the U.S. into the War, and so Lord Esher (executive committee member of Rhodes’ secret Society of the Elect) wrote in his diary on August 3, 1917: “Can there be any doubt that the war has made for progress?” He followed this on August 11 with “Mr. Henry Morgenthau asked me to call on him…. He was one of the principal supporters of President Wilson…. They are ready to sacrifice the lives of American citizens…. Mr. Morgenthau realizes the importance… (of) shedding American blood at the earliest possible moment.” Morgenthau would be a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which was largely funded and staffed by J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller interests.
One of the key connections to these interests was William Boyce Thompson, who in 1914 became the first full-term director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. And the WASHINGTON POST (February 2, 1918) reported: “William B. Thompson, who was in Petrograd from July until November 1917, has made a personal contribution of $1,000,000 to the Bolsheviki for the purpose of spreading their doctrine in Germany and Austria.”
While in Russia from July to November 1917, Thompson was head of the Red Cross mission there. The Red Cross was heavily dependent upon Wall Street and especially J.P. Morgan interests for donations. Therefore, these interests were able to use the Red Cross to further their goals. Thompson’s assistant, Cornelius Kelleher, is quoted in George Kennan’s RUSSIA LEAVES THE WAR as stating: “The Red Cross complexion of the mission was nothing but a mask.” FDR adviser and Soviet agent in the 1940s Harry Hopkins was assistant to the general manager of the Red Cross in Washington, D.C. In December 1917, Raymond Robins succeeded Thompson as head of the Red Cross mission in Russia, and on December 26 Robins called Morgan senior partner Henry Davison (chairman of the War Council of the American Red Cross, whose son in 1920 would become a member of Skull & Bones) asking him to urge President Wilson to continue intercourse with the Bolshevik Government.
Both Robins and his wife were associated with Bolshevik activities in the U.S. Robins was a protege of Colonel House and one of his heroes was Cecil Rhodes. According to Bruce Lockhart (sent to Russia by Lord Milner and Prime Minister George) in BRITISH AGENT (1933), “Robins was the only man whom Lenin was always willing to see and who ever succeeded in imposing his own personality on the unemotional Bolshevik leader.” Lenin capitulated to Robins’ ultimatum to remove Saalkind as Assistant Commissar for Foreign Affairs.
Carroll Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE (1966) wrote: “More than 50 years ago (before 1916) the Morgan firm decided to infiltrate the Left-wing political movements in the United States.” And the Morgan-controlled American International Corporation (AIC) was probably the primary supporter of the Bolsheviks. On October 17, 1917, AIC director William Saunders (deputy chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York) wrote to President Wilson: “I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that best suited for the Russian people.” Other AIC directors in 1917 were Pierre du Pont, J. Peter Grace, Otto Kahn, Percy Rockefeller (Skull & Bones member), Frank Vanderlip (president of Rockefeller’s National City Bank), and others. Julius Hammer (chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corporation) and his son Armand (who was a Soviet citizen) were also strong supporters of the Soviets.
Colonel House in 1912 authored PHILIP DRU: ADMINISTRATOR promoting “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” And one of his aides, Kenneth Durant, became assistant secretary for the Soviet Bureau in the U.S. When the premiers of France and Italy (Clemenceau and Orlando) later expressed concern about the Bolsheviks and their westward expansion, Colonel House in his diary wrote that he deliberately misled them into thinking there was nothing that could be done about it.
President Wilson was simply a puppet of the power elite, manipulated by their agent Colonel House. And on November 28, 1917, Wilson ordered there should be no interference with the Bolsheviks’ revolution. Not long thereafter, the U.S. legation in Bern, Switzerland cabled Washington “asking why the president expresses support of Bolsheviki, in view of rapine, murder and anarchy of these bands” (U.S. State Department decimal file 861.00/1305, March 15, 1918). What is telling about American members of the power elite supporting the Bolsheviks is the fact that even before the war ended, Soviet troops were fighting and killing American soldiers in the Archangel region!
Robert Minor, whose cartoon I mentioned earlier, was a socialist who went to Russia in March 1918 and then worked in the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs. He even prepared propaganda against American soldiers and was arrested, but Colonel House and President Wilson intervened on his behalf and he was released without going to trial (probably because he was not doing anything different than Thompson and Robins).
Colonel House was managing the power elite’s plan to bring about “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx,” and the First World War was a necessary part of that plan. After the war, the CFR was founded largely by Colonel House’s group “the Inquiry,” and in the CFR’s FOREIGN AFFAIRS (June 1923) Colonel House wrote: “If war had not come in 1914 in fierce and exaggerated form, the idea of an association of nations would probably have remained dormant, for great reforms seldom materialize except during great upheavals.”
The first association of nations the power elite planned, the League of Nations, didn’t materialize as the world government they desired, and therefore a Second World War had to be arranged. In case you don’t believe World War II was planned, how else do you explain that power elite agent H.G. Wells in 1933 in his THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME said in about six years the war would begin over a German-Polish dispute, and Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 with Britain and France declaring war on Germany two days later? Moreover, how else do you explain power elite agent Sir Julian Huxley on December 5, 1941, saying he hoped America and Japan would be at war “next week,” and the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred Sunday, December 7, 1941, the first day of the next week? The power elite knew that the second “association of nations,” the U.N., formed after World War II, would also not be their desired world government, as H.G. Wells in THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME said they would succeed on their third attempt resulting from a conference in Basra, Iraq. This is why the current war in Iraq was planned by the power elite.
Cecil Rhodes’ and the power elite’s goal was and still is the establishment of a World Socialist Government via linking regional economic arrangements, and Lenin and Stalin were important parts of this. In Vienna in January 1913, Stalin had advocated national loyalties become subservient to regions. And the year after Colonel House’s FOREIGN AFFAIRS article appeared, Stalin in April 1924 said that according to Leninism “a single world system of economy constitutes the material basis for the victory of socialism.”
It was also in this time (1920s) that Jean Monnet developed his plans for the first of these economic regions, the European Union. His lawyer was a young John J. McCloy, the successor to Colonel House in managing the power elite’s plan. In 1936, McCloy sat in Hitler’s box at the Berlin Olympics, and during the 1940s Secretary of War Henry Stimson (Skull & Bones member who initiated George H.W. Bush into Skull & Bones) questioned “whether anyone in the Administration ever acted without having a word with McCloy.”
From 1953 to 1970, McCloy was the chairman of the CFR, during which time he swam with Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev in late July 1961 at the Black Sea. In the early 1950s, Frederick Schuman in THE COMMONWEALTH OF MEN: AN INQUIRY INTO POWER POLITICS AND WORLD GOVERNMENT wrote that one way permanent peace is attainable is “through the voluntary merging of sovereignties in a global polity, with a World-State emerging out of agreement.”
McCloy was followed as CFR chairman by David Rockefeller from 1970 to 1985. During that time, Bahai leader John Ferraby in ALL THINGS MADE NEW (1975) wrote similarly to Schuman that “we have entered a new era, in which the unification of mankind can be adequately organized only by a world state.”
“World State” and “New World Order” were both terms used by H.G. Wells to refer to a world government. This concept was adopted by a number of people, and in JOURNEYS FOR A BETTER WORLD (1994), U.N. Secretariat official Jean Richardot declared that “a prosperous united world representing a true New World Order could only be attained step by step. While we are still far from world government, we must first focus on essential issues that work in that direction.”
As I have written before, a single global currency is an important part of this effort to achieve a world government. In that regard Sarah Perry (director of VISA’s Strategic Investment Program) is quoted in THE SINGLE GLOBAL CURRENCY (2006) as remarking in 2001: “When VISA was founded 25 years ago, the founders saw the world as needing a Single Global Currency for exchange. Everything we’ve done from a global perspective has been about trying to put one piece in place after another to fulfill that global vision.”
And how will the single global currency be brought about? Nobel prize winner Robert Mundell (known as “the Father of the Euro”) in a speech titled “A Decade Later: Asia New Responsibilities in the International Monetary System” delivered in Seoul, South Korea, May 2-3, 2007, revealed: “International monetary reform usually becomes possible only in response to a felt need and the threat of a global crisis. The global crisis would have to involve the dollar,” and a single global currency would be “a contingency” to this global dollar crisis. As you are aware, the dollar is currently in crisis, plummeting in value.
David Rockefeller in his MEMOIRS (2002) admitted being part of a secret cabal conspiring with others to bring about a world government. This plan was revealed 100 years ago by Robert Hugh Benson in LORD OF THE WORLD (1907), in which he wrote that “in 1917… communism really began…. The new order began then.” Ten years before the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Benson foretold it. Benson also wrote of a future European Parliament, American Socialism, and “the final scheme of Western Free Trade” occurring after 1989. He revealed that in the end, continent would unite with continent, the appearance of peace would deceive many, and that “the Humanity Religion was the only one.”
This final replacement of God by man as the final moral authority will characterize biblical end times. As I mentioned in my December 31, 2007 NewsWithViews.com column “Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan,” Ezekiel 38:5 indicates that in the prophecy regarding Gog and Magog, Persians (Iranians) will come against Israel. According to Joseph Farah, recently on Israeli secular television were in-depth reports on Gog and Magog describing the forces that will be aligned against each other in Revelation 20. On one side will be Israel, the U.S., Britain, France and Germany. On the other side will be Iran, Russia, China, Syria and North Korea. The Gog and Magog war is also mentioned in the Koran in Sura 18:94 and 21:96, and the Iranian mullahs have also recently been referring to this. According to the Koran, the people paid tribute to “The Conqueror” Dhu al Qarnayn, popularly understood to be Alexander the Great (who was at the time considered Lord of the West, the East, Persia, etc.), to erect barriers against the wild and lawless tribes of Central Asia (Mongols from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc.). However, in a prognostication of the approaching “Judgment” of the world, the tribes break through the barriers when the people degenerate morally, and the wild tribes “swiftly swarm from every hill” against the formerly protected people written about in the Koran.
Writing of Alexander the Great in this part of the world was Rhodes Trust member Rudyard Kipling (who has swastikas on his early books) in THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING. What is happening is the unfolding of Rhodes’ plan for world government, which in turn will lead to the fulfillment of end times biblical prophecy.
© 2008 Dennis Cuddy – All Rights Reserved
[Order Dennis Cuddy’s new book “Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?” out of print, supply limited]
“….Lucifer gave top Masonic Satanist, Albert Pike, a vision of the future of 1870/71 (This is the future he planned, not the future he foresaw, since Satan cannot see the future). In it he described three world wars, each worse than its predecessor and each designed to change the world so radically that, in the end, he would reign supreme.
He described this demonic vision in a letter he wrote to the Italian Satanist, Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871. For a short time, this letter was on display in the British Museum Library in London and was copied by William Guy Carr, former Intelligence Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy.
“The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the “agentur” (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions.”
“The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that [Nazism] is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm.”
“The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the “agentur” of the “Illuminati” between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.”
World War 3» Albert Pike’s Amazing Predictions Of Three World Wars
Albert Pike’s Amazing Predictions Of Three World Wars
Albert Pike received a vision, which he described in a letter that he wrote to Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871. This letter graphically outlined plans for three world wars that were seen as necessary to bring about the One World Order, and we can marvel at how accurately it has predicted events that have already taken place.
Pike’s Letter to Mazzini
It is a commonly believed fallacy that for a short time, the Pike letter to Mazzini was on display in the British Museum Library in London, and it was copied by William Guy Carr, former Intelligence Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy. The British Library has confirmed in writing to me that such a document has never been in their possession. Furthermore, in Carr’s book, Satan, Prince of this World, Carr includes the following footnote:
“The Keeper of Manuscripts recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library. It seems strange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez’s knowledge should have said that it WAS in 1925″.
It appears that Carr learned about this letter from Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile, who wrote The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled.
To date, no conclusive proof exists to show that this letter was ever written. Nevertheless, the letter is widely quoted and the topic of much discussion.
Following are apparently extracts of the letter, showing how Three World Wars have been planned for many generations.
“The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the “agentur” (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions.” 2
Students of history will recognize that the political alliances of England on one side and Germany on the other, forged between 1871 and 1898 by Otto von Bismarck, co-conspirator of Albert Pike, were instrumental in bringing about the First World War.
“The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm.” 3
After this Second World War, Communism was made strong enough to begin taking over weaker governments. In 1945, at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill, and Stalin, a large portion of Europe was simply handed over to Russia, and on the other side of the world, the aftermath of the war with Japan helped to sweep the tide of Communism into China.
(Readers who argue that the terms Nazism and Zionism were not known in 1871 should remember that the Illuminati invented both these movements. In addition, Communism as an ideology, and as a coined phrase, originates in France during the Revolution. In 1785, Restif coined the phrase four years before revolution broke out. Restif and Babeuf, in turn, were influenced by Rousseau – as was the most famous conspirator of them all, Adam Weishaupt.)
“The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the “agentur” of the “Illuminati” between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion. We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow thedestruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.” 4
Since the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, world events, and in particular in the Middle East, show a growing unrest and instability between Modern Zionism and the Arabic World. This is completely in line with the call for a Third World War to be fought between the two, and their allies on both sides. This Third World War is still to come, and recent events show us that it is not far off.
Pakistan Collapse Could Trigger Global Great Depression and World War III
During 2009 the 2600 terrorist attacks resulted in the number of deaths soaring to more than 12,000 casualties in Pakistan, compared to the number killed in Iraq falling to 2,800 from the 2008 total of 5,900. The U.S. War in Afghanistan pushed the Taliban and Al-Qeeda over the border into Pakistan that has sparked an escalating insurgency and Pakistan’s own U.S. backed un-popular “War on Terror” which is going just as badly as that in Afghanistan, only without the deep financial pockets to embark up on an never ending war that is increasingly sapping what little strength the Pakistan Economy had out of it and now seriously risks the collapse of the state due to the stress of the conflict on the economy and society.
The world appears to be sleep walking towards a mega-crisis during 2010 and beyond resulting from that of continuing and escalating terrorist insurgency fed by U.S. policy, that is spreading like a cancer across Pakistan resulting in the disintegration of the Pakistani economy and by consequence the disintegration of many areas of the state into lawless areas despite the size of the Pakistani Army, this would result in fallout across the whole region and the wider world on a scale of several magnitudes greater than that which followed the collapse of Iraq following the 2003 invasion.
Pakistan populated by more than 170 million people could turn into a black hole that could swallow many more trillions of dollars in an escalating but ultimately unwinnable war on terror that would disrupt not only the economies of the west with hundreds of thousands more boots on the ground, but also the economies of the neighbouring states, especially India, Iran and China much as the war in Afghanistan had increasingly impacted on the Pakistani state and economy over the past few years.
Not only is Pakistan’s vast military industrial complex and arms stock piles at risk, but far more deadly than the IED’s or klashnikovs are Pakistan’s nuclear and chemical weapons that could greatly increase the risks of a series of dirty bombs emerging from within a failed state even if the nuclear weapons themselves remained secure.
Therefore the Pakistan crisis has the potential for becoming a very significant factor when determining the direction of the global economy over the coming years due to both a mega refugee crisis that would emerge from a failed state and the conflagration of conflict across the region, unless action is taken to stabilise the situation in Pakistan towards which the following could form part of:
1. First world military technology such as drone air-craft and satellite surveillance made available to the Pakistan army to enable it to fight a more precise war against the Taliban Leadership without unpopular blanket warfare across regions of the country that only results in the conflict spreading and new recruits for the insurgency.
Therefore Pakistan’s War Against Terror needs to be greatly de-escalated rather than escalated, basically a strategy of containment of the Taliban in the Pushtoon areas rather invite more Pushtoon’s to join the Taliban as a consequence of Pakistani Army actions. This would allow the rest of a more ethnically and culturally diverse Pakistan to stabilise rather than become sucked into an ever widening conflict.
2. To financially support and reform the Pakistan Government and economy into a self sustaining secular growth machine and as a far less corrupt entity than at present, much as the United States succeeded in turning the collapsed economies of Germany and Japan around following the second world war that would seek to pull Pakistan’s people out of poverty and illiteracy, especially aimed at the impoverished youth that are increasingly falling pray to the Taliban ideology of holy war.
The alternative of remaining on the present path risks the already debt saddled western worlds economies sowing the seeds of a Pakistan Collapse triggered Great Depression, much as many aspects of today’s economic and financial crisis have their roots in both Afghanistan and Iraq and with even far worse consequences for the neighbouring states of Iran, India, China and perhaps Russia as the conflict falls out of Pakistan’s borders.
However at present U.S. and Western focus is primarily focused on bombing the Taliban and Al-Qeeda from the air and enticing the Pakistani army to embark on huge military expeditions against large regions of Pakistan, therefore not learning a single lesson from either Iraq or Afghanistan that the real solution is to win hearts and minds which cannot be done through carpet bombing of towns and cities but rather through building civil society and infrastructure.
Unless action is taken now to change course then we may look back at the present in a few years time and say why did we not do something when we had the chance to prevent the Great Hyper-Inflationary Depression and resulting Global War much as the 1930’s Great Deflationary Depression ultimately resulted in the Second World War.
By Nadeem Walayat
Copyright © 2005-10 Marketoracle.co.uk (Market Oracle Ltd). All rights reserved.
Nadeem Walayat has over 20 years experience of trading derivatives, portfolio management and analysing the financial markets, including one of few who both anticipated and Beat the 1987 Crash. Nadeem’s forward looking analysis specialises on UK inflation, economy, interest rates and the housing market . Nadeem is the Editor of The Market Oracle, a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication. We present in-depth analysis from over 500 experienced analysts on a range of views of the probable direction of the financial markets. Thus enabling our readers to arrive at an informed opinion on future market direction. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk
Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any trading losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors before engaging in any trading activities.
Nadeem Walayat Archive
© 2005-2011 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk – The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.
Right-wing media divided: Is U.S. now in World War III, IV, or V?
With the recent escalation of violence in the Middle East and a terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, the right-wing media have declared a new “world war” but have not agreed upon which world war the United States now faces: World War III, IV, or V.
- World War III?
Most recently, on the July 13 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly said “World War III … I think we’re in it.” Similarly, on the July 13 edition of MSNBC’s Tucker, a graphic read: “On the verge of World War III?” As Media Matters for America has noted, CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck began his program on July 12 with a discussion with former CIA officer Robert Baer by saying “we’ve got World War III to fight,” while also warning of “the impending apocalypse.” Beck and Baer had a similar discussion on July 13, in which Beck said: “I absolutely know that we need to prepare ourselves for World War III. It is here.”
- World War IV?
On the July 10 edition of Fox News’ The Big Story, host John Gibson interviewed Michael Ledeen, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and said “some are calling the global war on terror something else, something more like World War III.” But Ledeen responded that “it’s more like World War IV because there was a Cold War, which was certainly a world war.” Ledeen added that “probably the start of it [World War IV] was the Iranian revolution of 1979.” Similarly, on the May 24 edition of CNBC’s Kudlow and Company, host Lawrence Kudlow, discussing a book by former deputy undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin, said “World War IV is the terror war, and war with China would be World War V.”
Other conservatives have previously suggested the “war on terror” as “World War IV.” In a September 2004 article, Commentary editor-at-large Norman Podhoretz noted “World War III (that is, the cold war)” and that “the great struggle into which the United States was plunged by 9/11 can only be understood if we think of it as World War IV.” And in January 2005, FrontPageMag.com hosted a symposium called “Ukraine and World War IV.”
- World War V?
On the July 13 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity declared: “we are loaded up today, as the Middle East on the brink of World War V, here.” Hannity did not explain what he regarded as World Wars III and IV. But earlier in the show, Hannity suggested the current conflict is World War III, stating: “[I]s World War III breaking out in the Middle [East]? It may very well be.”
From the July 13 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor:
O’REILLY: Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. Why should you care about the violence in Israel and Lebanon? That is the subject of this evening’s “Talking Points Memo.”
The answer to that question is because it affects your life. Every time stuff like this happens, the price of oil goes up and the worldwide economy totters.
It’s exactly what Iran wants. And Iran is behind the terror attacks on Israeli forces. The whole thing is part of World War III, ladies and gentlemen. Islamic fascism against the West. That global conflict, unfortunately, is here for the foreseeable future.
O’REILLY: Yeah. Last question, Mr. Cook. Military action, you know, look, here’s what Iran’s going to do. It’s going to push us as far as it can. It’s going to do as much damage to the world as it can. And then it’ll draw back, if it thinks military action is coming its way, correct?
STEVEN COOK (fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations): I think that’s precisely the case. And there won’t be much upside for the United States to take military action directly against Iran. They have too many cards that they can play against us. They have cards to play against us in Afghanistan, cards to play — continue to make our lives miserable in Iraq. And obviously as we’ve seen, they’ve continued — they’ve heated up the border between Israel and Lebanon.
O’REILLY: All right, World War III, right?
O’REILLY: I think we’re in it. I absolutely think we’re in it.
From the July 10 edition of Fox News’ The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: From Kim Jong Il’s missile testing to the Iranian president ranting that he’ll wipe Israel off the map, and the fight to weed terrorists out of Iraq, some are calling the global war on terror something else, something more like World War III. Here now, Michael Ledeen, a columnist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a public-policy research institute. Michael, it was a columnist in the New York Daily News today saying this is World War III, and it’s on. Do you agree with him?
LEDEEN: Well, it’s certainly on. It’s more like World War IV, because there was a Cold War, which was certainly a world war. But sure, it’s global, and it’s on.
GIBSON: Where do we count the start of it?
LEDEEN: Well, that’s always difficult to do. Probably the start of it was the Iranian revolution of 1979, when you had the first fanatical Islamic regime declare war on us, and that was explicit in the fall of 1979.
GIBSON: What would be the hallmarks of this? I mean, we know there’s a war on terror. But the proposition put forward is that if you look at all of this stuff, what the Iranians are threatening to do, what the North Koreans are threatening to do, what the Japanese are threatening to do, what we are prepared to do and have done, that there really is one large world war under way. Does that concept hold together?
LEDEEN: Yeah, I think so. I think the president had it right at the beginning, and he seems to have forgotten about it, when he said that we’re not going to distinguish between terrorist organizations and countries that support and feed and house and train and arm them. And so if you help terrorists, we’re going to treat you as if you are a terrorist yourself. Well, there are many terrorist regimes around the world right now, and we’re going to have to try to cope with them.
GIBSON: Michael, if the — there is World War IV and it’s under way, if that’s a correct assumption —
LEDEEN: It is.
GIBSON: — what should we be doing right now that we’re not doing?
LEDEEN: We should be doing what we did most effectively in World War III. The way we won World War III was not by invading and bombing primarily, it was by bringing down regimes that were palpably failures, like the Soviet Union and the Soviet empire in general. If you look at the terrorist sponsors, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and so forth, all of whom work very closely together and so forth, these are all failed regimes. Their people hate them. They’re not even feeding their people, even though some of them are drowning in oil revenues. So we should be supporting revolution in those countries against them, exactly as we did in Poland and Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union itself. It worked in World War III, I don’t see why it shouldn’t work in World War IV.
GIBSON: Well, what if you throw into the mix the obvious, that we’re not operating against states, we’re not operating against governments in all cases, but what we call terrorists?
LEDEEN: It’s exactly the same case. We are operating against states like Iran and Syria and North Korea. And in World War III, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union certainly supported terrorism around the world, as did allies of theirs like the Cubans and the Chinese and the North Koreans.
GIBSON: All right, Michael Ledeen, columnist, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Michael, thanks.
From the July 13 edition ABC Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: Welcome aboard, glad you’re with us. Well, is World War III breaking out in the Middle? It may very well be. And we’re gonna go for full, complete, comprehensive analysis that you’re not going to get in the mainstream media.
We are loaded up today, as the Middle East on the brink of World War V, here.
