Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ha'aretz: The Jewish men behind Bush who carry the "White Man's Burden"

Expand Messages
  • Tarek Fatah
    Friends, This new year s article in the Israeli newspaper Ha aretz provides a rare insight into the mindset of the men who run Bush. Only an Israeli newspaper
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Friends,

      This new year's article in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz provides a rare
      insight into the mindset of the men who run Bush. Only an Israeli newspaper
      could get away with words like "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25
      neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish."

      Had this line come from anyone else, charges of anti-Semitism would have
      been flying around like ticker tape on a US parade.

      Read and reflect.

      Tarek Fatah
      ---------------
      January 1, 2004

      White man's burden

      By Ari Shavit
      The Daily Ha'aretz
      http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&sw=neocon

      The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of
      them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.
      Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's
      possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group),
      is skeptical

      1. The doctrine

      WASHINGTON - At the conclusion of its second week, the war to liberate Iraq
      wasn't looking good. Not even in Washington. The assumption of a swift
      collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime had itself collapsed. The
      presupposition that the Iraqi dictatorship would crumble as soon as mighty
      America entered the country proved unfounded. The Shi'ites didn't rise up,
      the Sunnis fought fiercely. Iraqi guerrilla warfare found the American
      generals unprepared and endangered their overextended supply lines.
      Nevertheless, 70 percent of the American people continued to support the
      war; 60 percent thought victory was certain; 74 percent expressed confidence
      in President George W. Bush.

      Washington is a small city. It's a place of human dimensions. A kind of
      small town that happens to run an empire. A small town of government
      officials and members of Congress and personnel of research institutes and
      journalists who pretty well all know one another. Everyone is busy
      intriguing against everyone else; and everyone gossips about everyone else.

      In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the
      belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small
      group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of
      them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas
      Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are
      mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political
      ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right
      political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and
      grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are
      the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire
      Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend to read
      reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the success of
      the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall).

      Are they wrong? Have they committed an act of folly in leading Washington to
      Baghdad? They don't think so. They continue to cling to their belief. They
      are still pretending that everything is more or less fine. That things will
      work out. Occasionally, though, they seem to break out in a cold sweat. This
      is no longer an academic exercise, one of them says, we are responsible for
      what is happening. The ideas we put forward are now affecting the lives of
      millions of people. So there are moments when you're scared. You say, Hell,
      we came to help, but maybe we made a mistake.

      2. William Kristol

      Has America bitten off more than it can chew? Bill Kristol says no. True,
      the press is very negative, but when you examine the facts in the field you
      see that there is no terrorism, no mass destruction, no attacks on Israel.
      The oil fields in the south have been saved, air control has been achieved,
      American forces are deployed 50 miles from Baghdad. So, even if mistakes
      were made here and there, they are not serious. America is big enough to
      handle that. Kristol hasn't the slightest doubt that in the end, General
      Tommy Franks will achieve his goals. The 4th Cavalry Division will soon
      enter the fray, and another division is on its way from Texas. So it's
      possible that instead of an elegant war with 60 killed in two weeks it will
      be a less elegant affair with a thousand killed in two months, but
      nevertheless Bill Kristol has no doubt at all that the Iraq Liberation War
      is a just war, an obligatory war.

      Kristol is pleasant-looking, of average height, in his late forties. In the
      past 18 months he has used his position as editor of the right-wing Weekly
      Standard and his status as one of the leaders of the neoconservative circle
      in Washington to induce the White House to do battle against Saddam Hussein.
      Because Kristol is believed to exercise considerable influence on the
      president, Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
      Rumsfeld, he is also perceived as having been instrumental in getting
      Washington to launch this all-out campaign against Baghdad. Sitting behind
      the stacks of books that cover his desk at the offices of the Weekly
      Standard in Northwest Washington, he tries to convince me that he is not
      worried. It is simply inconceivable to him that America will not win. In
      that event, the consequences would be catastrophic. No one wants to think
      seriously about that possibility.

