Invading Iraq: Converging U.S., Israeli Agendas
The first essay by Ronald Bleier on whether 'the U.S. is acting as
Israel's proxy by invading Iraq' comes at right time. Last weekend,
the Zionists within the American administration ('Wolfowitz cabal' or
'twenty high-ranking Jewish intellectuals') confessed in a frank
interview to Ari Shavit of Haaretz newspaper that 'yes, they brought
the US into Iraq war'. Bleier goes further on, and discovers
irrational (insane?) thirst for Armageddon.
Bleier's essay is interesting for an additional reason. It spans the
left-right divide within the discourse, as Ronald Bleier, as well as
Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in his article, openly refer to Stephen J.
Sniegoski and Patrick Buchanan, 'the right-wing beasts and
antisemites' according to their enemies. Until recently, just a
reference to Sniegoski would be sufficient to 'burn' and ostracise
Bleier within his left-wing Jewish friends. Not any more. The first
goal of this list, to bring together 'true left' and 'true right' (as
opposed to Zionist-infiltrated left and right) is obtained.
And indeed, the second essay is written by the military expert
Maguire, of the 'true right', who proves with numbers and details that
the US will not stop after taking Baghdad. After Saddam, it will be
Syria, Iran, France, Russia, China - unless we stop the Zionist -
Invading Iraq: Converging U.S. and Israeli Agendas
by Ronald Bleier
For a brief moment in early March the media was alive with the
question of whether the U.S. is acting as Israel's proxy by invading
Iraq. On network TV, Tim Russert asked Richard Perle, a high profile
advocate of removing Saddam Hussein, whether the proposed war would be
serving U.S. interests, and specifically about the link to Israel.
Similar issues were raised in a New York Times Op-ed by Bill Keller
("Is it Good for the Jews," March 8, 2003) and in a Times news article
on the subject ("Divide Among Jews Leads to Silence on Iraq War,"
3.15.03). Patrick Buchanan in The American Conservative ("Whose War?"
March 24, 2003) and Stephen J. Sniegoski in Current Concern ("The War
on Iraq: Conceived in Israel," February 2003) published long articles
arguing that this is a war on Israel's behalf. Slate's Michael Kinsley
wrote a tongue in cheek article on the subject (J'Accuse, Sort Of,
Activist Ali Abunimah lists three ways in which Israel could hope to
gain by the Iraq war. First, it would eliminate Iraq as a potential
rival. Second, by increasing "the already deep alienation between Arab
and American societies, such a war [would be] good for Israel." Third,
the U.S. war against Iraq might give the government of Ariel Sharon
cover to crack down even harder on the Palestinians, and perhaps even
implement mass expulsions of Palestinians from the Occupied
Territories. ("Yearning for World War IV: The Israeli-Iraq
connection," October 3, 2000, The Electronic Intifada.)
Key people in Bush administration are on record as strong supporters
of Israel and of regime change in Iraq, among them: Vice President
Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Doug
Feith, Under Secretary, Arms Control and International Security, John
R. Bolton, senior director on Middle Eastern affairs on the National
Security Council, Eliot Abrams,
These administration figures and others are promoters of Israel's
right wing Likud party in Israel and Israel's superhawkish prime
minister, Ariel Sharon. They advocate rolling back the territorial
concessions Israel made under the now defunct Oslo accords (1993).
Secretary Rumsfeld publicly referred to the "so called occupied
territories" in August 2002 and implied that since Israel won them
when it urged neighboring countries not to get involved in war, it has
no obligation to return those territories.
The events of 9/11 provided administration hawks with the "Pearl
Harbor" that allowed them to implement their long standing demand for
regime change in Iraq. These plans go back to the neoconservatives who
began promoting the removal of Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of the
first Gulf War. Many of the neoconservatives were liberals
who drifted to the right when the Democratic Party moved to anti-war
McGovernite left. And concern for Israel loomed large in their change.
As political scientist, Benjamin Ginsberg puts it: 'One major factor
that drew them inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel
and their growing frustration during the 1960s with a Democratic party
that was becoming increasingly opposed to American military
preparedness and increasingly enamored of Third World causes [e.g.,
Palestinian rights]. In the Reaganite right's hard-line
anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and
willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of
other nations ...neocons found a political movement that would
guarantee Israel's security. (Stephen J. Sniegoski, op.cit.; For a
similar analysis see Buchanan, op.cit.)
Thus support for Israel is at the root of the neoconservative movement
which has risen to the top policy making echelon of the U.S.
government. As far back as the end of the first Gulf War, Paul
Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney urged the adoption of a military plan to
invade Iraq but were blocked by Colin Powell (at that time, Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and General Norman Schwartzkopf. In
February 1998 Wolfowitz and a host of neocons signed an open letter to
President Clinton which proposed bringing down Saddam Hussein.
(Sniegoski, op cit.)