From the May 24 edition of CNBC’s Kudlow & Company:
KUDLOW: Now, all right. Jed Babbin is talking about some kind of World War IV, I guess. Actually, World War V. We have World War I and II and the Cold War as World War III, according to Norman Podhoretz. World War IV is the terror war, and war with China would be World War V. How likely, John? What would trigger such a thing?
From the July 12 edition of CNN Headline News’ Glenn Beck:
BECK: Hey, everybody. Hurry up; we’ve got World War III to fight. Yes, it is the end of days, isn’t it?
Here’s what I do know about World War III and the impending apocalypse. One, we can’t coexist with people who want to blow up trains and subways and bring down buildings. If somebody has a death wish, not really the best negotiating partner.
I also know that whether you like it or not, this is a religious war. Radical Muslims want to wipe everybody else off the face of the earth. And let me tell you something: Hollywood, clean the ears out and listen up. You are the first in line for the gas chambers if they ever win. You’re the one who are producing a lot of the trash that’s spilling out into their cave that’s hacking them off.
Also, I know that people don’t want to believe the worst. That’s why more people aren’t on the bandwagon. People are in denial. They don’t want to think that we’re facing something horrible. They want it to go away so we can all get back to our lives.
But listen to me, it is bad. And it’s not just us. It’s the whole Western way of life that is in trouble. That’s why we need to get on that World War III bandwagon.
Now, here’s what I don’t know. I don’t know if there are enough world leaders out there that actually have a spine anymore. Where are the real leaders? Not a lot of people are leading. That’s not a real good place to be. Where’s Churchill? Where’s — where’s FDR?
You know — I know we have, I know we have George Bush. He’s doing it by himself. I mean, Tony Blair is doing good, too, but is that enough?
I also don’t know what it’s going to take to get people to wake up. My gosh, we were wide awake after 9-11. We’ve all gone back to sleep. We almost lost World War II because of apathy and denial. Please, let’s not let it happen again.
BECK: Would you agree with me that World War III — that we’re here?
BAER: Oh, we’ve already, we’ve already started it.
BECK: Yeah, well I think we’re 1938, World War II. It hasn’t, it hasn’t really hit yet where people are like, “Oh, I get it, we’ve got to fight.” Would you agree?
BAER: This is like Hitler taking over Czechoslovakia. That’s the stage we’re at right now.
BECK: Right, right. OK. Do you believe — please say yes — do you believe it can be avoided?
BAER: No, we’re going into a war. We have to brace ourself. It’s coming.
From the July 13 edition of CNN Headline News’ Glenn Beck:
BECK: I absolutely know that we need to prepare ourselves for World War III. It is here.
Does USA Seek World War III?
Agitating Iran, Snatching the Dead for DNA
by John Stanton
These are gruesome days: the Single Bullet Doctrine rules. The world is truly adrift and on the brink of a global “something”. Everyone can feel it here in the USA.
The US system of government is often described as a layer cake: federal on top, state in the middle, and local at the bottom. That cake is a mess. The frosting-the sweet taste of the American Way of Life–has melted away; the bitter taste of economic insecurity/uncertainty is everywhere in the country. The federal government has slid off the top of the cake and occupies a place completely disconnected from the remaining two layers–state and local. The state and local layers of the cake are drying up and crumbling as the economic crisis in the USA is causing them to jettison all sorts of labor and safety net programs. And cost to care for returning military personnel and the heavy burden on communities that involves makes life all the more difficult in 2011.
Listening to America’s “leaders”, one is tempted to think that their grand solution to all of the USA’s problems is to start World War III. Is there a better way to do that than invade Iran based on divine or mythological guidance? Will Obama look to George W. Bush for guidance leading up to the invasion? Is the country being prepared for a “longer war”?
As the country continues to fragment, truth’s role in the political-military-economic-media milieu, as Gianni Vattimo points out, has vanished. The USA is devolving into religion, sorcery and mythological practices of times past as fear and the national security consciousness breeds visions of the unknown evil lurking everywhere. No one can be “trusted.” Technological Shamanism has appeared. Neil Whitehead of the University of Wisconsin has a very interesting take on UAV/Drone, Night Operations and the USA’s role as a night stalking killing machine.
And now the USA is engaging in the interesting practice of taking the corpses of dead “terrorists” offed in SWAT like kill-capture raids for DNA retrieval purposes.
A Mid-Summer’s Daydream
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta-described early in his career by a veteran Washington, DC politico as a “dangerous idiot”-trots off to Iraq and tells the US soldiers there that “you guys” are here because of 911. Great!
What is CIA Director David Petraeus going to say next? Fortunately, the former General’s version of the Iraq “success” is being challenged from within. Nonetheless, if Obama ascends to the Presidency again, Petraeus will likely become Secretary of Defense.
A daydream here: perhaps President Barak Obama is secretly negotiating with Iranian leaders behind the scenes and as the USA’s election cycle starts to spin fast we’ll hear the “Breaking News”, a sort of “Nixon in China” announcement that a breathtaking series of agreements have been signed between the Iranians and Americans. Can you hear Obama speaking on national television at the post-breakthrough press conference? “I am pleased to announce that, at long last, we have come to terms with Iran. It is in America’s strategic interest to work with the Iranians. It has been far too long since we sat directly across from each other and extended hands of friendship across the table. The negotiations were brutal for both sides. But, talk was not cheap in this case. But make no mistake……”
That would be a groundbreaking event that Obama and all Americans could take a lot pride in. The fallout would be stunning as it would change the global geopolitical balance and put the USA one-up in the Great Game underway in South Central Asia.
In the daydream world, the US and Iran could work together in Iraq and help diffuse the violence in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and other countries in the region. A solid relationship would counterbalance the nefarious interests of Saudi Arabia and its support of violent Sunni extremists. It would force Israel to the negotiating table and with the USA and Iran leading the way, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians may be resolved peacefully. Economically, the USA and Iran, teaming up with Turkey, Russia, China and India, could bring to bear massive investments in the region stretching from Iran to Egypt and other countries on the North African continent, employing millions/creating new markets. On that note, it may alter, to the USA’s advantage, the peer competition between the USA and China.
There are so many positives that a USA and Iran partnership would produce that it seems to be a no- brainer for both sides to “get it done”. But that’s exactly the point: there are no-brains, apparently, on both sides, willing to give up living in the past.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
So, instead of diplomatic breakthroughs, we get a press conference in which Obama stated, “We killed Bin Laden last evening”. Is that the stuff of national celebration, pride? To literally blow one man’s brains out, take a blood sample from the corpse for DNA purposes, and then dump the guy in the ocean? Did they retrieve any internal organs (like the brain) for study? What happens to his children/wives? Are they imprisoned for life, stuck in a Dungeon, for fear that they would avenge the father? Where did their DNA end up?
And, for that matter, what becomes of all the DNA samples and bodies that JSOC, CIA, et al, pick up after a kill-capture raid? Is there a “Terrorist DNA Database”? Is the USA sequencing genetic material at a university defense contractor like Johns Hopkins? At some point the DNA, the bio-scans, the cultural data from Human Terrain Teams, Female Engagement Teams, Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and Village Stability Operators will make its way into many Geospatial Maps in intelligence agencies, military commands, and executive offices. This is Joshua Project meets Global Human Terrain Map. Makes sense, the way things work these days.
Getting back to Panetta, the US State Department had to put him in check for his statement suggesting that the USA would respond militarily to Iranian meddling in Iraqi affairs. Where has that guy been? The Iranians are ascendant in Iran. This comes on the heels, or at the same time, as the US Congress held a session with the MEK, listed as a terrorist group by the US State Department. The National Iranian American Council in Washington, DC reported extensively on that event and a visit to their website should be in order for anyone interested in a balanced view of Iran and US relations, their tireless efforts to prevent a US-Iran war, and their activities for American Iranians.
NIAC reports this on the MEK “A decision is imminent regarding whether the MEK will stay on the terrorist list or if it will be permitted to receive U.S. Government funding and support. The State Department has been ordered to review the MEK’s terrorist designation as result of a legal appeal by the MEK and a decision is expected in August 2011. The MEK has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists, PR agents and communications firms to orchestrate an unprecedented political campaign to pressure its way off the terrorist list. High profile former U.S. officials have received payment to advocate publicly for the MEK, and Members of Congress have introduced resolutions calling for MEK to be removed from the FTO list. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to issue a decision on whether the MEK will continue to be listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in August 2011.
If MEK is removed from the State Department’s list, the NIAC correctly notes that the USA will be repeating the war formula for Iraq. “Disastrous repercussions in Iran and the US will take place to include empowering anti-democratic hardliners in Iran and devastating the pro-democracy movement in Iran; paving a pathway to covert action and war, repeating the mistakes of Iraq; empowering pro-war hardliners in Washington and destroying US credibility among Iranians; and enabling the MEK to control US policy towards Iran and silencing the Iranian-American community.”
John Stanton is a Virginia based writer specializing in national security matters. Reach him at email@example.com
Now for World War Three…
The Third World War has already started, writes eco-designer J.C. Scott, and it’s all around us — in our air, our water, our land.
Ever since I could think adult thoughts, I’ve worried about war — World War. Who doesn’t? Maybe it was because my grandfather was in the army in World War One, and my father was in the air force in World War Two. As a student I studied and read history, and determined that the inevitability of conflict as part of the human condition is undeniable.
I wondered what my conflict would be: could I live in peace or would I also experience a World War? When I was introduced to the environment and the challenges facing my world, I realized that this could be the global war that my generation would face. Even then, the war did not seem very winnable, and although there has been a growing mobilization, we have lost many battles since the Silent Spring of our awareness.
At least in the retelling, wars always involve good and evil, bravery and cowardice, bravado and espionage. Perhaps that is why so many stories are told. The war going on today all over our world has all of these elements and, just as in previous wars, our survival depends on winning. To win World War Three we will need bravery and every tool at our disposal against the evil that threatens the planet and our lives.
If you don’t believe me, read anything by anyone who you consider to be intelligent and who has absolutely nothing to gain from lying to you about the future of the globe. The forces of good (just as in most stories) are smaller but they have the people on their side; the forces of evil are big (they always are) and they have profit and power on their side. The brave are standing up for the environment, making personal sacrifice and acting on their beliefs. The cowards are hiding behind screens of misinformation and controlled media.
World War Three is real. It is economic, environmental and militaristic all at the same time. Leaders of the Chinese government told Richard Nixon when they welcomed him to China in the 70s for the first time that they were doing so because they had realized decades earlier that the Third World War would be economic, and that they had put enough financial wheels into motion that they could see they had already won the global war for economic world domination. Decades later, we are seeing that victory dance unfolding as we watch from the sidelines.
Gwynne Dyer, one of the world’s leading military analysts, is now an environmental activist because he has seen how the changes already happening to the global climate are precipitating military conflicts. See his book Climate Wars or listen to his radio lectures.
Putting your head in the closet about running out of water or running out of food is going to be about as good for your survival as going to the basement would be for your actual survival in a nuclear conflict.
The fact that old rich men who don’t care at all about future generations can deny climate change, that they can own and control enough media outlets so that disinformation and doubt can soften reason and resolve, is simply a corollary of the lead-ups to the last two World Wars. Have you read or seen anything about the complacency and denial that Hitler faced? How about the same denials that preceded World War I?
The canaries in my coal mine are a male naval architect who works in the North Atlantic and a female artist who just returned from Antarctica. The naval architect has seen drastic climate change which is making him face up to our impact; the artist has seen changes to the ice and environment that some of us hear about but, because we can’t see them and no-one can profit from, we are not able to gain a clear view. For me, these people are like spies who have just returned from “the other side” with information that could save my life if I act in time and know what to do. They are both scared of the evil we are allowing.
So if you can deny all of this and decide that I have no facts upon which to base my case — that there simply is no World War III and that you are safe under the protection of your government — simply ask yourself, “Are you willing to bet the lives and health of your kids on me being wrong?” Do you think that the Chinese government, the one with the human rights track record you don’t want to be part of, will be the best stewards of the environment when enough of your WalMart dollars tip the global scales in their favour?
World War III is doing evil to our planet. Your weapon in this war is your wallet and how you put it to use.
Customers Viewing This Page May Be Interested in These Sponsored Links
From Publishers Weekly
impassioned defense of President Bush’s foreign policy, gleefully
attacking those on the left and the right who harbor suspicions that
Bush fils is less than infallible. Convinced that we are in the middle
of the fourth world war (the Cold War was the third), he attempts to
steel us for the years of conflict to come. But Podhoretz’s argument
falls flat because of his refusal to face difficult realities in Iraq.
He insists that the media has resolutely tried to ignore any and all
signs of progress and repeatedly asserts that those with whom he
disagrees are committed to seeing the U.S. fail in Iraq in order to
enhance their professional reputations. Even in describing how the
events of September 11 drew America together, Podhoretz cannot resist
partisan sniping: [E]ven on the old flag-burning Left, a few prominent
personalities were painfully wrenching their unaccustomed arms into
something vaguely resembling a salute. Podhoretz’s take-no-prisoners
writing style will delight his partisans while infuriating his
ideological opponents, whom he brands as members of a domestic
insurgency against the Bush Doctrine. (Sept.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
ranks for decades, and here he engages critics of America’s current wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq. Stoutly defending President George W. Bush,
Podhoretz covers every avenue of attack on Bush’s strategy of responding
militarily to Islamic terrorists rather than continuing the
law-enforcement approach that had been the tendency prior to 9/11. The
so-called Bush Doctrine of regime change, preemptive war, and
propagation of democracies in the Middle East, Podhoretz argues, is
comparable to the Truman Doctrine at the start of the cold war and is
strategically and morally sound in light of the aims and methods of
radical Islamic terrorists. However, Podhoretz is pessimistic about the
successful application of the Bush Doctrine. He asserts that a nearly
unanimous anti-Bush phalanx in academia, in the Democratic Party, and in
mass media has been successful in influencing public opinion toward an
antiwar direction. Quoting and debating criticisms of Bush from such
precincts, and from conservative corners as well, Podhoretz stands as a
beleaguered but unwavering voice in the controversy over American
foreign policy. Taylor, Gilbert
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|Most Helpful Customer Reviews
276 of 330 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A provocative thesis about the very real threat, September 11, 2007
This review is from: World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (Hardcover)
The thesis of this book is that the United States and the free world are
While I am fundamentally in sympathy with his approach and believe
Here there is , as Podhoretz is well aware of, an assymetrical
In regard to Iran Podhoretz is most forthright and persuasive. He
Iran also plays a part in another aspect of the Islamic threat,
But there are great weaknesses in the world of Islam, including the
So my own understanding is that in the civilizational confrontations
On the whole I believe Podhoretz rightly points to an ongoing, and
On the whole this is an informative and rich work which anyone who
151 of 198 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Should Be Required Reading, September 17, 2007
Amazon Verified Purchase(What’s this?)
This review is from: World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (Hardcover)
Outstanding analysis of the five years post 911. Podoretz places The War
131 of 173 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The Truth Hurts, September 18, 2007
This review is from: World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (Hardcover)
Must reading for liberals and conservatives alike. In fact, every voter
Hopefully, our Presidential candidates are reading similar books to
Some may bristle at the defense of Bush’s foreign policy initiative,
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win
A Note to the Reader
This past spring, when it seemed that everything that could go wrong
in Iraq was going wrong, a plague of amnesia began sweeping through the
country. Caught up in the particulars with which we were being assaulted
24 hours a day, we seemed to have lost sight of the context in which
such details could be measured and understood and related to one
another. Small things became large, large things became invisible, and
hysteria filled the air.
Since then, of course, and especially after the hand over of
authority on June 30 to an interim Iraqi government, matters have become
more complicated. But the relentless pressure of events, and the
continuing onslaught both of details and of their often tendentious or
partisan interpretation, have hardly let up at all. It is for this
reason that, in what follows, I have tried to step back from the daily
barrage and to piece together the story of what this nation has been
fighting to accomplish since September 11, 2001.
In doing this, I have drawn freely from my own past writings on the
subject, and especially from three articles that appeared in these pages
two or more years ago.1 In some instances, I have woven sections of these articles into a new setting; other passages I have adapted and updated.
Telling the story properly has required more than a straight
narrative leading from 9/11 to the time of writing. For one thing, I
have had to interrupt the narrative repeatedly in order to confront and
clear away the many misconceptions, distortions, and outright
falsifications that have been perpetrated. In addition, I have had to
broaden the perspective so as to make it possible to see why the great
struggle into which the United States was plunged by 9/11 can only be
understood if we think of it as V.
My hope is that telling the story from this perspective and in these
ways will demonstrate that the road we have taken since 9/11 is the only
safe course for us to follow. As we proceed along this course,
questions will inevitably arise as to whether this or that move was
necessary or right; and such questions will breed hesitations and even
demands that we withdraw from the field. Some of this happened even in
World War II, perhaps the most popular war the United States has ever
fought, and much more of it in World War III (that is, the cold war);
and now it is happening again, notably with respect to Iraq.
But as I will attempt to show, we are only in the very early stages
of what promises to be a very long war, and Iraq is only the second
front to have been opened in that war: the second scene, so to speak, of
the first act of a five-act play. In World War II and then in World War
III, we persisted in spite of impatience, discouragement, and
opposition for as long as it took to win, and this is exactly what we
have been called upon to do today in World War IV.
For today, no less than in those titanic conflicts, we are up against
a truly malignant force in radical Islamism and in the states breeding,
sheltering, or financing its terrorist armory. This new enemy has
already attacked us on our own soil—a feat neither Nazi Germany nor
Soviet Russia ever managed to pull off—and openly announces his
intention to hit us again, only this time with weapons of infinitely
greater and deadlier power than those used on 9/11. His objective is not
merely to murder as many of us as possible and to conquer our land.
Like the Nazis and Communists before him, he is dedicated to the
destruction of everything good for which America stands. It is this,
then, that (to paraphrase George W. Bush and a long string of his
predecessors, Republican and Democratic alike) we in our turn, no less
than the “greatest generation” of the 1940’s and its spiritual progeny
of the 1950’s and after, have a responsibility to uphold and are
privileged to defend.
Out of the Blue
The attack came, both literally and metaphorically, like a bolt out
of the blue. Literally, in that the hijacked planes that crashed into
the twin towers of the World Trade Center on the morning of September
11, 2001 had been flying in a cloudless sky so blue that it seemed
unreal. I happened to be on jury duty that day, in a courthouse only a
half-mile from what would soon be known as Ground Zero. Some time after
the planes reached their targets, we all poured into the street—just as
the second tower collapsed. And this sight, as if it were not impossible
to believe in itself, was made all the more incredible by the
perfection of the sky stretching so beautifully over it. I felt as
though I had been deposited into a scene in one of those disaster movies
being filmed (as they used to say) in glorious technicolor.
But the attack came out of the blue in a metaphorical sense as well.
About a year later, in November 2002, a commission would be set up to
investigate how and why such a huge event could have taken us by
surprise and whether it might have been prevented. Because the
commission’s public hearings were not held until the middle of this
year’s exceptionally poisonous presidential election campaign, they
quickly degenerated into an attempt by the Democrats on the panel to
demonstrate that the administration of George W. Bush had been given
adequate warnings but had failed to act on them.
Reinforcing this attempt was the testimony of Richard A. Clarke, who
had been in charge of the counterterrorist operation in the National
Security Council under Bill Clinton and then under Bush before resigning
in the aftermath of 9/11. What Clarke for all practical purposes
did—both at the hearings and in his hot-off-the-press book, Against All Enemies—was
to blame Bush, who had been in office for a mere eight months when the
attack occurred, while exonerating Clinton, who had spent eight long
years doing little of any significance in response to the series of
terrorist assaults on American targets in various parts of the world
that were launched on his watch.
The point I wish to stress is not that Clarke was exaggerating or lying.2
It is that the attack on 9/11 did indeed come out of the blue in the
sense that no one ever took such a possibility seriously enough to
figure out what to do about it. Even Clarke, who did stake a dubious
claim to prescience, had to admit under questioning by one of the 9/11
commissioners that if all his recommendations had been acted upon, the
attack still could not have been prevented. And in its final report,
released on July 22 of this year, the commission, while digging up no
fewer than ten episodes that with hindsight could be seen as missed
“operational opportunities,” thought that these opportunities could not
have been acted on effectively enough to frustrate the attack. Indeed
not—not, that is, in the real America as it existed at the time: an
America in which hobbling constraints had been placed on both the CIA
and the FBI; in which a “wall of separation” had been erected to
obstruct communication or cooperation between law-enforcement and
national-security agents; and in which politicians and the general
public alike were still unable and/or unwilling to believe that
terrorism might actually represent a genuine threat.
Slightly contradicting itself, the commission said that “the 9/11
attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise.”
Maybe so; and yet there was no one, either in government or out, to whom
they did not come as a surprise, either in general or in the particular
form they took. The commission also spoke of a “failure of
imagination.” Maybe so again; and yet the word “failure” seems
inappropriate, implying as it does that success was possible. Surely a
failure so widespread deserves to be considered inevitable.
To the New York Times, however, the failure was not at all
inevitable. In a front-page editorial disguised as a “report,” the Times
credited the commission’s final report with finding that “an attack
described as unimaginable had in fact been imagined, repeatedly.” But
not a shred of the documentary evidence cited by the Times for
this categorical statement actually predicted that al Qaeda would hijack
commercial airliners and crash them into buildings in New York and
Washington. Moreover, all of the evidence, such as it was, came from the
1990’s. Nevertheless, the Times “report” contrived to convey
the impression that in the fall of 2000 the Bush administration—then not
yet in office—had received fair warning of an imminent attack. To
bolster this impression, the Times went on to quote from a
briefing given to Bush a month before 9/11. But the document in question
was vague about details, and in any case was only one of many
intelligence briefings with no special claim to credibility over
Thus the Bush administration, which had just been excoriated in
hearings held by the Senate Intelligence Committee for having invaded
Iraq on the basis of faulty intelligence, was now excoriated by some of
the 9/11 commissioners for not having acted on the basis of even
sketchier intelligence to head off 9/11 itself. This contradiction
elicited a mordant comment from Charles Hill, a former government
official who had been a regular “consumer” of intelligence:
Intelligence collection and analysis is a very imperfect business.
Refusal to face this reality has produced the almost laughable
contradiction of the Senate Intelligence Committee criticizing the Bush
administration for acting on third-rate intelligence, even as the 9/11
commission criticizes it for not acting on third-rate intelligence.3
However, the point I most wish to stress is that there was something
unwholesome, not to say unholy, about the recriminations on this issue
that befouled the commission’s public hearings and some of the interim
reports by the staff. It therefore came, so to speak, both as a shock
and as a surprise that this same unholy spirit was almost entirely
exorcised from the final report. In the end the commission agreed that
no American President and no American policy could be held responsible
in any degree for the aggression against the United States unleashed on
Amen to that. For the plain truth is that the sole and entire
responsibility rests with al Qaeda, along with the regimes that provided
it with protection and support. Furthermore, to the extent that
American passivity and inaction opened the door to 9/11, neither
Democrats nor Republicans, and neither liberals nor conservatives, are
in a position to derive any partisan or ideological advantage. The
reason, quite simply, is that much the same methods for dealing with
terrorism were employed by the administrations of both parties,
stretching as far back as in 1970 and proceeding through Gerald Ford, , Ronald Reagan (yes, Ronald Reagan), George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and right up to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush.