      What is the war about? I ask. Kristol replies that at one level it is the
      war that George Bush is talking about: a war against a brutal regime that
      has in its possession weapons of mass destruction. But at a deeper level it
      is a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East. It is a war that is
      intended to change the political culture of the entire region. Because what
      happened on September 11, 2001, Kristol says, is that the Americans looked
      around and saw that the world is not what they thought it was. The world is
      a dangerous place. Therefore the Americans looked for a doctrine that would
      enable them to cope with this dangerous world. And the only doctrine they
      found was the neoconservative one.

      That doctrine maintains that the problem with the Middle East is the absence
      of democracy and of freedom. It follows that the only way to block people
      like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to disseminate democracy and
      freedom. To change radically the cultural and political dynamics that
      creates such people. And the way to fight the chaos is to create a new world
      order that will be based on freedom and human rights - and to be ready to
      use force in order to consolidate this new world. So that, really, is what
      the war is about. It is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to
      create a new Middle East.

      Does that mean that the war in Iraq is effectively a neoconservative war?
      That's what people are saying, Kristol replies, laughing. But the truth is
      that it's an American war. The neoconservatives succeeded because they
      touched the bedrock of America. The thing is that America has a profound
      sense of mission. America has a need to offer something that transcends a
      life of comfort, that goes beyond material success. Therefore, because of
      their ideals, the Americans accepted what the neoconservatives proposed.
      They didn't want to fight a war over interests, but over values. They wanted
      a war driven by a moral vision. They wanted to hitch their wagon to
      something bigger than themselves.

      Does this moral vision mean that after Iraq will come the turns of Saudi
      Arabia and Egypt?

      Kristol says that he is at odds with the administration on the question of
      Saudi Arabia. But his opinion is that it is impossible to let Saudi Arabia
      just continue what it is doing. It is impossible to accept the
      anti-Americanism it is disseminating. The fanatic Wahhabism that Saudi
      Arabia engenders is undermining the stability of the entire region. It's the
      same with Egypt, he says: we mustn't accept the status quo there. For Egypt,
      too, the horizon has to be liberal democracy.

      It has to be understood that in the final analysis, the stability that the
      corrupt Arab despots are offering is illusory. Just as the stability that
      Yitzhak Rabin received from Yasser Arafat was illusory. In the end, none of
      these decadent dictatorships will endure. The choice is between extremist
      Islam, secular fascism or democracy. And because of September 11, American
      understands that. America is in a position where it has no choice. It is
      obliged to be far more aggressive in promoting democracy. Hence this war.
      It's based on the new American understanding that if the United States does
      not shape the world in its image, the world will shape the United States in
      its own image.

      3. Charles Krauthammer

      Is this going to turn into a second Vietnam? Charles Krauthammer says no.
      There is no similarity to Vietnam. Unlike in the 1960s, there is no
      anti-establishment subculture in the United States now. Unlike in the 1960s,
      there is now an abiding love of the army in the United States. Unlike in the
      1960s, there is a determined president, one with character, in the White
      House. And unlike in the 1960s, Americans are not deterred from making
      sacrifices. That is the sea-change that took place here on September 11,
      2001. Since that morning, Americans have understood that if they don't act
      now and if weapons of mass destruction reach extremist terrorist
      organizations, millions of Americans will die. Therefore, because they
      understand that those others want to kill them by the millions, the
      Americans prefer to take to the field of battle and fight, rather than sit
      idly by and die at home.