A “Paper Tiger”
The record speaks dismally for itself. From 1970 to 1975, during the
administrations of Nixon and Ford, several American diplomats were
murdered in Sudan and Lebanon while others were kidnapped. The
perpetrators were all agents of one or another faction of the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO). In Israel, too, many American citizens
were killed by the PLO, though, except for the rockets fired at our
embassy and other American facilities in Beirut by the Popular Front for
the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), these attacks were not directly
aimed at the United States. In any case, there were no American military
Our diplomats, then, were for some years already being murdered with
impunity by Muslim terrorists when, in 1979, with Carter now in the
White House, Iranian students—with either the advance or subsequent
blessing of the country’s clerical ruler, Ayatollah Khomeini—broke into
the American embassy in Tehran and seized 52 Americans as hostages. For a
full five months, Carter dithered. At last, steeling himself, he
authorized a military rescue operation which had to be aborted after a
series of mishaps that would have fit well into a Marx Brothers movie
like Duck Soup if they had not been more humiliating than
comic. After 444 days, and just hours after Reagan’s inauguration in
January 1981, the hostages were finally released by the Iranians,
evidently because they feared that the hawkish new President might
actually launch a military strike against them.
Yet if they could have foreseen what was coming under Reagan, they
would not have been so fearful. In April 1983, Hizbullah—an Islamic
terrorist organization nourished by Iran and Syria—sent a suicide bomber
to explode his truck in front of the American embassy in Beirut,
Lebanon. Sixty-three employees, among them the Middle East CIA director,
were killed and another 120 wounded. But Reagan sat still.
Six months later, in October 1983, another Hizbullah suicide bomber
blew up an American barracks in the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S.
Marines in their sleep and wounding another 81. This time Reagan signed
off on plans for a retaliatory blow, but he then allowed his Secretary
of Defense, ,
to cancel it (because it might damage our relations with the Arab
world, of which Weinberger was always tenderly solicitous). Shortly
thereafter, the President pulled the Marines out of Lebanon.
Having cut and run in Lebanon in October, Reagan again remained
passive in December, when the American embassy in Kuwait was bombed. Nor
did he hit back when, hard upon the withdrawal of the American Marines
from Beirut, the CIA station chief there, William Buckley, was kidnapped
by Hizbullah and then murdered. Buckley was the fourth American to be
kidnapped in Beirut, and many more suffered the same fate between 1982
and 1992 (though not all died or were killed in captivity).
These kidnappings were apparently what led Reagan, who had sworn that
he would never negotiate with terrorists, to make an unacknowledged
deal with Iran, involving the trading of arms for hostages. But whereas
the Iranians were paid off handsomely in the coin of nearly 1,500
antitank missiles (some of them sent at our request through Israel), all
we got in exchange were three American hostages—not to mention the
disruptive and damaging Iran-contra scandal.
In September 1984, six months after the murder of Buckley, the U.S.
embassy annex near Beirut was hit by yet another truck bomb (also traced
to Hizbullah). Again Reagan sat still. Or rather, after giving the
green light to covert proxy retaliations by Lebanese intelligence
agents, he put a stop to them when one such operation, directed against
the cleric thought to be the head of Hizbullah, failed to get its main
target while unintentionally killing 80 other people.
It took only another two months for Hizbullah to strike once more. In
December 1984, a Kuwaiti airliner was hijacked and two American
passengers employed by the U.S. Agency for International Development
were murdered. The Iranians, who had stormed the plane after it landed
in Tehran, promised to try the hijackers themselves, but instead allowed
them to leave the country. At this point, all the Reagan administration
could come up with was the offer of a $250,000 reward for information
that might lead to the arrest of the hijackers. There were no takers.
The following June, Hizbullah operatives hijacked still another
airliner, an American one (TWA flight 847), and then forced it to fly to
Beirut, where it was held for more than two weeks. During those weeks,
an American naval officer aboard the plane was shot, and his body was
ignominiously hurled onto the tarmac. For this the hijackers were
rewarded with the freeing of hundreds of terrorists held by Israel in
exchange for the release of the other passengers. Both the United States
and Israel denied that they were violating their own policy of never
bargaining with terrorists, but as with the arms-for-hostages deal, and
with equally good reason, no one believed them, and it was almost
universally assumed that Israel had acted under pressure from
Washington. Later, four of the hijackers were caught but only one wound
up being tried and jailed (by Germany, not the United States).
The sickening beat went on. In October 1985, the Achille Lauro,
an Italian cruise ship, was hijacked by a group under the leadership of
the PLO’s Abu Abbas, working with the support of Libya. One of the
hijackers threw an elderly wheelchair-bound American passenger, Leon
Klinghoffer, overboard. When the hijackers attempted to escape in a
plane, the United States sent Navy fighters to intercept it and force it
down. Klinghoffer’s murderer was eventually apprehended and sent to
prison in Italy, but the Italian authorities let Abu Abbas himself go.
Washington—evidently having exhausted its repertoire of military
reprisals—now confined itself to protesting the release of Abu Abbas. To
Libya’s involvement in the Achille Lauro hijacking was, though, the last free pass that country’s dictator,
was destined to get from the United States under Reagan. In December
1985, five Americans were among the 20 people killed when the Rome and
Vienna airports were bombed, and then in April 1986 another bomb
exploded in a discotheque in West Berlin that was a hangout for American
servicemen. U.S. intelligence tied Libya to both of these bombings, and
the eventual outcome was an American air attack in which one of the
residences of Qaddafi was hit.
In retaliation, the Palestinian terrorist
executed three U.S. citizens who worked at the American University in
Beirut. But Qaddafi himself—no doubt surprised and shaken by the
American reprisal—went into a brief period of retirement as a sponsor of
terrorism. So far as we know, it took nearly three years (until
December 1988) before he could pull himself together to the point of
undertaking another operation: the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over
Lockerbie, Scotland, in which a total of 270 people lost their lives. Of
the two Libyan intelligence agents who were tried for planting the
bomb, one was convicted (though not until the year 2001) and the other
acquitted. Qaddafi himself suffered no further punishment from American
In January 1989, Reagan was succeeded by the elder George Bush, who, in handling the fallout from the destruction of
was content to adopt the approach to terrorism taken by all his
predecessors. During the elder Bush’s four-year period in the White
House, there were several attacks on Americans in Turkey by Islamic
terrorist organizations, and there were others in Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
and Lebanon. None of these was as bloody as previous incidents, and none
provoked any military response from the United States.
In January 1993, Bill Clinton became President. Over the span of his
two terms in office, American citizens continued to be injured or killed
in Israel and other countries by terrorists who were not aiming
specifically at the United States. But several spectacular terrorist
operations occurred on Clinton’s watch of which the U.S. was most
emphatically the target.
The first, on February 26, 1993, only 38 days after his inauguration,
was the explosion of a truck bomb in the parking garage of the World
Trade Center in New York. As compared with what would happen on
September 11, 2001, this was a minor incident in which “only” six people
were killed and over 1,000 injured. The six Muslim terrorists
responsible were caught, tried, convicted, and sent to prison for long
But in following the by-now traditional pattern of treating such
attacks as common crimes, or the work of rogue groups acting on their
own, the Clinton administration willfully turned a deaf ear to outside
experts like Steven Emerson and even the director of the CIA, R. ,
who strongly suspected that behind the individual culprits was a
terrorist Islamic network with (at that time) its headquarters in Sudan.
This network, then scarcely known to the general public, was called al
Qaeda, and its leader was a former Saudi national who had fought on our
side against the Soviets in Afghanistan but had since turned against us
as fiercely as he had been against the Russians. His name was Osama bin
The next major episode was not long in trailing the bombing of the
World Trade Center. In April 1993, less than two months after that
attack, former President Bush visited Kuwait, where an attempt was made
to assassinate him by—as our own investigators were able to
determine—Iraqi intelligence agents. The Clinton administration spent
two more months seeking approval from the UN and the “international
community” to retaliate for this egregious assault on the United States.
In the end, a few cruise missiles were fired into the Iraqi capital of
Baghdad, where they fell harmlessly onto empty buildings in the middle
of the night.
In the years immediately ahead, there were many Islamic terrorist
operations (in Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Yemen, and
Israel) that were not specifically aimed at the United States but in
which Americans were nevertheless murdered or kidnapped. In March 1995,
however, a van belonging to the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, was
hit by gunfire, killing two American diplomats and injuring a third. In
November of the same year, five Americans died when a car bomb exploded
in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, near a building in which a U.S. military
advisory group lived.
All this was trumped in June 1996 when another building in which
American military personnel lived—the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia—was blasted by a truck bomb. Nineteen of our airmen were killed,
and 240 other Americans on the premises were wounded.
In 1993, Clinton had been so intent on treating the World Trade
Center bombing as a common crime that for some time afterward he refused
even to meet with his own CIA director. Perhaps he anticipated that he
would be told things by Woolsey—about terrorist networks and the states
sponsoring them—that he did not wish to hear, because he had no
intention of embarking on the military action that such knowledge might
force upon him. Now, in the wake of the bombing of the Khobar Towers,
Clinton again handed the matter over to the police; but the man in
charge, his FBI director, Louis Freeh, who had intimations of an Iranian
connection, could no more get through to him than Woolsey before. There
were a few arrests, and the action then moved into the courts.
In June 1998, grenades were unsuccessfully hurled at the U.S. embassy
in Beirut. A little later, our embassies in the capitals of Kenya
(Nairobi) and Tanzania (Dar es Salaam) were not so lucky. On a single
day—August 7, 1998—car bombs went off in both places, leaving more than
200 people dead, of whom twelve were Americans. Credit for this
coordinated operation was claimed by al Qaeda. In what, whether fairly
or not, was widely interpreted, especially abroad, as a move to distract
attention from his legal troubles over the
affair, Clinton fired cruise missiles at an al Qaeda training camp in
Afghanistan, where bin Laden was supposed to be at that moment, and at a
building in Sudan, where al Qaeda also had a base. But bin Laden
escaped harm, while it remained uncertain whether the targeted factory
in Sudan was actually manufacturing chemical weapons or was just a
normal pharmaceutical plant.
This fiasco—so we have learned from former members of his
administration—discouraged any further such action by Clinton against
bin Laden, though we have also learned from various sources that he did
authorize a number of covert counterterrorist operations and diplomatic
initiatives leading to arrests in foreign countries. But according to
Dick Morris, who was then Clinton’s political adviser:
The weekly strategy meetings at the White House throughout 1995 and 1996 featured an escalating drumbeat of advice to
to take decisive steps to crack down on terrorism. The polls gave these
ideas a green light. But Clinton hesitated and failed to act, always
finding a reason why some other concern was more important.
In the period after Morris left, more began going on behind the
scenes, but most of it remained in the realm of talk or planning that
went nowhere. In contrast to the flattering picture of Clinton that
Richard Clarke would subsequently draw, Woolsey (who after a brief
tenure resigned from the CIA out of sheer frustration) would offer a
devastating retrospective summary of the President’s overall approach:
Do something to show you’re concerned. Launch a few missiles in the
desert, bop them on the head, arrest a few people. But just keep kicking
the ball down field.
Bin Laden, picking up that ball on October 12, 2000, when the destroyer USS Cole
had docked for refueling in Yemen, dispatched a team of suicide
bombers. The bombers did not succeed in sinking the ship, but they
inflicted severe damage upon it, while managing to kill seventeen
American sailors and wounding another 39.
Clarke, along with a few intelligence analysts, had no doubt that the
culprit was al Qaeda. But the heads neither of the CIA nor of the FBI
thought the case was conclusive. Hence the United States did not so much
as lift a military finger against bin Laden or the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan, where he was now ensconced and being protected. As for
Clinton, so obsessively was he then wrapped up in a futile attempt to
broker a deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians that all he
could see in this attack on an American warship was an effort “to deter
us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East.”
The terrorists, he resoundingly vowed, would “fail utterly” in this
Never mind that not the slightest indication existed that bin Laden
was in the least concerned over Clinton’s negotiations with the Israelis
and the Palestinians at Camp David, or even that the Palestinian issue
was of primary importance to him as compared with other grievances. In
any event, it was Clinton who failed, not bin Laden. The Palestinians
under Yasir Arafat, spurning an unprecedentedly generous offer that had
been made by the Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak with Clinton’s
enthusiastic endorsement, unleashed a new round of terrorism. And bin
Laden would soon succeed all too well in his actual intention of
striking another brazen blow at the United States.
The sheer audacity of what bin Laden went on to do on September 11
was unquestionably a product of his contempt for American power. Our
persistent refusal for so long to use that power against him and his
terrorist brethren—or to do so effectively whenever we tried—reinforced
his conviction that we were a nation on the way down, destined to be
defeated by the resurgence of the same Islamic militancy that had once
conquered and converted large parts of the world by the sword.
As bin Laden saw it, thousands or even millions of his followers and
sympathizers all over the Muslim world were willing, and even eager, to
die a martyr’s death in the jihad, the holy war, against the “Great
Satan,” as the Ayatollah Khomeini had called us. But, in bin Laden’s
view, we in the West, and especially in America, were all so afraid to
die that we lacked the will even to stand up for ourselves and defend
our degenerate way of life.
Bin Laden was never reticent or coy in laying out this assessment of
the United States. In an interview on CNN in 1997, he declared that “the
myth of the superpower was destroyed not only in my mind but also in
the minds of all Muslims” when the Soviet Union was defeated in
Afghanistan. That the Muslim fighters in Afghanistan would almost
certainly have failed if not for the arms supplied to them by the United
States did not seem to enter into the lesson he drew from the Soviet
defeat. In fact, in an interview a year earlier he had belittled the
United States as compared with the Soviet Union. “The Russian soldier is
more courageous and patient than the U.S. soldier,” he said then.
Hence, “Our battle with the United States is easy compared with the
battles in which we engaged in Afghanistan.”
Becoming still more explicit, bin Laden wrote off the Americans as
cowards. Had Reagan not taken to his heels in Lebanon after the bombing
of the Marine barracks in 1983? And had not Clinton done the same a
decade later when only a few American Rangers were killed in Somalia,
where they had been sent to participate in a “peacekeeping” mission? Bin
Laden did not boast of this as one of his victories, but a State
Department dossier charged that al Qaeda had trained the terrorists who
ambushed the American servicemen. (The ugly story of what happened to us
in Somalia was told in the film version of ‘s Black Hawk Down, which reportedly became Saddam Hussein’s favorite movie.)
Bin Laden summed it all up in a third interview he gave in 1998:
After leaving Afghanistan the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and
prepared for a long battle thinking that the Americans were like the
Russians. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American
soldiers and realized, more than before, that the American soldier was a
paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.
Bin Laden was not the first enemy of a democratic regime to have been
emboldened by such impressions. In the 1930’s, Adolf Hitler was
convinced by the failure of the British to arm themselves against the
threat he posed, as well as by the policy of appeasement they adopted
toward him, that they were decadent and would never fight no matter how
many countries he invaded.
Similarly with Joseph Stalin in the immediate aftermath of World War
II. Encouraged by the rapid demobilization of the United States, which
to him meant that we were unprepared and unwilling to resist him with
military force, Stalin broke the pledges he had made at Yalta to hold
free elections in the countries of Eastern Europe he had occupied at the
end of the war. Instead, he consolidated his hold over those countries,
and made menacing gestures toward Greece and Turkey.
After Stalin’s death, his successors repeatedly played the same game
whenever they sensed a weakening of the American resolve to hold them
back. Sometimes this took the form of maneuvers aimed at establishing a
balance of military power in their favor. Sometimes it took the form of
using local Communist parties or other proxies as their instrument. But
thanks to the decline of American power following our withdrawal from
Vietnam—a decline reflected in the spread during the late 1970’s of
isolationist and pacifist sentiment, which was in turn reflected in
severely reduced military spending—Leonid Brezhnev felt safe in sending
his own troops into Afghanistan in 1979.
It was the same decline of American power, so uncannily personified
by Jimmy Carter, that, less than two months before the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan, had emboldened the Ayatollah Khomeini to seize and hold
American hostages. To be sure, there were those who denied that this
daring action had anything to do with Khomeini’s belief that the United
States under Carter had become impotent. But this denial was impossible
to sustain in the face of the contrast between the attack on our embassy
in Tehran and the protection the Khomeini regime extended to the Soviet
embassy there when a group of protesters tried to storm it after the
invasion of Afghanistan. The radical Muslim fundamentalists ruling Iran
hated Communism and the Soviet Union at least as much as they hated
us—especially now that the Soviets had invaded a Muslim country.
Therefore the difference in Khomeini’s treatment of the two embassies
could not be explained by ideological or political factors. What could
and did explain it was his fear of Soviet retaliation as against his
expectation that the United States, having lost its nerve, would go to
any lengths to avoid the use of force.
And so it was with Saddam Hussein. In 1990, with the first George
Bush sitting in the White House, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in what
was widely, and accurately, seen as a first step in a bid to seize
control of the oil fields of the Middle East. The elder Bush, fortified
by the determination of ,
who was then prime minister of England, declared that the invasion
would not stand, and he put together a coalition that sent a great
military force into the region. This alone might well have frightened
Saddam Hussein into pulling out of Kuwait if not for the wave of
hysteria in the United States about the tens of thousands of “body bags”
that it was predicted would be flown home if we actually went to war
with Iraq. Not unreasonably, Saddam concluded that, if he held firm, it
was we who would blink and back down.
The fact that Saddam miscalculated, and that in the end we made good
on our threat, did not overly impress Osama bin Laden. After
all—dreading the casualties we would suffer if we went into Baghdad
after liberating Kuwait and defeating the Iraqi army on the
battlefield—we had allowed Saddam to remain in power. To bin Laden, this
could only have looked like further evidence of the weakness we had
shown in the ineffectual policy toward terrorism adopted by a long
string of American Presidents. No wonder he was persuaded that he could
strike us massively on our own soil and get away with it.
Yet just as Saddam had miscalculated in 1990-91, and would again in
2002, bin Laden misread how the Americans would react to being hit
where, literally, they lived. In all likelihood he expected a collapse
into despair and demoralization; what he elicited instead was an
outpouring of rage and an upsurge of patriotic sentiment such as younger
Americans had never witnessed except in the movies, and had most
assuredly never experienced in their own hearts and souls, or, for those
who enlisted in the military, on their own flesh.
In that sense, bin Laden did for this country what the Ayatollah
Khomeini had done before him. In seizing the American hostages in 1979,
and escaping retaliation, Khomeini inflicted a great humiliation on the
United States. But at the same time, he also exposed the foolishness of
Jimmy Carter’s view of the world. The foolishness did not lie in
Carter’s recognition that American power—military, economic, political,
and moral—had been on a steep decline at least since Vietnam. This was
all too true. What was foolish was the conclusion Carter drew from it.
Rather than proposing policies aimed at halting and then reversing the
decline, he took the position that the cause was the play of historical
forces we could do nothing to stop or even slow down. As he saw it,
instead of complaining or flailing about in a vain and dangerous effort
to recapture our lost place in the sun, we needed first to acknowledge,
accept, and adjust to this inexorable historical development, and then
to act upon it with “mature restraint.”
In one fell swoop, the Ayatollah Khomeini made nonsense of Carter’s
delusionary philosophy in the eyes of very large numbers of Americans,
including many who had previously entertained it. Correlatively, new
heart was given to those who, rejecting the idea that American decline
was inevitable, had argued that the cause was bad policies and that the
decline could be turned around by returning to the better policies that
had made us so powerful in the first place.
The entire episode thereby became one of the forces behind an already
burgeoning determination to rebuild American power that culminated in
the election of Ronald Reagan, who had campaigned on the promise to do
just that. For all the shortcomings of his own handling of terrorism,
Reagan did in fact keep his promise to rebuild American power. And it
was this that set the stage for victory in the multifaceted cold war we
had been waging since 1947, when the United States under President Harry
Truman (aroused by Stalin’s miscalculation) decided to resist any
further advance of the Soviet empire.
Few, if any, of Truman’s contemporaries would have dreamed that this
product of a Kansas City political machine, who as a reputedly
run-of-the-mill U.S. Senator had spent most of his time on taxes and
railroads, would rise so resolutely and so brilliantly to the threat
represented by Soviet imperialism. Just so, 54 years later in 2001,
another politician with a small reputation and little previous interest
in foreign affairs would be confronted with a challenge perhaps even
greater than the one faced by Truman; and he too astonished his own
contemporaries by the way he rose to it.
Enter the Bush Doctrine
In “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” (1947), the theoretical defense he
constructed of the strategy Truman adopted for fighting the war ahead,
George F. Kennan (then the director of the State Department’s policy
planning staff, and writing under the pseudonym “X”) described that
a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian
expansive tendencies . . . by the adroit and vigilant application of
counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and
In other words (though Kennan himself did not use those words), we
were faced with the prospect of nothing less than another world war; and
(though in later years, against the plain sense of the words that he
himself did use, he tried to claim that the “coun-terforce” he had in
mind was not military) it would not be an entirely “cold” one, either.
Before it was over, more than 100,000 Americans would die on the far-off
battlefields of Korea and Vietnam, and the blood of many others allied
with us in the political and ideological struggle against the Soviet
Union would be spilled on those same battlefields, and in many other
places as well.
For these reasons, I agree with one of our leading contemporary
students of military strategy, Eliot A. Cohen, who thinks that what is
generally called the “cold war” (a term, incidentally, coined by Soviet
propagandists) should be given a new name. “The cold war,” Cohen writes,
was actually “World War III, which reminds us that not all global
conflicts entail the movement of multimillion-man armies, or
conventional front lines on a map.” I also agree that the nature of the
conflict in which we are now engaged can only be fully appreciated if we
look upon it as World War IV. To justify giving it this name—rather
than, say, the “war on terrorism”—Cohen lists “some key features” that
it shares with World War III:
that it is, in fact, global; that it will involve a mixture of
violent and nonviolent efforts; that it will require mobilization of
skill, expertise, and resources, if not of vast numbers of soldiers;
that it may go on for a long time; and that it has ideological roots.
There is one more feature that World War IV shares with World War III
and that Cohen does not mention: both were declared through the
enunciation of a presidential doctrine.
The Truman Doctrine of 1947 was born with the announcement that “it
must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are
resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside
pressure.” Beginning with a special program of aid to Greece and Turkey,
which were then threatened by Communist takeovers, the strategy was
broadened within a few months by the launching of a much larger and more
significant program of economic aid that came to be called the Marshall
Plan. The purpose of the Marshall Plan was to hasten the reconstruction
of the war-torn economies of Western Europe: not only because this was a
good thing in itself, and not only because it would serve American
interests, but also because it could help eliminate the grievances on
which Communism fed. But then came a Communist coup in Czechoslovakia.
Following as it had upon the installation by the Soviet Union of puppet
regimes in the occupied countries of East Europe, the Czech coup
demonstrated that economic measures would not be enough by themselves to
ward off a comparable danger posed to Italy and France by huge local
Communist parties entirely subservient to Moscow. Out of this
realization—and out of a parallel worry about an actual Soviet invasion
of Western Europe—there emerged the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Containment, then, was a three-sided strategy made up of economic,
political, and military components. All three would be deployed in a
shifting relative balance over the four decades it took to win World War
If the Truman Doctrine unfolded gradually, revealing its entire
meaning only in stages, the Bush Doctrine was pretty fully enunciated in
a single speech, delivered to a joint session of Congress on September
20, 2001. It was then clarified and elaborated in three subsequent
statements: Bush’s first State of the Union address on January 29, 2002;
his speech to the graduating class of the U.S. Military Academy at West
Point on June 1, 2002; and the remarks on the Middle East he delivered
three weeks later, on June 24. This difference aside, his contemporaries
were at least as startled as Truman’s had been, both by the substance
of the new doctrine and by the transformation it bespoke in its author.
For here was George W. Bush, who in foreign affairs had been a more or
less passive disciple of his father, talking for all the world like a
fiery follower of Ronald Reagan.
In sharp contrast to Reagan, generally considered a dangerous
ideologue, the first President Bush—who had been Reagan’s Vice President
and had then succeeded him in the White House—was often accused of
being deficient in what he himself inelegantly dismissed as “the vision
thing.” The charge was fair in that the elder Bush had no guiding sense
of what role the United States might play in reshaping the post-cold-war
world. A strong adherent of the “realist” perspective on world affairs,
he believed that the maintenance of stability was the proper purpose of
American foreign policy, and the only wise and prudential course to
follow. Therefore, when Saddam Hussein upset the balance of power in the
Middle East by invading Kuwait in 1991, the elder Bush went to war not
to create a new configuration in the region but to restore the status
quo ante. And it was precisely out of the same overriding concern for
stability that, having achieved this objective by driving Saddam out of
Kuwait, Bush then allowed him to remain in power.
As for the second President Bush, before 9/11 he was, to all
appearances, as deficient in the “vision thing” as his father before
him. If he entertained any doubts about the soundness of the “realist”
approach, he showed no sign of it. Nothing he said or did gave any
indication that he might be dissatisfied with the idea that his main job
in foreign affairs was to keep things on an even keel. Nor was there
any visible indication that he might be drawn to Ronald Reagan’s more
“idealistic” ambition to change the world, especially with the
“Wilsonian” aim of making it “safe for democracy” by encouraging the
spread to as many other countries as possible of the liberties we
Which is why Bush’s address of September 20, 2001 came as so great a
surprise. Delivered only nine days after the attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, and officially declaring that the United States
was now at war, the September 20 speech put this nation, and all
others, on notice that whether or not George W. Bush had been a strictly
conventional realist in the mold of his father, he was now politically
born again as a passionate democratic idealist of the Reaganite stamp.
It was also this speech that marked the emergence of the Bush
Doctrine, and that pointed just as clearly to World War IV as the Truman
Doctrine had to War World III. Bush did not explicitly give the name
World War IV to the struggle ahead, but he did characterize it as a
direct successor to the two world wars that had immediately preceded it.
Thus, of the “global terrorist network” that had attacked us on our own
soil, he said:
We have seen their kind before. They’re the heirs of all the
murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to
serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will
to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and
totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it
ends in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.
As this passage, coming toward the beginning of the speech, linked
the Bush Doctrine to the Truman Doctrine and to the great struggle led
by Franklin D. Roosevelt before it, the wind-up section demonstrated
that if the second President Bush had previously lacked “the vision
thing,” his eyes were blazing with it now. “Great harm has been done to
us,” he intoned toward the end. “We have suffered great loss. And in our
grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment.” Then he went
on to spell out the substance of that mission and that moment:
The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and
the great hope of every time, now depends on us. Our nation, this
generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and
our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our
courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.
Finally, in his peroration, drawing on some of the same language he
had been applying to the nation as a whole, Bush shifted into the first
person, pledging his own commitment to the great mission we were all
charged with accomplishing:
I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted
it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this
struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of
this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and
fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God
is not neutral between them.
This was not the last time Bush would sound these themes.
Two-and-a-half years later, at a moment when things seemed to be going
badly in the war, it was with the same ideas he had originally put
forward on September 20, 2001 that he sought to reassure the nation. The
occasion would be a commencement address at the Air Force Academy on
June 2, 2004, where he would repeatedly place the “war against
terrorism” in direct succession to World War II and World War III. He
would also be unusually undiplomatic in making no bones about his
rejection of realism:
For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for
the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little
stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy.
And again, even less diplomatically:
Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of
democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the
realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality:
America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America
is always more secure when freedom is on the march.
To top it all off, he would go out of his way to assert that his own
policy, which he properly justified in the first place as a better way
to protect American interests than the alternative favored by the
realists, also bore the stamp of the Reaganite version of Wilsonian
This conflict will take many turns, with setbacks on the course to
victory. Through it all, our confidence comes from one unshakable
belief: We believe in Ronald Reagan’s words that “the future belongs to
The first pillar of the Bush Doctrine, then, was built on a
repudiation of moral relativism and an entirely unapologetic assertion
of the need for and the possibility of moral judgment in the realm of
world affairs. And just to make sure that the point he had first made on
September 20, 2001 had hit home, Bush returned to it even more
outspokenly and in greater detail in the State of the Union address of
January 29, 2002.
Bush had won enthusiastic plaudits from many for the “moral clarity”
of his September 20 speech, but he had also provoked even greater dismay
and disgust among “advanced” thinkers and “sophisticated” commentators
and diplomats both at home and abroad. Now he intensified and
exacerbated their outrage by becoming more specific. Having spoken in
September only in general terms about the enemy in World War IV, Bush
proceeded in his second major wartime pronouncement to single out three
such nations—Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—which he described as forming
an “axis of evil.”
Here again he was following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan, who
had denounced the Soviet Union, our principal enemy in World War III, as
an “evil empire,” and who had been answered with a veritably hysterical
outcry from chancelleries and campuses and editorial pages all over the
world. Evil? What place did a word like that have in the lexicon of
international affairs, assuming it would ever occur to an enlightened
person to exhume it from the grave of obsolete concepts in any
connection whatsoever? But in the eyes of the “experts,” Reagan was not
an enlightened person. Instead, he was a “cowboy,” a B-movie actor, who
had by some freak of democratic perversity landed in the White House. In
denouncing the Soviet empire, he was accused either of signaling an
intention to trigger a nuclear war or of being too stupid to understand
that his wildly provocative rhetoric might do so inadvertently.
The reaction to Bush was perhaps less hysterical and more scornful
than the outcry against Reagan, since this time there was no carrying-on
about a nuclear war. But the air was just as thick with the old sneers
and jeers. Who but an ignoramus and a simpleton—or a fanatical religious
fundamentalist, of the very type on whom Bush was declaring war—would
resort to archaic moral absolutes like “good” and “evil”? On the one
hand, it was egregiously simple-minded to brand a whole nation as evil,
and on the other, only a fool could bring himself to believe, as Bush
(once more like Reagan) had evidently done in complete and ingenuous
sincerity, that the United States, of all countries, represented the
good. Surely only a know-nothing illiterate could be oblivious of the
innumerable crimes committed by America both at home and abroad—crimes
that the country’s own leading intellectuals had so richly documented in
the by-now standard academic view of its history.
Here is how Gore Vidal, one of those intellectuals, stated the case:
I mean, to watch Bush doing his little war dance in Congress . . .
about “evildoers” and this “axis of evil” . . . I thought, he doesn’t
even know what the word axis means. Somebody just gave it to
him. . . . This is about as mindless a statement as you could make. Then
he comes up with about a dozen other countries that have “evil” people
in them, who might commit “terrorist acts.” What is a terrorist act?
Whatever he thinks is a terrorist act. And we are going to go after
them. Because we are good and they are evil. And we’re “gonna git ’em.”
This was rougher and cruder than the language issuing from editorial
pages and think tanks and foreign ministries and even most other
intellectuals, but it was no different from what nearly all of them
thought and how many of them talked in private.6
As soon became clear, however, Bush was not deterred. In subsequent
statements he continued to uphold the first pillar of his new doctrine
and to affirm the universality of the moral purposes animating this new
Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the
language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require
different methods, but not different moralities. Moral truth is the
same in every culture, in every time, and in every place. . . . We are
in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its
Then, in a fascinating leap into the great theoretical debate of the
post-cold-war era (though without identifying the main participants),
Bush came down squarely on the side of ‘s
much-misunderstood view of “the end of history,” according to which the
demise of Communism had eliminated the only serious competitor to our
own political system7:
The 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human
progress, based on non-negotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of
law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women and private
property and free speech and equal justice and religious tolerance.
Having endorsed Fukuyama, Bush now brushed off the political
scientist Samuel Huntington, whose rival theory postulated a “clash of
civilizations” arising from the supposedly incompatible values
prevailing in different parts of the world:
When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there
is no clash of civilizations. The requirements of freedom apply fully to
Africa and Latin America and the entire Islamic world. The peoples of
the Islamic nations want and deserve the same freedoms and opportunities
as people in every nation. And their governments should listen to their
The Second Pillar
If the first of the four pillars on which the Bush Doctrine stood was
a new moral attitude, the second was an equally dramatic shift in the
conception of terrorism as it had come to be defined in standard
academic and intellectual discourse.
Under this new understanding—confirmed over and over again by the
fact that most of the terrorists about whom we were learning came from
prosperous families—terrorism was no longer considered a product of
economic factors. The “swamps” in which this murderous plague bred were
swamps not of poverty and hunger but of political oppression. It was
only by “draining” them, through a strategy of “regime change,” that we
would be making ourselves safe from the threat of terrorism and
simultaneously giving the peoples of “the entire Islamic world” the
freedoms “they want and deserve.”
In the new understanding, furthermore, terrorists, with rare
exceptions, were not individual psychotics acting on their own but
agents of organizations that depended on the sponsorship of various
governments. Our aim, therefore, could not be merely to capture or kill
Osama bin Laden and wipe out the al Qaeda terrorists under his direct
leadership. Bush vowed that we would also uproot and destroy the entire
network of interconnected terrorist organizations and cells “with global
reach” that existed in as many as 50 or 60 countries. No longer would
we treat the members of these groups as criminals to be arrested by the
police, read their Miranda rights, and brought to trial. From now on,
they were to be regarded as the irregular troops of a military alliance
at war with the United States, and indeed the civilized world as a
Not that this analysis of terrorism had exactly been a secret. The
State Department itself had a list of seven state sponsors of terrorism
(all but two of which, Cuba and North Korea, were predominantly Muslim),
and it regularly issued reports on terrorist incidents throughout the
world. But aside from such things as the lobbing of a cruise missile or
two, diplomatic and/or economic sanctions that were inconsistently and
even perfunctorily enforced, and a number of covert operations, the
law-enforcement approach still prevailed.
September 11 changed much—if not yet all—of that; still in use were
atavistic phrases like “bringing the terrorists to justice.” But no one
could any longer dream that the American answer to what had been done to
us in New York and Washington would begin with an FBI investigation and
end with a series of ordinary criminal trials. War had been declared on
the United States, and to war we were going to go.
But against whom? Since it was certain that Osama bin Laden had
masterminded September 11, and since he and the top leadership of al
Qaeda were holed up in Afghanistan, the first target, and thus the first
testing ground of this second pillar of the Bush Doctrine, chose
Before resorting to military force, however, Bush issued an ultimatum
to the extreme Islamic radicals of the Taliban who were then ruling
Afghanistan. The ultimatum demanded that they turn Osama bin Laden and
his people over to us and that they shut down all terrorist training
camps there. By rejecting this ultimatum, the Taliban not only asked for
an invasion but, under the Bush Doctrine, also asked to be overthrown.
And so, on October 7, 2001, the United States—joined by Great Britain
and about a dozen other countries—launched a military campaign against
both al Qaeda and the regime that was providing it with “aid and safe
As compared with what would come later, there was relatively little
opposition either at home or abroad to the opening of this first front
of World War IV. The reason was that the Afghan campaign could easily be
justified as a retaliatory strike against the terrorists who had
attacked us. And while there was a good deal of murmuring about the
dangers of pursuing a policy of “regime change,” there was very little
sympathy in practice (outside the Muslim world, that is) for the
Whatever opposition was mounted to the battle of Afghanistan mainly
took the form of skepticism over the chances of winning it. True, such
skepticism was in some quarters a mask for outright opposition to
American military power in general. But once the Afghan campaign got
under way, the main focus shifted to everything that seemed to be going
awry on the battlefield.
For example, only a couple of weeks into the campaign, when there were missteps involving the use of the Afghan fighters of the
immediately rushed to conjure up the ghost of Vietnam. This restless
spirit, having been called forth from the vasty deep, henceforth refused
to be exorcised, and would go on to elbow its way into every detail of
the debates over all the early battles of World War IV. On this
occasion, its message was that we were falling victim to the illusion
that we could rely on an incompetent local force to do the fighting on
the ground while we supplied advice and air support. This strategy would
inevitably fail, and would suck us into the same “quagmire” into which
we had been dragged in Vietnam. After all, as Apple and others argued,
the Soviet Union had suffered its own “Vietnam” in Afghanistan—and
unlike us, it had not been hampered by the logistical problems of
projecting power over a great distance. How could we expect to do
When, however, the B-52’s and the 15,000-pound “Daisy Cutter” bombs
were unleashed, they temporarily banished the ghost of Vietnam and
undercut the fears of some and the hopes of others that we were heading
into a quagmire. Far from being good for nothing but “pounding the
rubble,” as the critics had sarcastically charged, the Daisy Cutters
exerted, as even a New York Times report was forced to concede,
“a terrifying psychological impact as they exploded just above ground,
wiping out everything for hundreds of yards.”
But the Daisy Cutters were only the half of it. As we were all to
discover, our “smart-bomb” technology had advanced far beyond the stage
it had reached when first introduced in 1991. In Afghanistan in 2001,
such bombs—guided by “spotters” on the ground equipped with radios,
laptops, and lasers, and often riding on horseback, and also aided by
unmanned satellite drones and other systems in the air—were both
incredibly precise in avoiding civilian casualties and absolutely lethal
in destroying the enemy. It was this “new kind of American power,”
added the New York Times report, that “enabled a ragtag
opposition” (i.e., the same Northern Alliance supposedly dragging us
into a quagmire) to rout the “battle-hardened troops” of the Taliban
regime in less than three months, and with the loss of very few American
In the event, Osama bin Laden was not captured and al Qaeda was not
totally destroyed. But it was certainly damaged by the campaign in
Afghanistan. As for the Taliban regime, it was overthrown and replaced
by a government that would no longer give aid and comfort to terrorists.
Moreover, while Afghanistan under the new government may not have been
exactly democratic, it was infinitely less oppressive than its
totalitarian predecessor. And thanks to the clearing of political ground
that had been covered over by the radical Islamic extremism of the
Taliban, the seeds of free institutions were being sown and given a
fighting chance to sprout and grow.
The campaign in Afghanistan demonstrated in the most unmistakable
terms what followed from the new understanding of terrorism that formed
the second pillar of the Bush Doctrine: countries that gave safe haven
to terrorists and refused to clean them out were asking the United
States to do it for them, and the regimes ruling these countries were
also asking to be overthrown in favor of new leaders with democratic
aspirations. Of course, as circumstances permitted and prudence
dictated, other instruments of power, whether economic or diplomatic,
would be deployed. But Afghanistan showed that the military option was
open, available for use, and lethally effective.
The Third Pillar
The third pillar on which the Bush Doctrine rested was the assertion
of our right to preempt. Bush had already pretty clearly indicated on
September 20, 2001 that he had no intention of waiting around to be
attacked again (“We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven
to terrorism”). But in the State of the Union speech in January 2002, he
became much more explicit on this point too:
We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on
events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer
and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s
most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive
To those with ears to hear, the January speech should have made it
abundantly clear that Bush was now proposing to go beyond the
fundamentally retaliatory strike against Afghanistan and to take
preemptive action. Yet at first it went largely unnoticed that this
right to strike, not in retaliation for but in anticipation of an
attack, was a logical extension of the general outline Bush had provided
on September 20. Nor did the new position attract much attention even
when it was reiterated in the plainest of words on January 29. It was
not until the third in the series of major speeches elaborating the Bush
Doctrine—the one delivered on June 1, 2002 at West Point to the
graduating class of newly commissioned officers of the United States
Army—that the message got through at last.
Perhaps the reason the preemption pillar finally became clearly
visible at West Point was that, for the first time, Bush placed his new
ideas in historical context:
For much of the last century, America’s defense relied on the
cold-war doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those
strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking.
Deterrence—the promise of massive retaliation against nations—means
nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to
This covered al Qaeda and similar groups. But Bush then proceeded to
explain, in addition, why the old doctrines could not work with a regime
like Saddam Hussein’s in Iraq:
Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of
mass destruction can deliver those weapons or missiles or secretly
provide them to terrorist allies.
Refusing to flinch from the implications of this analysis, Bush
repudiated the previously sacred dogmas of arms control and treaties
against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as a means of
dealing with the dangers now facing us from Iraq and other members of
the axis of evil:
We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We
cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign
nonproliferation treaties, and then systematically break them.
Hence, Bush inexorably continued,
If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too
long. . . . [T]he war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We
must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the
worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only
path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.
At this early stage, the Bush administration was still denying that
it had reached any definite decision about Saddam Hussein; but everyone
knew that, in promising to act, Bush was talking about him. The
immediate purpose was to topple the Iraqi dictator before he had a
chance to supply weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists. But this
was by no means the only or—surprising though it would seem in
retrospect—even the decisive consideration either for Bush or his
supporters (or, for that matter, his opponents).8
And in any case, the long-range strategic rationale went beyond the
proximate causes of the invasion. Bush’s idea was to extend the
enterprise of “draining the swamps” begun in Afghanistan and then to set
the entire region on a course toward democratization. For if
Afghanistan under the Taliban represented the religious face of Middle
Eastern terrorism, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was its most powerful
secular partner. It was to deal with this two-headed beast that a
two-pronged strategy was designed.
Unlike the plan to go after Afghanistan, however, the idea of
invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein provoked a firestorm
hardly less intense than the one that was still raging over Bush’s
insistence on using the words “good” and “evil.”
Even before the debate on Iraq in particular, there had been strong
objection to the whole idea of preemptive action by the United States.
Some maintained that such action would be a violation of international
law, while others contended that it would set a dangerous precedent
under which, say, Pakistan might attack India or vice-versa. But once
the discussion shifted from the Bush Doctrine in general to the question
of Iraq, the objections became more specific.
Most of these were brought together in early August 2002 (only about
two months after Bush’s speech at West Point) in a piece entitled “Don’t
Attack Iraq.” The author was , who had been National Security Adviser to the elder President Bush. Scowcroft asserted, first, that there was
scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even
less to the September 11 attacks. Indeed, Saddam’s goals have little in
common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little
incentive for him to make common cause with them.
That being the case, Scowcroft continued, “An attack on Iraq at this
time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global
counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken,” the campaign that must
remain “our preeminent security priority.”
But this was not the only “priority” that to Scowcroft was “preeminent”:
Possibly the most dire consequences [of attacking Saddam] would be
the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is
principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region,
however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Showing little regard for the American “obsession,” Scowcroft was very solicitous of the regional one:
If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter
[Israeli-Palestinian] conflict . . . in order to go after Iraq, there
would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as
ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is
seen to be a narrow American interest.
This, added Scowcroft, “could well destabilize Arab regimes in the
region,” than which, to a quintessential realist like him, nothing could
In coming out publicly, and in these terms, against the second
President Bush’s policy, Scow-croft underscored the extent to which the
son had diverged from the father’s perspective. In addition, by lending
greater credence to the already credible rumor that the elder Bush
opposed invading Iraq, Scowcroft’s article belied what would soon become
one of the favorite theories of the hard Left—namely, that the son had
gone to war in order to avenge the attempted assassination of his
On the other hand, by implicitly assenting to the notion that
toppling Saddam was merely “a narrow American interest,” Scowcroft gave a
certain measure of aid and comfort to the hard Left and its fellow
travelers within the liberal community. For from these circles the cry
had been going out that it was the corporations, especially Halliburton
(which had formerly headed) and the oil companies that were dragging us into an unnecessary war.
So, too, with Scowcroft’s emphasis on resolving “the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict”—a standard euphemism for putting pressure
on Israel, whose “intransigence” was taken to be the major obstacle to
peace. By strongly insinuating that the Israeli prime minister Ariel
Sharon was a greater threat to us than Saddam Hussein, Scowcroft
provided a respectable rationale for the hostility toward Israel that
had come shamelessly out of the closet within hours of the attacks of
9/11 and that had been growing more and more overt, more and more
virulent, and more and more widespread ever since. To the
“paleoconservative” Right, where the charge first surfaced, it was less
the oil companies than Israel that was mainly dragging us into invading
Iraq. Before long, the Left would add the same accusation to its own
indictment, and in due course it would be imprinted more and more openly
on large swatches of mainstream opinion.
A cognate count in this indictment held that the invasion of Iraq had
been secretly engineered by a cabal of Jewish officials acting not in
the interest of their own country but in the service of Israel, and more
particularly of Ariel Sharon. At first the framers and early spreaders
of this defamatory charge considered it the better part of prudence to
identify the conspirators not as Jews but as “neoconservatives.” It was a
clever tactic, in that Jews did in fact constitute a large proportion
of the repentant liberals and leftists who, having some two or three
decades earlier broken ranks with the Left and moved rightward, came to
be identified as neoconservatives. Everyone in the know knew this, and
for those to whom it was news, the point could easily be gotten across
by singling out only those neoconservatives who had Jewish-sounding
names and to ignore the many other leading members of the group whose
clearly non-Jewish names might confuse the picture.
This tactic had been given a trial run by Patrick J. Buchanan in
opposing the first Gulf war of 1991. Buchanan had then already denounced
the Johnny-come-lately neoconservatives for having hijacked and
corrupted the conservative movement, but now he descended deeper into
the fever swamps by insisting that there were “only two groups beating
the drums . . . for war in the Middle East—the Israeli Defense Ministry
and its amen corner in the United States.” Among those standing in the
“amen corner” he subsequently singled out four prominent hawks with
Jewish-sounding names, counterposing them to “kids with names like
McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown” who would actually do the
fighting if these Jews had their way.
Ten years later, in 2001, in the writings of Buchanan and other paleoconservatives within the journalistic fraternity (notably
Arnaud de Borchgrave, and Paul Craig Roberts), one of the four hawks of
1991, Richard Perle, made a return appearance. But Perle was now joined
in starring roles by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, both occupying
high positions in the Pentagon, and a large supporting cast of
identifiably Jewish intellectuals and commentators outside the
government (among them Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, and Robert
Kagan). Like their predecessors in 1991, the members of the new ensemble
were portrayed as agents of their bellicose counterparts in the Israeli
government. But there was also a difference: the new group had managed
to infiltrate the upper reaches of the American government. Having
pulled this off, they had conspired to manipulate their non-Jewish
bosses—Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush
himself—into invading Iraq.
Before long, this theory was picked up and circulated by just about
everyone in the whole world who was intent on discrediting the Bush
Doctrine. And understandably so: for what could suit their purposes
better than to “expose” the invasion of Iraq—and by extension the whole
of World War IV—as a war started by Jews and being waged solely in the
interest of Israel?
To protect themselves against the taint of anti-Semitism, purveyors
of this theory sometimes disingenuously continued to pretend that when
they said “neoconservative” they did not mean “Jew.” Yet the theory
inescapably rested on all-too-familiar anti-Semitic canards—principally
that Jews were never reliably loyal to the country in which they lived,
and that they were always conspiring behind the scenes, often
successfully, to manipulate the world for their own nefarious purposes.9
Quite apart from its pernicious moral and political implications, the
theory was ridiculous in its own right. To begin with, it asked one to
believe the unbelievable: that strong-minded people like Bush, Rumsfeld,
Cheney, and Rice could be fooled by a bunch of cunning subordinates,
whether Jewish or not, into doing anything at all against their better
judgment, let alone something so momentous as waging a war, let alone a
war in which they could detect no clear relation to American interests.
In the second place, there was the evidence uncovered by the
purveyors of this theory themselves. That evidence, to which they
triumphantly pointed, consisted of published articles and statements in
which the alleged conspirators openly and unambiguously advocated the
very policies they now stood accused of having secretly foisted upon an
unwary Bush administration. Nor had these allegedly secret conspirators
ever concealed their belief that toppling Saddam Hussein and adopting a
policy aimed at the democratization of the entire Middle East would be
good not only for the United States and for the people of the region but
also for Israel. (And what, an uncharacteristically puzzled Richard
Perle asked a hostile interviewer, was wrong with that?)
Which brings us to the fourth pillar on which the Bush Doctrine was erected.
The Fourth Pillar
Listening to the laments of Scowcroft and many others, one would
think that George W. Bush had been ignoring “the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict” altogether in his misplaced “obsession” with Iraq. In fact,
however, even before 9/11 it had been widely and authoritatively
reported that Bush was planning to come out publicly in favor of
establishing a Palestinian state as the only path to a peaceful
resolution of the conflict; and in October, after a short delay caused
by 9/11, he became the first American President actually to do so. Yet
at some point in the evolution of his thinking over the months that
followed, Bush seems to have realized that there was something bizarre
about supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state that would be
run by a terrorist like Yasir Arafat and his henchmen. Why should the
United States acquiesce, let alone help, in adding yet another state to
those harboring and sponsoring terrorism precisely at a time when we
were at war to rid the world of just such regimes?