      Charles Krauthammer is handsome, swarthy and articulate. In his spacious
      office on 19th Street in Northwest Washington, he sits upright in a black
      wheelchair. Although his writing tends to be gloomy, his mood now is
      elevated. The well-known columnist (Washington Post, Time, Weekly Standard)
      has no real doubts about the outcome of the war that he promoted for 18
      months. No, he does not accept the view that he helped lead America into the
      new killing fields between the Tigris and the Euphrates. But it is true that
      he is part of a conceptual stream that had something to offer in the
      aftermath of September 11. Within a few weeks after the attacks on the Twin
      Towers and the Pentagon, he had singled out Baghdad in his columns as an
      essential target. And now, too, he is convinced that America has the
      strength to pull it off. The thought that America will not win has never
      even crossed his mind.

      What is the war about? It's about three different issues. First of all, this
      is a war for disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. That's the
      basis, the self-evident cause, and it is also sufficient cause in itself.
      But beyond that, the war in Iraq is being fought to replace the demonic deal
      America cut with the Arab world decades ago. That deal said: you will send
      us oil and we will not intervene in your internal affairs. Send us oil and
      we will not demand from you what we are demanding of Chile, the Philippines,
      Korea and South Africa.

      That deal effectively expired on September 11, 2001, Krauthammer says. Since
      that day, the Americans have understood that if they allow the Arab world to
      proceed in its evil ways - suppression, economic ruin, sowing despair - it
      will continue to produce more and more bin Ladens. America thus reached the
      conclusion that it has no choice: it has to take on itself the project of
      rebuilding the Arab world. Therefore, the Iraq war is really the beginning
      of a gigantic historical experiment whose purpose is to do in the Arab world
      what was done in Germany and Japan after World War II.

      It's an ambitious experiment, Krauthammer admits, maybe even utopian, but
      not unrealistic. After all, it is inconceivable to accept the racist
      assumption that the Arabs are different from all other human beings, that
      the Arabs are incapable of conducting a democratic way of life.

      However, according to the Jewish-American columnist, the present war has a
      further importance. If Iraq does become pro-Western and if it becomes the
      focus of American influence, that will be of immense geopolitical
      importance. An American presence in Iraq will project power across the
      region. It will suffuse the rebels in Iran with courage and strength, and it
      will deter and restrain Syria. It will accelerate the processes of change
      that the Middle East must undergo.

      Isn't the idea of preemptive war a dangerous one that rattles the world
      order?

      There is no choice, Krauthammer replies. In the 21st century we face a new
      and singular challenge: the democratization of mass destruction. There are
      three possible strategies in the face of that challenge: appeasement,
      deterrence and preemption. Because appeasement and deterrence will not work,
      preemption is the only strategy left. The United States must implement an
      aggressive policy of preemption. Which is exactly what it is now doing in
      Iraq. That is what Tommy Franks' soldiers are doing as we speak.

      And what if the experiment fails? What if America is defeated?

      This war will enhance the place of America in the world for the coming
      generation, Krauthammer says. Its outcome will shape the world for the next
      25 years. There are three possibilities. If the United States wins quickly
      and without a bloodbath, it will be a colossus that will dictate the world
      order. If the victory is slow and contaminated, it will be impossible to go
      on to other Arab states after Iraq. It will stop there. But if America is
      beaten, the consequences will be catastrophic. Its deterrent capability will
      be weakened, its friends will abandon it and it will become insular. Extreme
      instability will be engendered in the Middle East.

      You don't really want to think about what will happen, Krauthammer says
      looking me straight in the eye. But just because that's so, I am positive we
      will not lose. Because the administration understands the implications. The
      president understands that everything is riding on this. So he will throw
      everything we've got into this. He will do everything that has to be done.
      George W. Bush will not let America lose.

      4. Thomas Friedman

      Is this an American Lebanon War? Tom Friedman says he is afraid it is. He
      was there, in the Commodore Hotel in Beirut, in the summer of 1982, and he
      remembers it well. So he sees the lines of resemblance clearly. General
      Ahmed Chalabi (the Shi'ite leader that the neoconservatives want to install
      as the leader of a free Iraq) in the role of Bashir Jemayel. The Iraqi
      opposition in the role of the Phalange. Richard Perle and the conservative
      circle around him as Ariel Sharon. And a war that is at bottom a war of
      choice. A war that wants to utilize massive force in order to establish a
      new order.