Presumably it was under the prodding of this question that Bush came
up with an idea even more novel in its way than the new conception of
terrorism he had developed after 9/11. This idea was broached only three
weeks after his speech at West Point, on June 24, 2002, when he issued a
statement adding conditions to his endorsement of a Palestinian state:
Today, Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing
terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the United States will not support
the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a
sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their
But engaging in such a fight, he added, required the election of “new
leaders, leaders not compromised by terror,” who would embark on
building “entirely new political and economic institutions based on
democracy, market economics, and action against terrorism.”
It was with these words that Bush brought his “vision” (as he kept
calling it) of a Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel
into line with his overall perspective on the evil of terrorism. And
having traveled that far, he went the distance by repositioning the
Palestinian issue into the larger context from which Arab propaganda had
ripped it. Since this move passed almost unnoticed, it is worth
dwelling on why it was so important.
Even before Israel was born in 1948, the Muslim countries of the
Middle East had been fighting against the establishment of a sovereign
Jewish state—any Jewish state—on land they believed Allah had
reserved for those faithful to his prophet Muhammad. Hence the
Arab-Israeli conflict had pitted hundreds of millions of Arabs and other
Muslims, in control of more than two dozen countries and vast stretches
of territory, against a handful of Jews who then numbered well under
three-quarters of a million and who lived on a tiny sliver of land the
size of New Jersey. But then came the Six-Day war of 1967. Launched in
an effort to wipe Israel off the map, it ended instead with Israel in
control of the West Bank (formerly occupied by Jordan) and Gaza (which
had been controlled by Egypt). This humiliating defeat, however, was
eventually turned into a rhetorical and political victory by Arab
propagandists, who redefined the ongoing war of the whole Muslim world
against the Jewish state as, instead, a struggle merely between the
Palestinians and the Israelis. Thus was Israel’s image transformed from a
David to a Goliath, a move that succeeded in alienating much of the old
sympathy previously enjoyed by the outnumbered and besieged Jewish
Bush now reversed this reversal. Not only did he reconstruct a
truthful framework by telling the Palestinian people that they had been
treated for decades “as pawns in the Middle East conflict.” He also
insisted on being open and forthright about the nations that belonged in
this larger picture and about what they had been up to:
I’ve said in the past that nations are either with us or against us
in the war on terror. To be counted on the side of peace, nations must
act. Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to
violence in official media and publicly denounce homicide bombs. Every
nation actually committed to peace will stop the flow of money,
equipment, and recruits to terrorist groups seeking the destruction of
Israel, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah. Every nation
committed to peace must block the shipment of Iranian supplies to these
groups and oppose regimes that promote terror, like Iraq. And Syria must
choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps
and expelling terrorist organizations.
Here, then, Bush rebuilt the context in which to understand the
Middle East conflict. In the months ahead, pressured by his main
European ally, the British prime minister Tony Blair, and by his own
Secretary of State, ,
Bush would sometimes seem to backslide into the old way of thinking.
But he would invariably recover. Nor would he ever lose sight of the
“vision” by which he was guided on this issue, and through which he had
simultaneously made a strong start in fitting not the Palestinian
Authority alone but the entire Muslim world, “friends” no less than
enemies, into his conception of the war against terrorism.
With the inconsistency thus removed and the resultant shakiness
repaired by the addition of this fourth pillar to undergird it, the Bush
Doctrine was now firm, coherent, and complete.
Saluting the Flag Again
Both as a theoretical construct and as a guide to policy, the new
Bush Doctrine could not have been further from the “Vietnam
syndrome”—that loss of self-confidence and concomitant spread of
neoisolationist and pacifist sentiment throughout the American body
politic, and most prominently in the elite institutions of American
culture, which began during the last years of the Vietnam war. I have
already pointed to a likeness between the Truman Doctrine’s declaration
that World War III had started and the Bush Doctrine’s equally
portentous declaration that 9/11 had plunged us into World War I V. But
fully to measure the distance traveled by the Bush Doctrine, I want to
look now at yet another presidential doctrine—the one developed by
Richard Nixon in the late 1960’s precisely in response to the Vietnam
Contrary to legend, our military intervention into Vietnam under John
F. Kennedy in the early 1960’s had been backed by every sector of
mainstream opinion, with the elite media and the professoriate leading
the cheers. At the beginning, indeed, the only criticism from the
mainstream concerned tactical issues. Toward the middle, however, and
with Lyndon B. Johnson having succeeded Kennedy in the White House,
doubts began to arise concerning the political wisdom of the
intervention, and by the time Nixon had replaced Johnson, the moral
character of the United States was being indicted and besmirched. Large
numbers of Americans, including even many of the people who had led the
intervention in the Kennedy years, were now joining the tiny minority on
the Left who at the time had denounced them for stupidity and
immorality, and were now saying that going into Vietnam had progressed
from a folly into a crime.
To this new political reality the
was a reluctant accommodation. As getting into Vietnam under Kennedy
and Johnson had worked to undermine support for the old strategy of
containment, Nixon—along with his chief adviser in foreign affairs, —thought that our way of getting out of Vietnam could conversely work to create the new strategy that had become necessary.
First, American forces would be withdrawn from Vietnam gradually,
while the South Vietnamese built up enough power to assume
responsibility for the defense of their own country. The American role
would then be limited to providing arms and equipment. The same policy,
suitably modified according to local circumstances, would be applied to
the rest of the world as well. In every major region, the United States
would now depend on local surrogates rather than on its own military to
deter or contain any Soviet-sponsored aggression, or any other
potentially destabilizing occurrence. We would supply arms and other
forms of assistance, but henceforth the deterring and the fighting would
be left to others.
On every point, the new Bush Doctrine contrasted sharply with the old
Nixon Doctrine. Instead of withdrawal and fallback, Bush proposed a
highly ambitious forward strategy of intervention. Instead of relying on
local surrogates, Bush proposed an active deployment of our own
military power. Instead of deterrence and containment, Bush proposed
preemption and “taking the fight to the enemy.” And instead of worrying
about the stability of the region in question, Bush proposed to
destabilize it through “regime change.”
The Nixon Doctrine had obviously harmonized with the Vietnam
syndrome. What about the Bush Doctrine? Was the political and military
strategy it put forward comparably in tune with the post-9/11 public
Certainly this is how it seemed in the immediate aftermath of the
attacks: so much so that a group of younger commentators were quick to
proclaim the birth of an entirely new era in American history. What
December 7, 1941 had done to the old isolationism, they announced,
September 11, 2001 had done to the Vietnam syndrome. It was politically
dead, and the cultural fallout of that war—all the damaging changes
wrought by the 1960’s and the 1970’s—would now follow it into the grave.
The most obvious sign of the new era was that once again we were
saluting our now ubiquitously displayed flag. This was the very flag
that, not so long ago, leftist radicals had thought fit only for
burning. Yet now, even on the old flag-burning Left, a few prominent
personalities were painfully wrenching their unaccustomed arms into
something vaguely resembling a salute.
It was a scene reminiscent of the response of some Communists to the
suppression by the new Soviet regime of the sailors’ revolt that erupted
in Kronstadt in the early 1920’s. Far more murderous horrors would pour
out of the malignant recesses of Stalinist rule, but as the first in
that long series of atrocities leading to disillusionment with the
Soviet Union, Kronstadt became the portent of them all. In its way, 9/11
served as an inverse Kronstadt for a number of radical leftists of
today. What it did was raise questions about what one of them was now
honest enough to describe as their inveterately “negative faith in
America the ugly.”
September 11 also brought to mind a poem by W.H. Auden written upon
the outbreak of World War II and entitled “September 1, 1939.” Although
it contained hostile sentiments about America, remnants of Auden’s own
Communist period, the opening lines seemed so evocative of September 11,
2001 that they were often quoted in the early days of this new war:
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade.
Auden’s low dishonest decade was the 1930’s, and its clever hopes
centered on the construction of a workers’ paradise in the Soviet Union.
Our counterpart was the 1960’s, and its less clever hopes centered not
on construction, however illusory, but on destruction—the destruction of
the institutions that made up the American way of life. For America was
conceived in that period as the great obstacle to any improvement in
the lot of the wretched of the earth, not least those within its own
As a “founding father” of neoconservatism who had broken ranks with
the Left precisely because I was repelled by its “negative faith in
America the ugly,” I naturally welcomed this new patriotic mood with
open arms. In the years since making that break, I had been growing more
and more impressed with the virtues of American society. I now saw that
America was a country in which more liberty and more prosperity
abounded than human beings had ever enjoyed in any other country or any
other time. I now recognized that these blessings were also more widely
shared than even the most visionary utopians had ever imagined possible.
And I now understood that this was an immense achievement, entitling
the United States of America to an honored place on the roster of the
greatest civilizations the world had ever known.
The new patriotic mood therefore seemed to me a sign of greater
intellectual sanity and moral health, and I fervently hoped that it
would last. But I could not fully share the confidence of some of my
younger political friends that the change was permanent—that, as they
exulted, nothing in American politics and American culture would ever be
the same again. As a veteran of the political and cultural wars of the
1960’s, I knew from my own scars how ephemeral such a mood might well
turn out to be, and how vulnerable it was to seemingly insignificant
In this connection, I was haunted by one memory in particular. It was
of an evening in the year 1960, when I went to address a meeting of
left-wing radicals on a subject that had then barely begun to show the
whites of its eyes: the possibility of American military involvement in a
faraway place called Vietnam. Accompanying me that evening was the late
Marion Magid, a member of my staff at COMMENTARY, of which I had
recently become the editor. As we entered the drafty old hall on Union
Square in Manhattan, Marion surveyed the 50 or so people in the
audience, and whispered to me: “Do you realize that every young person
in this room is a tragedy to some family or other?”
The memory of this quip brought back to life some sense of how
unpromising the future had then appeared to be for that
bedraggled-looking assemblage. No one would have dreamed that these
young people, and the generation about to descend from them politically
and culturally, would within the blink of a historical eye come to be
hailed as “the best informed, the most intelligent, and the most
idealistic this country has ever known.” Those words, even more
incredibly, would emanate from what the new movement regarded as the
very belly of the beast: from, to be specific, ,
a professor at the Harvard Law School and later Solicitor General of
the United States. Similar encomia would flow unctuously from the mouths
of parents, teachers, clergymen, artists, and journalists.
More incredible yet, the ideas and attitudes of the new movement,
cleaned up but essentially unchanged, would within a mere ten years turn
one of our two major parties upside down and inside out. In 1961,
President John F. Kennedy had famously declared that we would “pay any
price, bear any burden, . . . to assure the survival and the success of
liberty.” By 1972, George McGovern, nominated for President by Kennedy’s
own party, was campaigning on the slogan, “Come Home, America.” It was a
slogan that to an uncanny degree reflected the ethos of the embryonic
movement I had addressed in Union Square only about a decade before.
The New “Jackal Bins”
In going over this familiar ground, I am trying to make two points.
One is that the nascent radical movement of the late 1950’s and early
1960’s was up against an adversary, namely, the “Establishment,” that
looked unassailable. Even so—and this is my second point—to the
bewilderment of almost everyone, not least the radicals themselves, they
blew and they blew and they blew the house down.
Here we had a major development that slipped in under the radar of
virtually all the pundits and the trend-spotters. How well I remember
John Roche, a political scientist then working in the Johnson White
House, being quoted by the columnist Jimmy Breslin as having derisively
labeled the radicals a bunch of “Upper West Side jackal bins.” As
further investigation disclosed, Roche had actually said “Jacobins,” a
word so unfamiliar to his interviewer that “jackal bins” was the best
Breslin could do in transcribing his notes.
Much ink has been spilled, gallons of it by me, in the struggle to
explain how and why a great “Establishment” representing so wide a
national consensus could have been toppled so easily and so quickly by
so small and marginal a group as these “jackal bins.” In the domain of
foreign affairs, of course, the usual answer is Vietnam. In this view,
it was by deciding to fight an unpopular war that the Establishment
rendered itself vulnerable.
The ostensible problem with this explanation, to say it again, is
that at least until 1965 Vietnam was a popular war. All the major
media—from the New York Times to the Washington Post, from Time to Newsweek,
from CBS to ABC—supported our intervention. So did most of the
professoriate. And so did the public. Even when all but one or two of
the people who had either directly led us into Vietnam, or had applauded
our intervention, commenced falling all over themselves to join the
antiwar parade, public opinion continued supporting the war.
But it did not matter. Public opinion had ceased to count. Indeed, as
the Tet offensive of 1968 revealed, reality itself had ceased to count.
As all would later come to agree and some vainly struggled to insist at
the time, Tet was a crushing defeat not for us but for the North
Vietnamese. But Walter Cronkite had only to declare it a defeat for us
from the anchor desk of the CBS Evening News, and a defeat it became.
Admittedly, in electoral politics, where numbers are decisive, public
opinion remained potent. Consequently, none of the doves contending for
the presidency in 1968 or 1972 could beat Richard Nixon. Yet even Nixon
felt it necessary to campaign on the claim that he had a “plan” not for
winning but for getting us out of Vietnam.
All of which is to say that, on Vietnam, elite opinion trumped
popular opinion. Nor were the effects restricted to foreign policy. They
extended into the newly antagonistic attitude toward everything America
was and represented.
It hardly needs stressing that this attitude found a home in the
world of the arts, the universities, and the major media of news and
entertainment, where intellectuals shaped by the 1960’s, and their
acolytes in the publishing houses of New York and in the studios of
Hollywood, held sway. But it would be a serious mistake to suppose that
the trickle-down effect of the professoriate’s attitude was confined to
literature, journalism, and show business.
John Maynard Keynes once said that “Practical men who believe
themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are
usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” Keynes was referring
specifically to businessmen. But practical functionaries like
bureaucrats and administrators are subject to the same rule, though they
tend to be the slaves not of economists but of historians and
sociologists and philosophers and novelists who are very much alive even
when their ideas have, or should have, become defunct. Nor is it
necessary for the “practical men” to have studied the works in question,
or even ever to have heard of their authors. All they need do is read
the New York Times, or switch on their television sets, or go
to the movies—and, drip by drip, a more easily assimilable form of the
original material is absorbed into their heads and their nervous
These, in sum, were some of the factors that made me wonder whether
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 would turn out to mark a
genuine turning point comparable to the bombing of Pearl Harbor on
December 7, 1941. I was well aware that, before Pearl Harbor, several
groups ranging across the political spectrum had fought against our
joining the British, who had been at war with Nazi Germany since 1939.
There were the isolationists, both liberal and conservative, who
detected no American interest in this distant conflict; there were the
right-wing radicals who thought that if we were going to go to war, it
ought to be on the side of Nazi Germany against Communist Russia, not
the other way around; and there were the left-wing radicals who saw the
war as a struggle between two equally malign imperialistic systems in
which they had no stake. Under the influence of these groups, a large
majority of Americans had opposed our entry into the war right up to the
moment of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But from that moment on,
the opposition faded away. The antiwar groups either lost most of their
members or lapsed into a morose silence, and public opinion did a
At first, September 11 did seem to resemble Pearl Harbor in its
galvanizing effect, while by all indications the first battle of World
War IV—the battle of Afghanistan—was supported by a perhaps even larger
percentage of the public than Vietnam had been at the beginning.
Nevertheless, even though the opposition in 2001 was still numerically
insignificant, it was much stronger than it had been in the early days
of Vietnam. The reason was that it now maintained a tight grip over the
institutions that, in the later stages of that war, had been surrendered
bit by bit to the anti-American Left.
There was, for openers, the literary community, which could stand in
for the world of the arts in general. No sooner had the Twin Towers been
toppled and the Pentagon smashed than a fierce competition began for
the gold in the anti-American Olympics. Susan Sontag, one of my old
ex-friends on the Left, seized an early lead in this contest with a
piece in which she asserted that 9/11 was an attack “undertaken as a
consequence of specific American alliances and actions.” Not content
with suggesting that we had brought this aggression on ourselves, she
went on to compare the backing in Congress for our “robotic President”
to “the unanimously applauded, self-congratulatory bromides of a Soviet
Another of my old ex-friends,
surprisingly slow out of the starting gate, soon came up strong on the
inside by comparing the Twin Towers to “two huge buck teeth,” and
pronouncing the ruins at Ground Zero “more beautiful than the buildings
were.” Still playing the enfant terrible even as he was closing in on
his eightieth year, Mailer denounced us as “cultural oppressors and
aesthetic oppressors” of the Third World. In what did this oppression
consist? It consisted, he expatiated, in our establishing “enclaves of
our food out there, like McDonald’s” and in putting “our high-rise
buildings” around the airports of even “the meanest, scummiest,
capital[s] in the world.” For these horrendous crimes we had, on 9/11,
received a measure—and only a small measure at that—of our just deserts.
Then there were the universities. A report issued shortly after 9/11
by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) cited about a
hundred malodorous statements wafting out of campuses all over the
country that resembled Son-tag and Mailer in blaming the attacks not on
the terrorists but on America. Among these were three especially choice
specimens. From a professor at the University of New Mexico: “Anyone who
can blow up the Pentagon gets my vote.” From a professor at Rutgers:
“[We] should be aware that the ultimate cause [of 9/11] is the fascism
of U.S. foreign policy over the past many decades.” And from a professor
at the University of Massachusetts: “[The American flag] is a symbol of
terrorism and death and fear and destruction and oppression.”
When the ACTA report was issued, protesting wails of “McCarthyism”
were heard throughout the land, especially from the professors cited.
Like them, Susan Sontag, too, claimed that her freedom of speech was
being placed in jeopardy. In this peculiar reading of the First
Amendment, much favored by leftists in general, they were free to say
anything they liked, but the right to free speech ended where criticism
of what they had said began.
Actually, however, with rare exceptions, attempts to stifle dissent
on the campus were largely directed at the many students and the few
faculty members who supported the 9/11 war. All these attempts
could be encapsulated into a single phenomenon: on a number of campuses,
students or professors who displayed American flags or patriotic
posters were forced to take them down. As for Susan Sontag’s freedom of
speech, hardly had the ink dried on her post-9/11 piece before she
became the subject of countless fawning reports and interviews in
periodicals and on television programs around the world.
Speaking of television, it was soon drowning us with material
presenting Islam in glowing terms. Mainly, these programs took their cue
from the President and other political leaders. Out of the best of
motives, and for prudential reasons as well, elected officials were
striving mightily to deny that the war against terrorism was a war
against Islam. Hence they never ceased heaping praises on the beauties
of that religion, about which few of them knew anything.
But it was from the universities, not from the politicians, that the
substantive content of these broadcasts derived, in interviews with
academics, many of them Muslims themselves, whose accounts of Islam were
selectively roseate. Sometimes they were even downright untruthful,
especially in sanitizing the doctrine of jihad or holy war, or in
misrepresenting the extent to which leading Muslim clerics all over the
world had been celebrating suicide bombers—not excluding those who had
crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—as heroes and
I do not bring this up in order to enter into a theological dispute.
My purpose, rather, is to offer another case study in the continued
workings of the trickle-down effect I have already described. Thus, hard
on the heels of 9/11, the universities began adding innumerable courses
on Islam to their curricula. On the campus, “understanding Islam”
inevitably translated into apologetics for it, and most of the media
dutifully followed suit. The media also adopted the stance of neutrality
between the terrorists and ourselves that prevailed among the
relatively moderate professoriate, as when the major television networks
ordered their anchors to avoid exhibiting partisanship.
Here the great exception was the Fox News Channel. The New York Times,
in an article deploring the fact that Fox was covering the war from a
frankly pro-American perspective, expressed relief that no other network
had so cavalierly discarded the sacred conventions dictating that
journalists, in the words of the president of ABC News, must “maintain
their neutrality in times of war.”
Although the vast majority of those who blamed America for having
been attacked were on the Left, a few voices on the Right joined this
perverted chorus. Speaking on Pat Robertson’s TV program, the Reverend
Jerry Falwell delivered himself of the view that God was punishing the
United States for the moral decay exemplified by a variety of liberal
groups among us. Both later apologized for singling out these groups,
but each continued to insist that God was withdrawing His protection
from America because all of us had become great sinners. And in the amen
corner that quickly formed on the secular Right, commentators like
Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan added that we had called the attack down
on our heads not so much by our willful disobedience to divine law as by
our manipulated obedience to Israel.
Oddly enough, however, within the Arab world itself, there was much
less emphasis on Israel as the root cause of the attacks than was placed
on it by most, if not all, of Buchanan’s fellow paleoconservatives on
the Right. Even to Osama bin Laden himself, support of Israel ranked
only third on a list of our “crimes” against Islam.
Not, to be sure, that Arabs everywhere—together with most non-Arab
Middle Eastern Muslims like the Iranians—had given up their dream of
wiping Israel off the map. To anyone who thought otherwise, Fouad Ajami
of Johns Hopkins, an American who grew up as a Muslim in Lebanon, had
this to say about the Arab world’s “great refusal” to accept Israel
under any conditions whatsoever:
The great refusal persists in that “Arab street” of ordinary men and
women, among the intellectuals and the writers, and in the professional
syndicates. . . . The force of this refusal can be seen in the press of
the governments and of the oppositionists, among the secularists and the
Islamists alike, in countries that have concluded diplomatic agreements
with Israel and those that haven’t.
Ajami emphasized that the great refusal remained “fiercest in Egypt,”
notwithstanding the peace treaty it had signed with Israel in 1978. It
might have been expected, then, that the Egyptians would be eager to
blame the widespread animus against the U.S. in their own country on
American policy toward Israel, especially since Egypt, being second only
to the Jewish state as a recipient of American aid, had a powerful
incentive to explain away so ungrateful a response to the benevolent
treatment it was receiving at our hands. But no. Only about two weeks
before 9/11, Ab’d Al-Mun’im Murad, a columnist in Al-Akhbar, a daily newspaper sponsored by the Egyptian government, wrote:
The conflict that we call the Arab-Israeli conflict is, in truth an
Arab conflict with Western, and particularly American, colonialism. The
U.S. treats [the Arabs] as it treated the slaves inside the American
continent. To this end, [the U.S.] is helped by the smaller enemy, and I
In another piece, the same writer expanded on this unusually candid acknowledgment:
The issue no longer concerns the Israeli-Arab conflict. The real
issue is the Arab-American conflict—Arabs must understand that the U.S.
is not “the American friend”—and its task, past, present, and future, is
[to impose] hegemony on the world, primarily on the Middle East and the
Then, in a third piece, also published in late August, Murad gave us
an inkling of the reciprocal “task” he had in mind to be performed on
The Statue of Liberty, in New York Harbor, must be destroyed because
of . . . the idiotic American policy that goes from disgrace to disgrace
in the swamp of bias and blind fanaticism. . . . The age of the
American collapse has begun.
If this was the kind of thing we were getting from an Arab country
that everyone regarded as “moderate,” in radical states like Iraq and
Iran nothing less would suffice than identifying America as the “Great
Satan.” As for the Palestinians, their contempt for America was hardly
exceeded by their loathing of Israel. For example, the mufti—or chief
cleric—appointed by the Palestinian Authority under Yasir Arafat had
prayed that God would “destroy America,” while the editor of a leading
Palestinian journal proclaimed:
History does not remember the United States, but it remembers Iraq,
the cradle of civilization. . . . History remembers every piece of Arab
land, because it is the bosom of human civilization. On the other hand,
the [American] murderers of humanity, the creators of the barbaric
culture and the bloodsuckers of nations, are doomed to death and
destined to shrink to a microscopic size, like Micronesia.