      Tom Friedman, The New York Times columnist, did not oppose the war. On the
      contrary. He too was severely shaken by September 11, he too wants to
      understand where these desperate fanatics are coming from who hate America
      more than they love their own lives. And he too reached the conclusion that
      the status quo in the Middle East is no longer acceptable. The status quo is
      terminal. And therefore it is urgent to foment a reform in the Arab world.

      Some things are true even if George Bush believes them, Friedman says with a
      smile. And after September 11, it's impossible to tell Bush to drop it,
      ignore it. There was a certain basic justice in the overall American feeling
      that told the Arab world: we left you alone for a long time, you played with
      matches and in the end we were burned. So we're not going to leave you alone
      any longer.

      He is sitting in a large rectangular room in the offices of The New York
      Times in northwest Washington, on the corner of 17th Street. One wall of the
      room is a huge map of the world. Hunched over his computer, he reads me
      witty lines from the article that will be going to press in two hours. He
      polishes, sharpens, plays word games. He ponders what's right to say now,
      what should be left for a later date. Turning to me, he says that
      democracies look soft until they're threatened. When threatened, they become
      very hard. Actually, the Iraq war is a kind of Jenin on a huge scale.
      Because in Jenin, too, what happened was that the Israelis told the
      Palestinians, We left you here alone and you played with matches until
      suddenly you blew up a Passover seder in Netanya. And therefore we are not
      going to leave you along any longer. We will go from house to house in the
      Casbah. And from America's point of view, Saddam's Iraq is Jenin. This war
      is a defensive shield. It follows that the danger is the same: that like
      Israel, America will make the mistake of using only force.

      This is not an illegitimate war, Friedman says. But it is a very
      presumptuous war. You need a great deal of presumption to believe that you
      can rebuild a country half a world from home. But if such a presumptuous war
      is to have a chance, it needs international support. That international
      legitimacy is essential so you will have enough time and space to execute
      your presumptuous project. But George Bush didn't have the patience to glean
      international support. He gambled that the war would justify itself, that we
      would go in fast and conquer fast and that the Iraqis would greet us with
      rice and the war would thus be self-justifying. That did not happen. Maybe
      it will happen next week, but in the meantime it did not happen.

      When I think about what is going to happen, I break into a sweat, Friedman
      says. I see us being forced to impose a siege on Baghdad. And I know what
      kind of insanity a siege on Baghdad can unleash. The thought of
      house-to-house combat in Baghdad without international legitimacy makes me
      lose my appetite. I see American embassies burning. I see windows of
      American businesses shattered. I see how the Iraqi resistance to America
      connects to the general Arab resistance to America and the worldwide
      resistance to America. The thought of what could happen is eating me up.

      What George Bush did, Friedman says, is to show us a splendid mahogany
      table: the new democratic Iraq. But when you turn the table over, you see
      that it has only one leg. This war is resting on one leg. But on the other
      hand, anyone who thinks he can defeat George Bush had better think again.
      Bush will never give in. That's not what he's made of. Believe me, you don't
      want to be next to this guy when he thinks he's being backed into a corner.
      I don't suggest that anyone who holds his life dear mess with Dick Cheney,
      Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush.

      Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the
      neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives
      marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they
      sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses
      demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the
      names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block
      radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year
      and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

      Still, it's not all that simple, Friedman retracts. It's not some fantasy
      the neoconservatives invented. It's not that 25 people hijacked America. You
      don't take such a great nation into such a great adventure with Bill Kristol
      and the Weekly Standard and another five or six influential columnists. In
      the final analysis, what fomented the war is America's over-reaction to
      September 11. The genuine sense of anxiety that spread in America after
      September 11. It is not only the neoconservatives who led us to the
      outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very
      American combination of anxiety and hubris.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.