The absence of even a word here about Israel showed that if the
Jewish state had never come into existence, the United States would
still have stood as an embodiment of everything that most of these Arabs
considered evil. Indeed, the hatred of Israel was in large part a
surrogate for anti-Americanism, rather than the reverse. Israel was seen
as the spearhead of the American drive for domination over the Middle
East. As such, the Jewish state was a translation of America into, as it
were, Hebrew—the “little enemy,” the “little Satan.” To rid the region
of it would thus be tantamount to cleansing an area belonging to Islam (dar al-Islam)
of the blasphemous political, social, and cultural influences emanating
from a barbaric and murderous force. But the force, so to speak, was
with America, of which Israel was merely an instrument.
Although Buchanan and Novak were earlier and more outspoken in
blaming 9/11 on American friendliness toward Israel, this idea was not
confined to the Right or to the marginal precincts of paleoconservatism.
On the contrary: while it popped up on the Right, it thoroughly
pervaded the radical Left and much of the soft Left, and was even
espoused by a number of liberal centrists like Mickey Kaus. For the
moment, indeed, the blame-Israel-firsters were concentrated most heavily
on the Left.
It was also on the Left, and above all in the universities, that
their fraternal twins, the blame-America-firsters, were located. Yet
Eric Foner, a professor of history at my own alma mater, Columbia,
risibly claimed that the ACTA report was misleading since the polls
proved that there was “firm support” for the war among college students.
“If our aim is to indoctrinate students with unpatriotic beliefs,”
Foner smirked, “we’re obviously doing a very poor job of it.”
True enough. But what Foner, as a historian, must have known but
neglected to mention was that even at the height of the radical fevers
on the campus in the 1960’s, only a minority of students sided with the
antiwar radicals. Still, even though they were in the majority, the
non-radical students were unable to make themselves heard above the
antiwar din, and whenever they tried, they were shouted down. This is
how it was, too, on the campus after 9/11. There were, here and there,
brave defiers of the academic orthodoxies. But mostly, the silent
majority remained silent, for fear of incurring the disapproval of their
teachers, or even of being punished for the crime of “insensitivity.”
Such, then, was the assault that began to be mounted within hours of
9/11 by the guerrillas-with-tenure in the universities, along with their
spiritual and political disciples scattered throughout other quarters
of our culture. Could this “tiny handful of aging Rip van Winkles,” as
they were breezily brushed off by one commentator, grow into a force as
powerful as the “jackal bins” of yesteryear? Was the upsurge of
confidence in America, and American virtue, that spontaneously
materialized on 9/11 strong enough to withstand them this time around?
Some who shared my apprehensions believed that if things went well on
the military front, all would be well on the home front, too. And that
is how it appeared from the effect wrought by the spectacular success of
the Afghanistan campaign, which disposed of the “quagmire” theory and
also dampened antiwar activity on at least a number of campuses.
Nevertheless, the mopping-up operation in Afghanistan created an
opportunity for more subtle forms of opposition to gain traction. There
were complaints that the terrorists captured in Afghanistan and then
sent to a special facility in Guantanamo were not being treated as
regular prisoners of war. And there were also allegations of the threat
to civil liberties posed in America itself by measures like the Patriot
Act, which had been designed to ward off any further terrorist attacks
at home. Although these concerns were mostly based on misreadings of the
Geneva Convention and of the Patriot Act itself, some people no doubt
raised them in good faith. But there is also no doubt that such issues
could—and did—serve as a respectable cover for wholesale opposition to
the entire war.
Another respectable cover was the charge that Bush was following a
policy of “unilateralism.” The alarm over this supposedly unheard-of
outrage was first sounded by the chancelleries and chattering classes of
Western Europe when Bush stated that, in taking the fight to the
terrorists and their sponsors, we would prefer to do so with allies and
with the blessing of the UN, but if necessary we would go it alone and
without an imprimatur from the Security Council.
This was too much for the Europeans. Having duly offered us their
condolences over 9/11, they could barely let a decent interval pass
before going back into the ancient family business of showing how vastly
superior in wisdom and finesse they were to the Americans, whose
primitive character was once again on display in the “simplistic” ideas
and crude moralizing of George W. Bush. Now they urged that our military
operations end with Afghanistan, and that we leave the rest to
diplomacy in deferential consultation with the great masters of that
recondite art in Paris and Brussels.
Taking their cue from these masters, the New York Times,
along with many other publications ranging from the Center to the hard
Left—and soon to be seconded by all the Democratic candidates in the
presidential primaries, except for Senator Joseph Lieberman—began
hitting Bush for recklessness and overreaching. What we saw developing
here was a broader coalition than the antiwar movement spawned by
Vietnam had managed to put together, especially in its first few years.
The antiwar movement then had been made up almost entirely of leftists
and liberals, whereas this new movement was bringing together the whole
of the hard Left, elements of the soft Left, and sectors of the American
Treading the path previously marked out by his colleague Mickey Kaus on the issue of Israel,
of the soft Left allied himself with Pat Buchanan in bringing forth yet
another respectable cover. This was to indict the President for evading
the Constitution by proposing to fight undeclared wars. Meanwhile, the
same charge was moving into the political mainstream through Democratic
Senators like Robert Byrd, Edward M. Kennedy, and Tom Daschle, though
they also continued carrying on about quagmires and slippery slopes and
I for one was certain that, as the military facet of World War IV
widened—with Iraq clearly being the next most likely front—opposition
would not only grow but would acquire enough assurance to dispense with
any respectable covers. Which was to say that it would be taken over by
extremists and radicalized. About this I turned out to be correct, while
those who scoffed at the “jackal bins” and the “aging Rip Van Winkles”
as a politically insignificant bunch turned out to be wrong. But I never
imagined that the new antiwar movement would so rapidly arrive at the
stage of virulence it had taken years for its ancestors of the Vietnam
era to reach.
Varieties of Anti-Americanism
A possible explanation of the great velocity achieved by the new
antiwar movement was that, like the respectable critique immediately
preceding it, the radical opposition was following the lead of European
opinion. In this instance, encouragement and reinforcement came from the
almost incredible degree of hostility to America that erupted in the
wake of 9/11 all over the European continent, and most blatantly in
France and Germany, and that gathered even more steam in the run-up to
the battle of Iraq. If demonstrations and public-opinion polls could be
believed, huge numbers of Europeans loathed the United States so deeply
that they were unwilling to side with it even against one of the most
tyrannical and murderous despots on earth.
That this was the feeling in the Muslim world did not come as a
surprise. Unlike in Europe, where the attacks of 9/11 did elicit a
passing moment of sympathy for the United States (“We Are All Americans
Now,” proclaimed a headline the next day in the leading leftist daily in
Paris), in the realm of Islam the news of 9/11 brought dancing in the
streets and screams of jubilation. Almost to a man, Muslim clerics in
their sermons assured the faithful that in striking a blow against the
“Great Satan,” Osama bin Laden had acted as a jihadist, or holy warrior,
in strict accordance with the will of God.
This could have been predicted from a debate on the topic “Bin
Laden—The Arab Despair and American Fear” that was televised on the
Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera about two months before 9/11. Using
“American Fear” in the title was a bit premature, since this was a time
when very few Americans were frightened by Islamic terrorism, for the
simple reason that scarcely any had ever heard of bin Laden or al Qaeda.
Be that as it may, at the conclusion of the program, the host said to
the lone guest who had been denouncing bin Laden as a terrorist: “I am
looking at the viewers’ reactions for one that would support your
positions—but . . . I can’t find any.” He then cited “an opinion poll in
a Kuwaiti paper which showed that 69 percent of Kuwaitis, Egyptians,
Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians think bin Laden is an Arab hero and
an Islamic jihad warrior.” And on the basis of the station’s own poll,
he also estimated that among all Arabs “from the Gulf to the Ocean,” the
proportion sharing this view of bin Laden was “maybe even 99 percent.”
Surely, then, the chairman of the Syrian Arab Writers Associations
was speaking for hordes of his “brothers” in declaring shortly after
When the twin towers collapsed . . . I felt deep within me like
someone delivered from the grave; I [felt] that I was being carried in
the air above the corpse of the mythological symbol of arrogant American
imperialist power. . . . My lungs filled with air, and I breathed in
relief, as I had never breathed before.
If this was how the Arab/Muslim world largely felt about 9/11, what
could have been expected from that world when the United States picked
itself up off the ground—Ground Zero, to be exact—and began fighting
back? What could have been expected is precisely what happened: another
furious outburst of anti-Americanism. Only this time the outbursts were
infused not by jubilation but by the desperate hope that the United
States would somehow be humiliated. This hope was soon extinguished by
the quick defeat of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, but it was
immediately rekindled by the way Saddam Hussein was standing up against
America. Saddam had killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iran, and
countless Arabs in his own country and Kuwait. Obviously, however, to
his Arab and Muslim “brothers” this was completely canceled out by his
defiance of the United States.
Was there, perhaps, an element of the same twisted sentiment in the
willingness of millions upon millions of Europeans to lend de-facto aid
and comfort to this monster? Of course, the claim was that most such
people were neither pro-Saddam nor anti-American: all they wanted was to
“give peace a chance.” But this claim was belied by the slogans, the
body language, the speeches, and the manifestos of the “peace” party.
Though hatred of America may not have been universal among opponents of
American military action, it was obviously very widespread and very
deep. And though other considerations (pacifist sentiment, concern about
civilian casualties, contempt for George Bush, faith in the UN, etc.)
were at work, these factors had no trouble coexisting harmoniously with
extreme hostility to the United States.
Thus, within two months of 9/11, a survey of influential people in 23
countries was undertaken by the Pew Research Center, the Princeton
Survey Research Associates, and the International Herald Tribune. Here is how a British newspaper summarized the findings:
Did America somehow ask for the terrorist outrages in New York and
Washington? . . . [M]ost people of influence in the rest of the world . .
. believe that, to a certain extent, the U.S. was asking for it. . . .
From its closest allies, in Europe, to the Middle East, Russia, and
Asia, a uniform 70 percent said people considered it good that after
September 11 Americans had realized what it was to be vulnerable.
It would therefore seem that the Italian playwright Dario Fo, winner
of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1997, was more representative of
European opinion than he may at first have appeared when spewing out the
The great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty—so what is 20,000 [sic]
dead in New York? Regardless of who carried out the massacre, this
violence is the legitimate daughter of the culture of violence, hunger,
and inhumane exploitation.
In France, a leading philosopher and social theorist, Jean
Baudrillard, produced a somewhat different type of apologia for the
terrorists of 9/11 and their ilk. This was so laden with postmodern
jargon and so convoluted that it bordered on parody (“The collapse of
the towers of the World Trade Center is unimaginable, but this does not
suffice to make it a real event”). But Baudrillard’s piece did at least
contain a revealing confession:
That we have dreamed of this event, that everyone without exception
has dreamed of it, . . . is unacceptable for the Western moral
conscience, but it is still a fact. . . . Ultimately, they [al Qaeda]
did it, but we willed it.
Much the same idea, in even more straightforward terms, was espoused
across the Channel by Mary Beard, a teacher of classics at my other alma
mater, Cambridge University, who wrote: “[H]owever tactfully you dress
it up, the United States had it coming. . . . World bullies . . . will
in the end pay the price.” With this the highly regarded novelist
agreed. But Beard’s old-fashioned English plainness evidently being a
little too plain for him, Amis resorted to a bit of fancy continental
footwork in formulating his own endorsement of the idea that America had
been asking for it:
Terrorism is political communication by other means. The message of
September 11 ran as follows: America, it is time you learned how
implacably you are hated. . . . Various national
characteristics—self-reliance, a fiercer patriotism than any in Western
Europe, an assiduous geographical incuriosity—have created a deficit of
empathy for the sufferings of people far away.
What on earth was going on here? After 9/11, most Americans had
gradually come to recognize that we were hated by the terrorists who had
attacked us and their Muslim cheerleaders not for our failings and sins
but precisely for our virtues as a free and prosperous country. But why
should we be hated by hordes of people living in other free and
prosperous countries? In their case, presumably, it must be for our
sins. And yet most of us knew for certain that, whatever sins we might
have committed, they were not the ones of which the Europeans kept
To wit: far from being a nation of overbearing bullies, we were
humbly begging for the support of tiny countries we could easily have
pushed around. Far from being “unilateralists,” we were busy soliciting
the gratuitous permission and the dubious blessing of the Security
Council before taking military action against Saddam Hussein. Far from
“rushing into war,” we were spending months dancing a diplomatic gavotte
in the vain hope of enlisting the help of France, Germany, and Russia.
And so on, and so on, down to the last detail in the catalogue.
What, then, was going on? An answer to this puzzling question that
would eventually gain perhaps the widest circulation came from Robert
Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment. In a catchy formulation that soon
became famous, Kagan proposed that Americans were from Mars and
Europeans were from Venus. Expanding on this formulation, he wrote:
On the all-important question of power—the efficacy of power, the
morality of power, the desirability of power—American and European
perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put
it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a
self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and
cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and
relative prosperity, the realization of Kant’s “Perpetual Peace.” The
United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in
the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are
unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a
liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might.
In developing his theory, Kagan got many things right and cast a
salubrious light into many dark corners. But it also seemed to me that
he was putting the shoes of his theory on the wrong feet. Although I
fully accepted Kagan’s description of the divergent attitudes toward
military power, I did not agree that the Europeans were already living
in the future while the United States remained “mired” in the past. In
my judgment, the opposite was closer to the truth.
The “post-historical paradise” into which the Europeans were
supposedly moving struck me as nothing more than the web of
international institutions that had been created at the end of World War
II under the leadership of the United States in the hope that they
would foster peace and prosperity. These included the United Nations,
the World Bank, the World Court, and others. Then after 1947, and again
under the leadership of the United States, adaptations were made to the
already existing institutions and new ones like NATO were added to fit
the needs of World War III. With the victorious conclusion of World War
III in 1989-90, the old international order became obsolete, and new
arrangements tailored to a new era would have to be forged. But more
than a decade elapsed before 9/11 finally made the contours of the
“post-cold-war era” clear enough for these new arrangements to begin
Looked at from this angle, the Bush Doctrine revealed itself as an
extremely bold effort to break out of the institutional framework and
the strategy constructed to fight the last war. But it was more: it also
drew up a blueprint for a new structure and a new strategy to fight a
different breed of enemy in a war that was just starting and that showed
signs of stretching out into the future as far as the eye could see.
Facing the realities of what now confronted us, Bush had come to the
conclusion that few if any of the old instrumentalities were capable of
defeating this new breed of enemy, and that the strategies of the past
were equally helpless before this enemy’s way of waging war. To move
into the future meant to substitute preemption for deterrence, and to
rely on American military might rather than the “soft power” represented
by the UN and the other relics of World War III. Indeed, not even the
hard power of NATO—which had specifically been restricted by design to
the European continent and whose deployment in other places could, and
would be, obstructed by the French—was of much use in the world of the
Examined from this same angle, the European justifications for
resisting the Bush Doctrine—the complaints about “unilateralism,”
trigger-happiness, and the rest—were unveiled as mere rationalizations.
Here I went along with Kagan in tracing these rationalizations to a
decline in the power of the Europeans. He put it very well:
World War II all but destroyed European nations as global powers. . .
. For a half-century after World War II, however, this weakness was
masked by the unique geopolitical circumstances of the cold war. Dwarfed
by the two superpowers on its flanks, a weakened Europe nevertheless
served as the central strategic theater of the worldwide struggle
between Communism and democratic capitalism. . . . Although shorn of
most traditional measures of great-power status, Europe remained the
geopolitical pivot, and this, along with lingering habits of world
leadership, allowed Europeans to retain international influence well
beyond what their sheer military capabilities might have afforded.
Europe lost this strategic centrality after the cold war ended, but it
took a few more years for the lingering mirage of European global power
So far, so good. Where I parted company with Kagan’s analysis was
over his acquiescence in the claim that the Europeans had in fact made
the leap into the post-national, or postmodern, “Kantian paradise” of
the future. To me it seemed clear that it was they, and not we
Americans, who were “mired” in the past. They were fighting tooth and
nail against the American effort to move into the future precisely
because holding onto the ideas, the strategic habits, and the
international institutions of the cold war would allow them to go on
exerting “international influence well beyond what their sheer military
capabilities might have afforded.” It was George W. Bush—that
“simplistic” moralizer and trigger-happy “cowboy,” that flouter of
international law and reckless unilateralist—who had possessed the wit
to see the future and had summoned up the courage to cross over into it.
But Bush was also a politician, and as such he felt it necessary to
make some accommodation to the pressures coming at him both at home and
from abroad. What this required was an occasional return visit to the
past. On such visits, as when he would seek endorsements from the UN
Security Council, he showed a polite measure of deference to those,
again both at home and abroad, who insisted on reading the Bush Doctrine
not as a blueprint for the future but as a reckless repudiation of the
approach favored by the allegedly more sophisticated Europeans and their
American counterparts. In Kagan’s apt description of how the Europeans
Europeans insist they approach problems with greater nuance and
sophistication. They try to influence others through subtlety and
indirection. . . . They generally favor peaceful responses to problems,
preferring negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasion to coercion. They are
quicker to appeal to international law, international conventions, and
international opinion to adjudicate disputes. They try to use commercial
and economic ties to bind nations together. They often emphasize
process over result, believing that ultimately process can become
None of this was new: the Europeans had made almost exactly the same
claim of superior sophistication during the Reagan years. At that
time—in 1983—it had elicited a definitive comment from Owen Harries (the
former head of policy planning in the Australian Department of Foreign
Affairs and himself a member of the realist school):
When one is exposed to this claim of superior realism and
sophistication, one’s first inclination is to ask where exactly is the
evidence for it. If one considers some of the salient episodes in the
history of Europe in this century—the events leading up to 1914, the
Versailles peace conference, Munich, the extent of the effort Europe has
been prepared to make to secure its own defense since 1948, and the
current attitude toward the defense of its vital interests in the
Persian gulf—one is not irresistibly led to concede European
Two decades later, Harries as a realist would have his own grave
reservations about the Bush Doctrine. But I had no hesitation in adding
the “sophisticated” European opposition to it as the latest episode in
the long string of disastrously mistaken judgments he had enumerated
back in 1983.
The astonishing success of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq made
a hash of the skepticism of the many pundits who had been so sure that
we had too few troops or were following the wrong battle plan. Instead
of getting bogged down, as they had predicted, our forces raced through
these two campaigns in record time; and instead of ten of thousands of
body bags being flown home, the casualties were numbered in the
hundreds. As the military historian Victor Davis Hanson summarized what
had transpired in Iraq:
In a span of about three weeks, the United States military overran a
country the size of California. It utterly obliterated Saddam Hussein’s
military hardware . . . and tore apart his armies. Of the approximately
110 American deaths in the course of the hostilities, fully a fourth
occurred as a result of accidents, friendly fire, or peacekeeping
mishaps rather than at the hands of enemy soldiers. The extraordinarily
low ratio of total American casualties per number of U.S. soldiers
deployed . . . is almost unmatched in modern military history.
True, the aftermath of major military operations, especially in Iraq,
turned out to be rougher than the Pentagon seems to have expected.
Thanks to the guerrilla insurgency mounted by a coalition of
intransigent Saddam loyalists, radical Shiite militias, and terrorists
imported from Iran and Syria, American soldiers continued to be killed.
Nevertheless, by any historical standard—the more than 6,500 who died on
D-Day alone in World War II, to cite only one example—our total losses
remained amazingly low.
But it was not military matters that aroused the equally sour
skepticism of the realists. Their doubts centered, rather, on the issue
of whether the Bush Doctrine was politically viable. Most of all, they
questioned the idea that democratization represented the best and
perhaps even the only way to defeat militant Islam and the terrorism it
was using as its main weapon against us. Bush had placed his bet on a
belief in the universality of the desire for freedom and the prosperity
that freedom brought with it. But what if he was wrong? What if the
Middle East was incapable of democratization? What if the peoples of
that region did not wish to be as free and as prosperous as we were? And
what if Islam as a religion was by its very nature incompatible with
These were hard questions about which reasonable men could and did
differ. But those of us who backed Bush’s bet had our own set of doubts
about the doubts of the realists. They seemed to forget that the Middle
East of today had not been created by Allah in the 7th century, and that
the miserable despotisms there had not evolved through some inexorable
historical process powered entirely by internal cultural forces.
Instead, the states in question had all been conjured into existence
less than a hundred years ago out of the ruins of the defeated Ottoman
empire in World War I. Their boundaries were drawn by the victorious
British and French with the stroke of an often arbitrary pen, and their
hapless peoples were handed over in due course to one tyrant after
Mindful of this history, we backers of the Bush Doctrine wondered why
it should have been taken as axiomatic that these states would and/or
should last forever in their present forms, and why the political
configuration of the Middle East should be eternally immune from the
democratizing forces that had been sweeping the rest of the world.
And we wondered, too, whether it could really be true that Muslims
were so different from most of their fellow human beings that they liked
being pushed around and repressed and beaten and killed by thugs—even
if the thugs wore clerical garb or went around quoting from the Quran.
We wondered whether Muslims really preferred being poor and hungry and
ill-housed to enjoying the comforts and conveniences that we in the West
took so totally for granted that we no longer remembered to be grateful
for them. And we wondered why, if all this were the case, there had
been so great an outburst of relief and happiness among the people of
Kabul after we drove out their Taliban oppressors.
Yes, came the response, but what about the people of Iraq? Most
supporters of the invasion—myself included—had predicted that we would
be greeted there with flowers and cheers; yet our troops encountered car
bombs and hatred. Nevertheless, and contrary to the impression created
by the media, survey after survey demonstrated that the vast majority of
Iraqis did welcome us, and were happy to be liberated
from the murderous tyranny under which they had lived for so long under
Saddam Hussein. The hatred and the car bombs came from the same breed
of jihadists who had attacked us on 9/11, and who, unlike the skeptics
in our own country, were afraid that we were actually succeeding in
democratizing Iraq. Indeed, this was the very warning sent by the
terrorist leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi to the remnants of al Qaeda still
hunkered down in the caves of Afghanistan: “Democracy is coming, and
there will be no excuse thereafter [for terrorism in Iraq].”
Speaking for many of his fellow realists, Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek
disagreed with al Zarqawi that democracy was coming to Iraq and
contended that it was premature to try establishing it there or anywhere
else in the Middle East:
We do not seek democracy in the Middle East—at least not yet. We seek
first what might be called the preconditions for democracy . . . the
rule of law, individual rights, private property, independent courts,
the separation of church and state. . . . We should not assume that what
took hundreds of years in the West can happen overnight in the Middle
Now, those of us who believed in the Bush Doctrine saw nothing wrong
with pursuing Zakaria’s agenda. But we rejected the charge—often made
not only by realists like Zakaria but also by paleoconservatives like
Buchanan—that our position was too “ideological” or naively “idealistic”
or even “utopian.” We agreed entirely with what the President had long
since contended: that the realist alternative of settling for autocratic
and despotic regimes in the Middle East had neither brought the
regional stability it promised nor—as 9/11 horribly demonstrated—made us
safe at home. Bush had also long since given his answer to the question
posed by “some who call themselves realists” as to whether “the spread
of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours.” It was,
he affirmed in the strongest terms, a concern of ours precisely because
democratization would make us more secure, and he accused the realists
of having “lost contact with a fundamental reality” on this point. In
this respect, I would argue, Bush was adopting a course akin to the one
taken by the Marshall Plan, which had simultaneously served American
interests and benefited others. Like the Marshall Plan, his new policy
was a synthesis of realism and idealism: a case of doing well by doing
Those of us who supported the new policy also took issue with the
view that democracy and capitalism could grow only in a soil that had
been cultivated for centuries. We reminded the realists that in the
aftermath of World War II, the United States managed within a single
decade to transform both Nazi Germany and imperial Japan into capitalist
democracies. And in the aftermath of the defeat of Communism in World
War III, a similar process got under way on its own steam in Central and
Eastern Europe, and even in the old heartland of the evil empire
itself. Why not the Islamic world? The realist answer was that things
were different there. To which our answer was that things were different
everywhere, and a thousand reasons to expect the failure of any
enterprise could always be conjured up to discourage making an ambitious
To this, in turn, the counter frequently was that the Bush
administration had wildly underestimated the special difficulties of
democratizing Iraq and had correlatively misjudged the time so great a
transformation would take, even assuming it to be possible at all. Yet
talk about a “cakewalk” and the like mainly came from outside the
administration; and in any event it had been applied to the future
military campaign (which definitely did turn out to be a cakewalk), not
to the ensuing reconstruction of Iraq. As to the latter, the
administration kept repeating that we would stay in Iraq “for as long as
it takes and not a day longer.” How long would that be? For those who
opposed the Bush Doctrine, a year (or even a month?) after the end of
major combat operations was already much too much; for those of us who
supported it, “as long as it takes and not a day longer” still seemed,
given the stakes, the only satisfactory formula.
As with democratization, so with the reform and modernization of
Islam. In considering this even more difficult question, we found
ourselves asking whether Islam could really go on for all eternity
resisting the kind of reformation and modernization that had begun
within Christianity and Judaism in the early modern period. Not that we
were so naive as to imagine that Islam could be reformed overnight, or
from the outside. In its heyday, Islam was able to impose itself on
large parts of the world by the sword; there was no chance today of an
inverse instant transformation of Islam by the force of American arms.
There was, however, a very good chance that a clearing of the ground,
and a sowing of the seeds out of which new political, economic, and
social conditions could grow, would gradually give rise to correlative
religious pressures from within. Such pressures would take the form of
an ultimately irresistible demand on theologians and clerics to find
warrants in the Quran and the sharia under which it would be
possible to remain a good Muslim while enjoying the blessings of decent
government, and even of political and economic liberty. In this way a
course might finally be set toward the reform and modernization of the
Islamic religion itself.
The Democrats of 2004
What I have been trying to say is that the obstacles to a benevolent
transformation of the Middle East—whether military, political, or
religious—are not insuperable. In the long run they can be overcome, and
there can be no question that we possess the power and the means and
the resources to work toward their overcoming. But do we have the skills
and the stomach to do what will be required? Can we in our present
condition play even so limited and so benign an imperial role as we did
in occupying Germany and Japan after World War II?
Some of our critics on the European Right sneer at us not, as the
Left does, for being imperialists but for being such clumsy ones—for
lacking the political dexterity to oversee the emergence of successor
governments more amenable to reform and modernization than the
despotisms now in place. I confess that I am prey to anxieties about our
capabilities, and to others stemming from our character as a nation.
And in thinking about our long record of inattention and passivity
toward terrorism before 9/11, I fear a relapse into appeasement,
diplomatic evasion, and ineffectual damage control.
Anxieties and fears like these were given a great boost by the
attacks on the Bush Doctrine that became so poisonous in the 2004
presidential primary campaigns of the Democratic party. I have already
told of my early apprehensions about the potential spread of the antiwar
movement from the margins to the center, and my subsequent amazement in
watching it go so far so fast. Whereas it took twelve years for the
radicals I addressed in that drafty union hall in 1960 to capture the
Democratic party behind George McGovern, their political and spiritual
heirs of 2001 seemed to be pulling off the same trick in less than two.
This time their leader of choice was the raucously antiwar Howard Dean.
Though he eventually failed to win the nomination, his early successes
frightened most of the relatively moderate candidates into a sharp
leftward turn on Iraq, and drove out the few who supported the campaign
there. As for John Kerry, in order to win the nomination, he had to
disavow the vote he had cast authorizing the President to use force
against Saddam Hussein.
To make matters worse, the campaign to discredit the action in Iraq
moved from the hustings into the halls of Congress, where it wore the
camouflage of a series of allegedly nonpartisan hearings. In these
hearings, the most prominent of which was held by the Senate
Intelligence Committee, high officials of the Bush administration were
hectored by Democratic legislators (and even a few Republicans) in terms
that often came close to sounding like the many articles and books in
circulation that were accusing the President of having lied to us in
going after Saddam Hussein. This was no slow process of trickle-down;
this was an instantaneous inundation of the whole political landscape.
Among the lies through which Bush supposedly misled John Kerry and
everyone else was that there might have been some connection between
Saddam and al Qaeda. Now, even those of us who believed in such a
connection were willing to admit that the evidence was not (yet)
definitive; but this was a far cry from denying that there was any basis
for it at all.10
So far a cry, that according to the reports that would be issued both
by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission in the
summer of 2004 (and contrary to how their conclusions would be
interpreted in the media), al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if
informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam.11
It was the same with another of the lies Bush allegedly told to
justify the invasion of Iraq. In his State of the Union address of 2003,
he said that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Then an
obscure retired diplomat named Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had earlier been
sent to Niger by the CIA to check out this claim, earned his 15 minutes
of fame—not to mention a best-selling book—by loudly denouncing this
assertion as a lie. But it would in due course be established that every
one of the notorious “sixteen words” Bush had uttered was true. This
was the consensus of the Senate Intelligence Committee report, two
separate British investigations, and a variety of European intelligence
agencies, including even the French.12 Not only that, but it turned out that Wilson’s own report to the CIA had tended to confirm the suspicion that Saddam had been shopping for uranium in Africa, and not, as he went around declaring, to debunk it.13 The liar here, then, was not Bush but Wilson.
But of course the biggest lie Bush was charged with telling was that
Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. On this issue, too, those
of us who still suspected that the WMD remained hidden, or that they had
been shipped to Syria, or both, were willing to admit that we might
well be wrong. But how could Bush have been lying when every
intelligence agency in every country in the world was convinced that
Saddam maintained an arsenal of such weapons? And how could Bush have
“hyped” or exaggerated the reports he was given by our own intelligence
agencies when the director of the CIA himself described the case as a
To be sure, again according to the Senate Intelligence Committee
report, the case, far from being a “slam dunk,” actually rested on weak
or faulty evidence. Yet the committee itself “did not find any evidence
that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or
pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of
mass destruction capabilities.” The CIA, that is, did not tell the
President what it thought he wanted to hear. It told him what it thought
it knew; and what it told him, he had every reason to believe.14
In the wake of the WMD issue, several others emerged that did even
more to shake the confidence of some who had been enthusiastic
supporters of the operation in Iraq. On top of the mounting number of
American soldiers being killed as they were trying to bring security to
Iraq, and on the heels of the horrendous episodes of the murder and
desecration of the bodies of four American contractors in Falluja, came
the revelation that Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib had been subjected to
ugly mistreatment by their American captors.
Among supporters of the Bush Doctrine, these setbacks set off a great
wave of defeatist gloom that was deepened by the nervous tactical
shifts they produced in our military planners (such as the decision to
hold back from cleaning out the terrorist militias hiding in and behind
holy places in Falluja and Najaf). Even the formerly unshakable Fouad
Ajami was shaken. In a piece entitled “Iraq May Survive, But the Dream
is Dead,” he wrote: “Let’s face it: Iraq is not going to be America’s
showcase in the Arab-Muslim world.”
That the antiwar party would batten on all this—and would continue
ignoring the enormous progress we had made in the reconstruction of
Iraqi society—was only to be expected. It was also only natural for the
Democrats to take as much political advantage of the setbacks as they
could. But it was not necessarily to be expected that the Democrats
would seize just as eagerly as the radicals upon every piece of bad news
as another weapon in the war against the war. Nor was it necessarily to
be expected that mainstream Democratic politicians would go so far off
the intellectual and moral rails as to compare the harassment and
humiliation of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib—none of whom, so far as
anyone then knew, was even maimed, let alone killed—to the horrendous
torturing and murdering that had gone on in that same prison under
Saddam Hussein or, even more outlandishly, to the Soviet gulag in which
many millions of prisoners died.
Yet this was what Edward M. Kennedy did on the floor of the Senate,
where he declared that the torture chamber of Saddam Hussein had been
reopened “under new management—U.S. management,” and this was what
did when he accused Bush of “establishing an American gulag.” Joining
with the politicians was the main financial backer of the Democratic
party’s presidential campaign, George Soros, who actually said that Abu
Ghraib was even worse than the attack of 9/11. On the platform with
Soros when he made this morally disgusting statement was , who let it go by without a peep of protest.
Equally ignominious was the response of mainstream Democrats to the
most effective demagogic exfoliation of the antiwar radicals, Michael
Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11. Shortly after 9/11—that is, long
before the appearance of this movie but with many of its charges against
Bush already on vivid display in Moore’s public statements about
Afghanistan—one liberal commentator had described him as a “well-known
crank, regarded with considerable distaste even on the Left.” The same
commentator (shades of how the “jackal bins” of yore were regarded) had
also dismissed as “preposterous” the idea that Moore’s views “represent a
significant body of antiwar opinion.” Lending a measure of plausibility
to this assessment was the fact that Moore elicited a few boos when, in
accepting an Academy Award for Bowling for Columbine in 2003, he declared:
We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that
elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man
sending us to war for fictitious reasons. . . . [W]e are against this
war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you.
By 2004, however, when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, things had
changed. True, this movie—a compendium of every scurrility ever hurled
at George W. Bush, and a few new ones besides, all gleefully stitched
together in the best conspiratorial traditions of the “paranoid style in
American politics”—did manage to embarrass even several liberal
commentators. One of them described the film as a product of the “loony
Left,” and feared that its extremism might discredit the “legitimate”
case against Bush and the war. Yet in an amazing reversal of the normal
pattern in the distribution of prudence, such fears of extremism were
more pronounced among liberal pundits than among mainstream Democratic
Thus, so many leading Democrats flocked to a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11
in Washington that (as the columnist Mark Steyn quipped) the business
of Congress had to be put on hold; and when the screening was over, nary
a dissonant boo disturbed the harmony of the ensuing ovation. The
chairman of the Democratic National Committee, ,
pronounced the film “very powerful, much more powerful than I thought
it would be.” Then, when asked by CNN whether he thought “the movie was
essentially fair and factually based,” McAuliffe answered, “I do. . . .
Clearly the movie makes it clear that George Bush is not fit to be
President of this country.” Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa seconded
McAuliffe and urged all Americans to see the film: “It’s important for
the American people to understand what has gone on before, what led us
to this point, and to see it sort of in this unvarnished presentation by
Possibly some of the other important Democrats who attended the screening—including Senators Tom Daschle,, Barbara Boxer, and Bill Nelson; Congressmen Charles Rangel, , and Jim McDermott; and elders of the party like . and Theodore Sorensen—disagreed with Harkin and McAuliffe. But if so, they remained remarkably quiet about it.
As for John Kerry himself, he did not take time out to see Fahrenheit 9/11, explaining that there was no need since he had “lived it.”
2004 and 1952
Returning now to the gloom that afflicted supporters of the Bush
Doctrine in the spring of 2004: one of the reasons Fouad Ajami gave for
it was that “our enemies have taken our measure; they have taken stock
of our national discord over the war.” Emboldened by our restraint in
Falluja and elsewhere within Iraq, as well as by our concomitant
willingness to bring the UN back into the political picture, our enemies
had begun to breathe easier—and not only in Iraq:
Once the administration talked of a “Greater Middle East” where the
“deficits” of freedom, knowledge, and women’s empowerment would be
tackled, where our power would be used to erode the entrenched
despotisms in the Arab-Muslim world.
But now, Ajami lamented, it had become clear that “we shall not chase
the Syrian dictator to a spider hole, nor will we sack the Iranian
theocracy.” There were even indications that, abandoning the dream of
democracy altogether, we might settle for the rule of a “strong man” in
But how accurate was the measure our enemies had taken of us? Was it
possible that their gauge was being thrown off by the overheated
atmosphere of a more than usually bitter presidential campaign, and by
the caution George Bush felt it necessary to adopt in seeking
This seemed to me then, and it still seems to me now, the most
decisive question of all. I therefore want to conclude by examining it,
and I want to do so by returning to the analogy I drew earlier between
the start of World War III in 1947 and the start of World War IV in
When the Truman Doctrine was enunciated in 1947, it was attacked from
several different directions. On the Right, there were the
isolationists who—after being sidelined by World War II—had made
something of a comeback in the Republican party under the leadership of
Senator Robert Taft. Their complaint was that Truman had committed the
United States to endless interventions that had no clear bearing on our
national interest. But there was also another faction on the Right that
denounced containment not as recklessly ambitious but as too timid. This
group was still small, but within the next few years it would find
spokesmen in Republican political figures like Richard Nixon and John
Foster Dulles and conservative intellectuals like William F. Buckley,
Jr. and .
At the other end of the political spectrum, there were the Communists
and their “liberal” fellow travelers who—strengthened by our alliance
with the Soviet Union in World War II—had emerged as a relatively
sizable group and would soon form a new political party behind Henry
Wallace. In their view, the Soviets had more cause to defend themselves
against us than we had to defend ourselves against them, and it was
Truman, not Stalin, who posed the greater danger to “free peoples
everywhere.” But criticism also came from the political center, as
represented by Walter Lippmann, the most influential and most
prestigious commentator of the period. Lippmann argued that Truman had
sounded “the tocsin of an ideological crusade” that was nothing less
than messianic in its scope.
In the election of 1948, Truman had the seemingly impossible task of
confronting all three of these challenges (and a few others as well).
When, against what every poll had predicted, he succeeded in warding
them off, he could reasonably claim a mandate for his foreign policy.
And so it came about that, under the aegis of the Truman Doctrine,
American troops were sent off in 1950 to fight in Korea. “What a nation
can do or must do,” Truman would later write, “begins with the
willingness and the ability of its people to shoulder the burden,” and
Truman was rightly confident that the American people were willing to
shoulder the burden of Korea.
Even so, enough bitter opposition remained within and around the
Republican party to leave it uncertain as to whether containment was an American
policy or only the policy of the Democrats. This uncertainty was
exacerbated by the presidential election of 1952, when the Republicans
behind Dwight D. Eisenhower ran against Truman’s hand-picked successor
Adlai Stevenson in a campaign featuring strident attacks on the Truman
Doctrine by Eisenhower’s running mate Richard Nixon and his future
Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. Nixon, for example, mocked
Stevenson as a graduate of the “Cowardly College of Communist
Containment” run by Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson, while
Dulles repeatedly called for ditching containment in favor of a policy
of “rollback” and “liberation.” And both Nixon and Dulles strongly
signaled their endorsement of ‘s
insistence that Truman was wrong to settle for holding the line in
Korea instead of going all the way—or, as MacArthur had famously put it,
“There is no substitute for victory.”
Yet when Eisenhower came into office, he hardly touched a hair on the
head of the Truman Doctrine. Far from adopting a bolder and more
aggressive strategy, the new President ended the Korean war on the basis
of the status quo ante—in other words, precisely on the terms of
containment. Even more telling was Eisenhower’s refusal three years
later to intervene when the Hungarians, apparently encouraged by the
rhetoric of liberation still being employed in the broadcasts of Radio
Free Europe, rose up in revolt against their Soviet masters. For better
or worse, this finally dispelled any lingering doubt as to whether
containment was the policy just of the Democratic party. With full
bipartisan support behind it, the Truman Doctrine had become the
official policy of the United States of America.
The analogy is obviously not perfect, but the resemblances between
the political battles of 1952 and those of 2004 are striking enough to
help us in thinking about what a few moments ago I called the most
decisive of all the questions now facing the United States. To frame the
question in slightly different terms from the ones I originally used:
what will happen if the Democrats behind John Kerry defeat George W.
Bush in November? Will they follow through on their violent
denunciations of Bush’s policy, or will they, like the Republicans of
1952 with respect to Korea, quietly forget their campaign promises of
reliance on the UN and the Europeans, and continue on much the same
course as Bush has followed in Iraq? And looking beyond Iraq itself,
will they do unto the Bush Doctrine as the Republicans of 1952 did unto
the Truman Doctrine? Will they treat Iraq as only one battle in the
larger war—World War IV—into which 9/11 plunged us? Will they resolve to
go on fighting that war with the strategy adumbrated by the Bush
Doctrine, and for as long as it may take to win it?
From the way the Democrats have been acting and speaking, I fear that
the answer is no. Nor was I reassured by the flamboyant display of
hawkishness they put on at their national convention in July. Yet as a
passionate supporter of the Bush Doctrine I pray that I am wrong about
this. If John Kerry should become our next President, and he may, it
would be a great calamity if he were to abandon the Bush Doctrine in
favor of the law-enforcement approach through which we dealt so
ineffectually with terrorism before 9/11, while leaving the rest to
those weakest of reeds, the UN and the Europeans. No matter how he might
dress up such a shift, it would—rightly—be interpreted by our enemies
as a craven retreat, and dire consequences would ensue. Once again the
despotisms of the Middle East would feel free to offer sanctuary and
launching pads to Islamic terrorists; once again these terrorists would
have the confidence to attack us—and this time on an infinitely greater
scale than before.
If, however, the victorious Democrats were quietly to recognize that
our salvation will come neither from the Europeans nor from the UN, and
if they were to accept that the Bush Doctrine represents the only
adequate response to the great threat that was literally brought home to
us on 9/11, then our enemies would no longer be emboldened—certainly
not to the extent they have recently been—by “our national discord over
In World War III, despite the bipartisan consensus that became
apparent after 1952 (and contrary to the roseate reminiscences of how it
was then), plenty of “discord” remained, and there were plenty of
missteps—most notably involving Vietnam—along the way to victory. There
were also moments when it looked as though we were losing, and when our
enemies seemed so strong that the best we could do was in effect to sue
for a negotiated peace.
Now, with World War IV barely begun, a similar dynamic is already at
work. In World War III, we as a nation persisted in spite of the
inevitable setbacks and mistakes and the defeatism they generated,
until, in the end, we won. To us the reward of victory was the
elimination of a military, political, and ideological threat. To the
people living both within the Soviet Union itself and in its East
European empire, it brought liberation from a totalitarian tyranny.
Admittedly, liberation did not mean that everything immediately came up
roses, but it would be foolish to contend that nothing changed for the
better when Communism landed on the very ash heap of history that Marx
had predicted would be the final resting place of capitalism.
Suppose that we hang in long enough to carry World War IV to a
comparably successful conclusion. What will victory mean this time
around? Well, to us it will mean the elimination of another, and in some
respects greater, threat to our safety and security. But because that
threat cannot be eliminated without “draining the swamps” in which it
breeds, victory will also entail the liberation of another group of
countries from another species of totalitarian tyranny. As we can
already see from Afghanistan and Iraq, liberation will no more result in
the overnight establishment of ideal conditions in the Middle East than
it has done in East Europe. But as we can also see from Afghanistan and
Iraq, better things will immediately happen, and a genuine opportunity
will be opened up for even better things to come.
The memory of how it was toward the end of World War III suggests
another intriguing parallel with how it is now in the early days of
World War IV. We have learned from the testimony of former officials of
the Soviet Union that, unlike the elites here, who heaped scorn on
Ronald Reagan’s idea that a viable system of missile defense could be
built, the Russians (including their best scientists) had no doubt that
the United States could and would succeed in creating such a system and
that this would do them in. Today the same kind of scorn is heaped by
the same kind of people on George W. Bush’s idea that the Middle East
can be democratized, while our enemies in the region—like the Russians
with respect to “Star Wars”—believe that we are actually succeeding.
One indication is the warning to this effect issued by al Zarqawi to
al Qaeda, from which I have already quoted. But his letter is not the
only sign that the secular despots and the Islamofascists in the Middle
East are deeply worried over what the Bush Doctrine holds in store for
them. There is Libya’s Qaddafi, who has admitted that it was his anxiety
about “being next” that induced him to give up his nuclear program. And
there are the Syrians and the Iranians. Of course they keep making
defiant noises and they keep trying to create as much trouble for us as
possible, but with all due respect to the disappointed expectations of
Fouad Ajami, I have to ask: why would they be sending jihadists and
weapons into Iraq if not in a desperate last-ditch campaign to derail a
process whose prospects are in their judgment only too fair and whose
repercussions they fear are only too likely to send them flying?
This fear may, as Ajami says, have been tempered by our response to
the troubles they themselves have been causing us. But it cannot have
been altogether assuaged, since it is solidly grounded in the new
geostrategic realities in their region that have been created under the
aegis of the Bush Doctrine. Professor Haim Harari, a former president of
the Weizmann Institute, describes these realities succinctly:
Now that Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are out, two-and-a-half
terrorist states remain: Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, the latter being a
Syrian colony. . . . As a result of the conquest of Afghanistan and
Iraq, both Iran and Syria are now totally surrounded by territories
unfriendly to them. Iran is encircled by Afghanistan, by the Gulf
States, Iraq, and the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union. Syria
is surrounded by Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. This is a
significant strategic change and it applies strong pressure on the
terrorist countries. It is not surprising that Iran is so active in
trying to incite a Shiite uprising in Iraq. I do not know if the
American plan was actually to encircle both Iran and Syria, but that is
the resulting situation.
Finally, there is the effect the Bush Doctrine has had on the forces
pushing for liberalization throughout the Middle East. When Ronald
Reagan used the word “evil” in speaking of the Soviet Union, and even
confidently predicted its demise, he gave new hope to democratic
dissidents in and out of the gulag. Back then, very much like Ajami on
Bush, some of us fell into near despair when Reagan failed to act in
full accordance with his own convictions. When, for example, he
responded tepidly to the great Polish crisis of 1982 that culminated in
the imposition of martial law, the columnist George F. Will, one of his
staunchest supporters, angrily declared that the administration headed
by Reagan “loved commerce more than it loathed Communism,” and I wrote
an article expressing “anguish” over his foreign policy. Yet even though
(once more like Ajami today) our criticisms were mostly right in
detail, we were proved wondrously wrong about the eventual outcome. It
was different with the dissidents behind the Iron Curtain. They knew
better than to get stuck on tactical details, and they never once lost
So it has been with the Bush Doctrine. Bush has made reform and
democratization the talk of the entire Middle East. Where before there
was only silence, now there are countless articles and speeches and
conferences, and even sermons, dedicated to the cause of political and
religious liberalization and exploring ways to bring it about. Like the
dissidents behind the Iron Curtain in the 1980’s, the democratizers in
the Middle East today evidently remain undiscouraged. Falluja and the
rest notwithstanding, there has been, if anything, a steady increase in
the volume and range of the reformist talk that was and continues to be
inspired by the Bush Doctrine.15
I do not wish to exaggerate. Except in Iran, and perhaps also one or
two other non-Arab Muslim states, the democratizers are still a
relatively small group, and as yet their ranks seem to contain no one
comparable in intellectual stature or moral and political influence to
Sakharov or Solzhenitsyn or Sharansky. But the editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs,
Barry Rubin, who has generally been very skeptical about the chances
for democratization in the region, offers a cautious assessment that
seems reasonable to me:
Democracy and reform are on the Arab world’s agenda. It will be a
long, uphill fight to bring change to those countries, but at least a
process has begun. Liberals remain few and weak; the dictatorships are
strong and the Islamist threat will discourage openness or innovation.
Still, at least there are more people trying to move things in the right
To which I (though not Rubin) would add, thanks to George W. Bush.
Then there is Gaza, where at least some elements of the fabled
Palestinian street have for the very first time exploded with
denunciations not of Israel or the United States, but of Yasir Arafat’s
tyrannical and corrupt rule. For the first time, too, we find articles
in the Arab press calling for Arafat’s removal—in favor not of the
Islamist alternative represented by Hamas but of a different kind of
Here, for example, is the Jordan Times:
The rapid deterioration of the domestic political order in Gaza
mirrors similar dilemmas that plague most of the Arab world, revolving
around the tendency of small power elites or single men to monopolize
political and economic power in their hands via their direct, personal
control of domestic security and police systems. Gaza is yet another
warning about the failure of the modern Arab security state and the need
for a better brand of statehood based on law-based citizen rights
rather than gun-based regime protection and perpetual incumbency.
And here is the Arab Times of Kuwait:
Arafat should quit his position because he is the head of a corrupt
authority. Arafat has destroyed Palestine. He has led it to terrorism,
death, and a hopeless situation.
And there is this, from the Gulf News in Dubai:
Palestinians are saying their president for life—Arafat—is the
problem along with his cronies who rule them, rob them, and impoverish
them. Arabs have a responsibility here too. They can say “Israel” until
they are all blue in the face, but it does not change the fact that a
large part of the fault lies with the Palestinians and the Arabs.
According to a Palestinian legislator quoted by the Washington Post,
“what is happening in the streets of Gaza has [nothing] to do with
reform. It’s a simple power struggle.” By contrast, the Iranian-born
commentator Amir Taheri sees it as a new kind of “intifada aimed at
bringing down yet another Arab tyranny.” Chances are that there is some
truth in both of these opposing judgments, and in any event it is still
too early to tell how the turmoil in Gaza will play itself out. But it
is surely not too early to say that there would have been no uprising
against Arafat, and much less talk about reform, if not for George W.
Bush’s policies combined with his courageous willingness to back those
of Ariel Sharon.
In his first State of the Union address, President Bush affirmed that history
had called America to action, and that it was both “our responsibility
and our privilege to fight freedom’s fight”—a fight he also
characterized as “a unique opportunity for us to seize.” Only last May,
he reminded us that “We did not seek this war on terror,” but, having
been sought out by it, we responded, and now we were trying to meet the
“great demands” that “history has placed on our country.”
In this language, and especially in the repeated references to
history, we can hear an echo of the concluding paragraphs of George F.
Kennan’s “X” essay, written at the outbreak of World War III:
The issue of Soviet-American relations is in essence a test of the
overall worth of the United States as a nation among nations. To avoid
destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best
traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.
Kennan then went on to his peroration:
In the light of these circumstances, the thoughtful observer of
Russian-American relations will experience a certain gratitude for a
Providence which, by providing the American people with this implacable
challenge, has made their entire security as a nation dependent on their
pulling themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral
and political leadership that history plainly intended them to bear.
Substitute “Islamic terrorism” for “Russian-American relations,” and
every other word of this magnificent statement applies to us as a nation
today. In 1947, we accepted the responsibilities of moral and political
leadership that history “plainly intended” us to bear, and for the next
42 years we acted on them. We may not always have acted on them wisely
or well, and we often did so only after much kicking and screaming. But
act on them we did. We thereby ensured our own “preservation as a great
nation,” while also bringing a better life to millions upon millions of
people in a major region of the world.
Now “our entire security as a nation”—including, to a greater extent
than in 1947, our physical security—once more depends on whether we are
ready and willing to accept and act upon the responsibilities of moral
and political leadership that history has yet again so squarely placed
upon our shoulders. Are we ready? Are we willing? I think we are, but
the jury is still out, and will not return a final verdict until well
after the election of 2004.
—August 2, 2004
“How to Win World War IV” (February 2002), “The Return of the Jackal
Bins” (April 2002), and “In Praise of the Bush Doctrine” (September
2002). A fourth piece I used was “Israel Isn’t the Issue” (Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2001).
2 He did, however, seem to have committed a sin of omission. , the editor of National Review,
reports that according to John Lehman, one of the Republican
commissioners, “Clarke’s original testimony included ‘a searing
indictment of some Clinton officials and Clinton policies.’ That was the
Clarke, even-handed in his criticisms of both the Bush and Clinton
administrations, whom Lehman and other Republican commissioners expected
to show up at the public hearings. It was a surprise ‘that he would
come out against Bush that way.’ Republicans were taken aback: ‘It
caught us flat-footed, but not the Democrats.’ ” In a different though
related context, the commission quotes material written by Clarke while
he was still in office that is inconsistent with his more recent,
much-publicized denial of any relationship whatsoever between Iraq and
The analysis offered by Kennan in “The Sources of Soviet Conduct”—as
against his own later revisionist interpretation of it—turned out to be
right in almost every important detail, except for the timing. He
thought it would take only fifteen years for the strategy to succeed in
causing the “implosion” of the Soviet empire.
In expressing his determination to win the war, however, Bush was
mainly reaching back to the language of Winston Churchill, who vowed as
World War II was getting under way in 1940: “We shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end.”
It is worth noting that Churchill, who had been the target of many
derogatory epithets in his long career but who was never regarded even
by his worst enemies as “simple-minded,” had no hesitation in attaching a
phrase like “monster of wickedness” to Hitler. Nor did the political
philosopher Hannah Arendt, whose mind was, if anything, overcomplicated
rather than too simple, have any problem in her masterpiece, The Origins of Totalitarianism, with calling both Nazism and Communism “absolute evil.”
Fukuyama did not return the compliment. While not exactly rejecting the
Bush Doctrine, he would later criticize it and call for a
“recalibration.” He would do this more in sorrow than in anger, but
still in terms that were otherwise not always easy to distinguish from
those of what I characterize below as the respectable opposition.
As John Podhoretz would later write: “Those who supported the war, in
overwhelming numbers, believed there were multiple justifications for
it. Those who opposed and oppose it, in equally overwhelming numbers,
weren’t swayed by the WMD arguments. Indeed, many of them had no
difficulty opposing the war while believing that Saddam possessed vast
quantities of such weapons. Take Sen. Edward Kennedy. ‘We have known for
many years,’ he said in September 2002, ‘that Saddam Hussein is seeking
and developing weapons of mass destruction.’ And yet only a few weeks
later he was one of 23 senators who voted against authorizing the Iraq
war. Take French President Jacques Chirac, who believed Saddam had WMD
and still did everything in his power to block the war. So whether
policymakers supported or opposed the war effort was not determined by
their conviction about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.”
9 The classic expression of this fantasy was, of course, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
a document that had been forged by the Czarist secret police in the
late 19th century but that had more recently been resurrected and
distributed by the millions throughout the Arab-Muslim world, and
beyond. It would also form the basis of a dramatic television series
produced in Egypt.
10 Stephen F. Hayes has done especially good work on this issue, both in a series of articles in the Weekly Standard and in his book The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.
Additional corroboration of “meetings . . . between senior Iraqi
representatives and senior al Qaeda operatives” would come from a
comparable British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, whose report
would be released around the same time as the Senate Intelligence
From the Butler Report: “We conclude also that the statement in
President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The
British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”
From the Senate Intelligence Committee Report: “He [the CIA reports
officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by
Wilson] was that Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation
had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian prime minister
believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this
provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.”
Going even further than the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Butler
Report concluded: “We believe that it would be a rash person who
asserted at this stage that evidence of Iraqi possession of stocks of
biological or chemical agents, or even of banned missiles, does not
exist or will never be found.”
A representative sample can be found on the website of the Middle East
Media Research Institute (http://www.memri.org/reform.html).
World War IV: Peak Oil Wars
War of Terror “will not end in our lifetimes”
“I don’t know what weapons World
War Three will be fought with, but World War Four will be fought with
sticks and stones.”
— Albert Einstein
“the Third World War has already started–a silent war, not for
that reason any the less sinister. This war is tearing down Brazil,
Latin America and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers
dying there are children, instead of millions of wounded there are
millions of unemployed; instead of destruction of bridges there is the
tearing down of factories, schools, hospitals and entire economies ….
It is a war by the United States against the Latin American continent
and the Third World. It is a war over the foreign debt, one which has as
its main weapon interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more
shattering than a laser beam.”
— Brazilian President Luiz Ignácio Lula da Silva (Lula),
comment from 1989 when he was a labor leader and leading dissident in
War II was also an oil war
World War II was in many ways an oil war – the US was able
to wage the war because the American oil industry had recently reached
the peak of domestic oil discoveries and had enough oil to wage global
In contrast, Germany, Italy and Japan do not have oil, and
eventually ran out of fuel to power their war machines – a primary reason
Japan seized oil fields in Indonesia, but when they were
driven out they lost much of their oil supply for their military imperialist
expansion, and the US naval blockade of Japan ensured their defeat.
Germany tried to capture the rich oil fields of the Caucausus,
but after the Stalingrad battle (on the way to the Caucaucus region),
it was clear that the Nazi mechanized military would lose the war.
“Hitler and Goering had counted on the new jet fighters
driving the Allied air forces from the skies, and well they might have
— for the Germans succeeded in producing more than a thousand of them
— had the Anglo-American flyers, who lacked this plane, not taken successful
counteraction. The conventional Allied fighter was no match for the
German jet in the air, but few ever got off the ground. The
refineries producing the special fuel for them were bombed and destroyed
and the extended runways which had to be constructed for them were easily
detected by Allied pilots, who destroyed the jets on the ground.”
— William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, (1962),
on the hit list: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Korea?
Patrick Seale: Who will be the next victim of US democracy?
Special to Gulf News | 14-11-2003
A good simulation of the likely outcome of the US attack
on Iraq – chaos in the Middle East, and more
www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml (requires “flash”
plug in for your browser)
Straw: UK will not attack Syria or Iran
Wednesday April 2, 2003
Britain would have “nothing whatever” to do with military action
against Syria or Iran, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, signalled today.
Practice to Deceive
Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks’ nightmare scenario–it’s
In their view, invasion of Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, about
getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Nor was it really about weapons of mass
destruction, though their elimination was an important benefit. Rather,
the administration sees the invasion as only the first move in a wider
effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East.
Donald Rumsfeld’s nuclear deals with North Korea – How
Rumsfeld Filled His Pockets with Pyongyang’s Nuclear Loot
“Syria, Teheran on US radar?” The Hindu April
General Powell threatens Iran and Syria with attacks
Is The Iraq War The Beginning Of World War IV?
SCOOP EDITOR’S NOTE: The following
report from CNN is chilling in its audacity. Ex-CIA Director James Woolsey
is a Bush insider who is tipped to become the overseer of Iraq once this
war is over. Here Woolsey openly talks of a much bigger war, what he calls
World War IV.
While there is nothing particularly new about Woolsey’s statement, a large
number of Neoconservative nutter friends of the Bush Administration have
been saying similar things for at least a decade (and Scoop has been reporting
this for several months), what is truly shocking is the openness of the
declaration contained in this story. Here we see the gloves of the American
Imperialist agenda well and truly taken off.
Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces ‘World War IV’
From Charles Feldman and Stan Wilson
Thursday, April 3, 2003 Posted: 5:02 PM EST (2202 GMT)
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) — Former CIA Director James Woolsey said
Wednesday the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could
continue for years.
In the address to a group of college students, Woolsey described the Cold
War as the third world war and said “This fourth world war, I think,
will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us.
Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold War.”
Woolsey has been named in news reports as a possible candidate for a key
position in the reconstruction of a postwar Iraq.
He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers
of Iran, the “fascists” of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists
like al Qaeda. ….
“As we move toward a new Middle East,” Woolsey said, “over
the years and, I think, over the decades to come … we will make a lot
of people very nervous.”
It will be America’s backing of democratic movements throughout the Middle
East that will bring about this sense of unease, he said.
“Our response should be, ‘good!'” Woolsey said.
Singling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi
Arabia, he said, “We want you nervous. We want you to realize now,
for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are
on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you — the Mubaraks,
the Saudi Royal family — most fear: We’re on the side of your own people.”
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of
human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way of shattering
to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths
of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses
too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.
— George Orwell, 1984
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or
values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized
violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.
— Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World
“What’s happening with Iraq is not isolated, it’s part of a global
phenomenon. When we see the installation of U.S. military bases throughout
Latin America, when we look at [American interference] in countries such
as Venezuela and Colombia and Panama, we have to ask ourselves what’s
“Lots of people think it and won’t say it, but I will say it: The
United States is seeking to control the world. That’s why we are seeing
the reaction in so many countries.“
— Nobel Peace Prize laureate (1980) Adolfo Perez Esquivel
Published on Saturday, September 6, 2003 by the Globe &
The Fourth World War
For two years, the U.S. has pursued the culprits behind the 9/11 atrocities
with a vengeance that has shocked and awed ally and enemy alike. But even
the devastating attacks on the Afghan and Iraqi regimes don’t illustrate
the true scope of the campaign, DOUG SAUNDERS reports. While everyone
was preoccupied with the fireworks, Washington has quietly deployed thousands
of agents in a secretive struggle that may last a lifetime
by Doug Saunders
The guys in the sunglasses have a name for this not-so-secret
campaign. They call it World War Four, an unofficial title that is now
used routinely by top officials and ground-level operatives in the U.S.
military and the CIA. It is a global war, one of the most expensive and
complex in world history.
Monday, August 30, 2004
Which World War is it, Anyway?
“And do not forget the petty scoundrels in this regime; note their
names, so that none will go free! They should not find it possible, having
had their part in these abominable crimes, at the last minute to rally
to another flag and then act as if nothing had happened!”
– from the fourth leaflet of the anti-Nazi resistance, The White Rose,
Among those wise enough to know America is in one and has been for some
time, there’s disagreement over which World War George Bush is actually
waging. Should we call it number III? Or was that the Cold War, and now
we’re at number IV and counting? (“This is World War IV” is
the favoured construct of the neoconservatives. See, for instance, such
bloody-minded idealogues as John Woolsey and Norman Podhoretz. I imagine
at some point they determined that decades of association with nuclear
apocalypse had voided the potential positive spin for “World War
So which World War is it? It’s neither the Third nor the Fourth;
it’s still the Second. Even though the apologists of the Pirate
Class in their red, white and blue shirts will never own the name “fascist.”
As Orwell wrote in Politics and the English Language, “the word fascism
has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.'”
But that’s no reason for us to shy from using it. Just because goosestepping
has gone out of style doesn’t mean they’ve kicked off their jackboots.
When we talk about Nazis in America, we’re
talking about more than the more than passing resemblance to the Bush
Cartel. That Prescott’s family business profited handsomely by the Nazis
is well known, at least by those who think it important to note such things.
But the story is larger and uglier than more dirty dealings by a Bonesman.
It also goes deeper than the Republican Party’s active recruitment of
fascists and racists since the mid-50s through the aegis of its Heritage
Groups Council, but since that’s seldom recalled, let’s pause for a moment
When a number of senior members of George HW Bush’s 1988 campaign team
were revealed to be old school Nazi sympathizers it generated something
of a media flap – Pete Hamill titled a New York Post column “George
Bush and his fascist fan club” – but the scandal is little remembered
Some of Bush’s team:
Radi Slavoff, GOP Heritage Council’s executive director, and head of
“Bulgarians for Bush.” Slavoff was a member of a Bulgarian fascist
group, and he put together an event in Washington honoring Holocaust denier,
Florian Galdau, director of GOP outreach efforts among Romanians, and
head of “Romanians for Bush.” Galdau was once an Iron Guard
recruiter, and he defended convicted Nazi war criminal Valerian Trifa.
Nicholas Nazarenko, leader of a Cossack GOP ethnic unit. Nazarenko was
an ex-Waffen SS officer.
Method Balco, GOP activist. Balco organized yearly memorials for a Nazi
Walter Melianovich, head of the GOP’s Byelorussian unit. Melianovich worked
closely with many Nazi groups.
Bohdan Fedorak, leader of “Ukrainians for Bush.” Fedorak headed
a Nazi group involved in anti-Jewish wartime pogroms.
Nazis staffing the VP’s campaign? Oops! Tut tut tut. We need to run better
background checks, wink wink.
The Nazi infection goes back much further. All the way back to the 1930s,
when industrialists with fascist sympathies and names like DuPont and
Morgan sponsored a coup against Roosevelt to dismantle the New Deal. And
then the ’40s, when men with names like Bush, Dulles, Favish and Rockefeller
traded strategic goods with the enemy, prolonging the war and costing
Worst of all, Project Paperclip saw Nazis virtually co-found the “National
Security State,” bringing their advanced technology and criminal
medical research to America. And something else as well, as Nick Cook
is told by the pseudonymous “Dr Dan Markus” in The Hunt for
When the Americans tripped over this mutant strain of nonlinear physics
and took it back home with them, they were astute enough to realize
that their home-grown scientific talent couldn’t handle it. That it
was beyond their cultural term of reference. That’s why they recruited
so many Germans. The Nazis developed a unique approach to science and
engineering quite separate from the rest of the world, because their
ideology, unrestrained as it was, supported a wholly different way of
doing things. Von Braun’s V-2s are a case in point, but so was their
understanding of physics. The trouble was, when the Americans took it
all home with them they found out, too late, that it came infected with
a virus. You take the science on, you take on aspects of the ideology,
The Nazi virus entered America’s system long ago. It’s been Americanized.
But what else would one expect, given the CIA was essentially a co-creation
of Nazis like General Reinhard Gehlen and his Abwehr anti-Soviet intelligence
apparatus and Nazi money launderers like Allen Dulles and the corporatist/intelligence
old boy network of Sullivan and Cromwell. No. Such men got exactly what
“Once the neo-fascists became bold enough to slay the President on
the street, they showed their hand,” Mort Sahl said early in 1968.
So early Dr King and Robert
Kennedy were yet to join the body count. “They showed how arrogant
they had become. Now it’s a question of symptom. That crime was a national
symptom. If we can turn our back on that, we will pay a terrible price.
That will be the end of this democracy.”
They showed their hand, and they’ve had forty years of getting away with
it. And not for lack of evidence. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t read
Fonzi’s The Last Investigation, Russell’s The Man Who Knew
Too Much or Newman’s Oswald and the CIA, to cite just three
works. Rather, they got away with it because the truth is too
terrible, and many who did not conspire in the killing conspired in the
cover-up because they were led to believe that a finding of official complicity
in Kennedy’s death would shatter the system, when in fact it might have
killed the virus.
And undoubtedly the same justification has been used over and over again,
to shield Americans from the awful truth of state-sanctioned
assassinations, the October Surprise,
medical experiments worthy of Mengele, the introduction of crack to the
LA underclass, BCCI, 9/11 and on and on. High treason,
many times over. But so what? You know what they say about none daring
to call it such should it prosper. And brother, has it prospered.
Here’s the thing: we’re not talking about discrete, singular, sui
generis conspiracies here. Indeed, these are not even conspiracies,
in the sense of representing aberrant breaks with the system. These are,
rather, examples that the system works. It’s just not the system
Americans were taught in civics class. The examples evidence
the criminalization of the state by the deep political nexus of underworld,
intelligence, industrial and military interests. “America,”
to these players, serves as the legit front for their lawless enterprise.
The Nazi virus has consumed the host. If it were eradicated and the host
miraculously recovered, the poor thing would swear up and down it was
still late Autumn, 1963.
On The Verge of Armageddon: World War III May Just be Around the Corner
BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Stephen V. Kane
Few have said it yet. Somebody needs to. We are on the verge of WWIII.
The signs are here. Armies massing in a tinderbox around the oil fields
of the Mideast. Armies massing on the India-Pakistan border, another flash
point in the world. Amidst a war of words that has ended in war before,
the two sides are sending each other’s diplomats home. North Korea is
busily turning its nuclear facilities to the sincere task of creating
enriched uranium for nuclear missiles. America the just has seen the rise
to power of a dangerously misdirected mind, amidst an election sham, while
US Senate power balance changes due to airplanes falling out of the sky,
electronic ballot machines whose code is posted on unsecured servers,
and vituperative character attacks against decent men and women seeking
office for the good of the majority. That government has now turned bellicose,
a dangerous development considering the awesome military hardware it commands.
Secret plans have been unearthed in the past forty-eight hours to further
attenuate the rights of US citizens, including secret arrests and seizure
of property; detention without counsel and without notification (disappearances);
even plans to expunge the citizenship of anyone caught in a “terrorist”
organization, where the government defines what a terrorist organization
is. All with no recourse to the courts.
And war. Every tyrannical and totalitarian regime needs war. They will
say they don’t want world war, but world war consolidates and perpetuates
their grip on power.
World war breaks out easily from a major confrontation as that in Iraq.
As the major war transfixes the world, myriad minor ones break out, as
nations use the cover of the big events in Iraq and India and Korea to
settle scores elsewhere. China will wait until the USA is war-weary, and
will then strike Taiwan/Formosa to “reunite” them to mainland
Nukes will be used in WWIII. There are too many of these terrible weapons
stockpiled around the world to be secure. Some fool will unleash them,
and once he does, all bets are off. Retaliations and counter-retaliations
will wreck large sections of the biosphere.
Isn’t it terribly ironic that the world survived the prospect of nuclear
annihilation in the cold war, only to see it ignite in the remote and
historically less significant places of the world? For forty years US
and USSR nuclear arsenals aimed at every major population center on two
continents stood ready to launch. And for forty years diplomacy and spying
kept the giants respectful of each other. Now the fear is that a desperate
rogue state backed into a corner will set one or two off. And what is
US diplomacy doing? Backing these states into a corner.
Under the cloak of world war our enemies will find a way to deliver, and
ignite, a nuclear warhead on our soil. These enemies will not rest until
they have delivered this nuclear reaction to what they see as US imperialism.
Only by extraordinary, police-state laws and enforcement can the wartime
government “protect” the people. They will eliminate, in fact
already have eliminated, many freedoms. If you disagree with them on any
level they will monitor your phone calls and emails. If you persist in
your dissent they will arrest, detain and deport you. Ultimately, they
will execute their political enemies under the same confusion, blood,
and death of the wars they so desperately need to cover their failed attempts
to govern a peaceful nation peacefully.
The intentions of the US government are not, in fact peaceful. Bush is
an oil man placed into power by oil interests. The strategic prize is
the Iraqi oilfields. Yet as a domestic political matter, only by war and
the accompanying smoke, fog, and confusion of war can the Bush men consolidate
their extremely tenuous grip on control over their “homeland.”
War provides them the necessary cover. The fear that war brings overwhelms
the resistance by a people who feel powerless in the face of rapidly changing,
But when the smoke clears — and it will clear — the United State will
be dishonored. The dishonor will not arise from the policies of this misguided
administration, but will be pointed at us, the American people. All of
us. Just like Nazi Germany, where the signs of a rise to power of a depraved
and dangerous element were unmistakable, the signs are here as well, to
anyone careful enough to read them. The Germans resist this war because
they know all too well the dire consequences that are in store.
There is no beer-hall putsch as in Munich. But there is a national election
that saw tens, if not hundreds of thousands of voters disenfranchised
in one state. Electronic voting machines were almost certainly tampered with in certain elections. A virtual news
blackout exists in the mainstream media of any developments critical of
the ruling elite. A President is put into office through campaign promises
and slogans that are outright lies. His government may have impeded an
investigation that would have forewarned the nation of 9/11. The appointed
government, with a shaky electoral mandate, has embarked on a war that
is unsupported at home, and vigorously rejected abroad: They assemble
a massive army *before* trying diplomacy, to start the war anyway. Polite
congressmen try to pressure the government subtly to stand down, expecting
they will as reason says they must.
And yet like Germany in 1932 the intelligentsia, the press, and
the rest of government grossly miscalculates the depravity of the situation.
They will realize, only too late, they are dealing with a far greater,
far more dangerous situation than they ever dreamed. They are dealing
with a ruling faction that intends to rewrite the rules to an extent that
nobody ever dared think possible in the USA.
Part of that new set of rules involves war. It doesn’t matter
that the world condemns it. It won’t matter if a million people march
in New York City on February 15. Once the fog of war settles in, none
of that will matter. Once the guns begin to roar, the Bush Cartel, as
it’s been called, will write the dark history.
on and on it goes, just links folks , think and search for yourself,
and prepare to die and meet your Lord, who is not a man or idol or figment of fragments of various somebody x, y, z imagination, but the Lord Creator of the Universe, sender of Messengers and Prophets, Most Beneficent and Merciful, The Almighty and Magnificent, The Truth and Just, the Absolutely Perfect Ruler and Judge.