On the one hand it would seem to go against all logic that a tiny
country like Israel, albeit with the with the world's 7th, most
powerful army and armed with nuclear weapons and delivery systems,
could shape U.S. foreign policy. Nevertheless it shouldn't be so
surprising that this is the present case. We recall that the tiny
Cuban lobby exercises powerful influence over Cuban policy even though
they are at odds with the otherwise influential farm lobby. Similarly
when it comes to Middle East issues, the extraordinary power of the
Zionist lobby has been a fact of life for many years. On the other
hand, the U.S. would not venture on such a war if its leadership
didn't see clear political and strategic gains for itself.
The Israeli connection to the Iraq war was highlighted by the furor
over Virginia Congressman Jim Moran's response in early March to a
constituent question during a town hall meeting. He said: that "if it
were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war
with Iraq we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish
community are influential enough that they could change the direction
of where this is going and I think they should."
He would have been on safer ground had he limited his remarks to the
leaders of the Jewish community. Jews, like all other groups, are
split on the war. One poll taken shortly before the beginning of the
war indicated that 59% of Jews supported the war, matching the rest of
the country. But the congressman was correct and extraordinarily
courageous in pointing to the leadership of the major Jewish
organizations and suggesting that they could have blocked this war. As
a 13-year veteran member of the House, Jim Moran has been around long
enough to understand how political power on Middle East issues
operates in Congress. War against Iraq has so isolated the United
States and makes so little sense that were it not perceived as good
for Israel it would have had a more difficult time arousing sufficient
support. Much of the mainstream media which is also largely controlled
by pro-Zionist Jews played an important role in allowing this
extremist agenda to go forward without significant question or debate.
(See appendix listing Jewish leadership of much of the mainstream media,)
When Congressman Moran says that the leadership of the Jewish
community is influential enough to change the direction of where this
is going, he is stating a simple truth about the power of the Zionist
lobby which helps to explain the silence and timidity of the
Democrats. The power of Zionist interests explains in part why many
high profile Democrats such as Senators John Kerry, Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer and others voted to give
President Bush the authority for war in October 2002 despite the
manifest recklessness of the venture. They understand that opposition
to perceived Israeli interests might well have a dramatic impact on
campaign contributions since Jewish sources reportedly donate 50% or
more of the total receipts to the Democratic party. (See Mother Jones
Support by the leadership of the Jewish community for war against Iraq
represents a culmination of 50 years of U.S. support for Israel's
expansionist and oppressive rule. The passionate attachment to Israel,
the dual loyalty felt by many Americans -whereby Israel's interests
are put on the same or higher level than U.S. interests -- has come
back to haunt the United States through the agency of a President
willing to adopt the most extravagant dreams of right wing Israelis
and pro-Israeli hawks. The result is that the full might of the
world's only super power has been dragged into Israel's service
despite the costs, and the dangers and the folly of such a policy.
Attachment to Israel has come back to haunt America by enabling a
decisive shift in U..S. policy away from helping to preserve the peace
and security of the world and turning the U.S. into an aggressor
nation, just as Israel has been and continues to be.
A measure of the influence of right-wing pro Israeli hawks in this
administration is the way they have allowed Ariel Sharon free reign to
apply extraordinary and unending pressure on the Palestinians and to
destroy the possibility for Palestinian civil society. The Bush
administration signaled their intention to leave the Palestinians to
the tender mercies of the Israeli government as soon as they took
office when they announced that they would allow the contending
parties to settle their own differences. This ignored the disparity of
power between the two sides and predictably the situation has
deteriorated to its current awful level, ever spiraling downward with
widening ripples into a hopeless future.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was recognized that the Israeli
Palestinian conflict was at the heart of the Al-Qaeda attack and there
was a fair amount of attention to the subject even in the United
States. However, as time passed, the issue returned to its familiar
marginalization, banished from the major media. But it is already
clear that the war against Iraq will only exacerbate matters as Sharon
continues to put more and more pressure on the Palestinians. As a
result, the Muslim and Arab world are likely to be further inflamed,
even more now as a longer than expected war is bound to inflict
terrible suffering on many Iraqis. All the talk of a road map towards
a Palestinian state is widely regarded as mere public relations from a
Bush administration dead set against any concessions to the Palestinians.
Permanent War: A Separate U.S. Agenda
In addition to serving Israel, there is a separate and converging U.S.
interest in waging war against Iraq: namely the Bush administration's
pursuit of an agenda of permanent war. Their policy of pre-emption
represents a radical break with the past. The new National Security
Strategy issued in September 2002, with its breathtaking justification
of pre-emptive military action represents a revolutionary break with
fifty years of American policy and raises questions about the
government's commitment to U.S. security. It's true that the U.S. has
engaged in pre-emptive military action in the past, but pre-emption
has never before been invoked as an ongoing policy, nor has it ever
been used so audaciously in the face of such widespread opposition. As
many have noted, the war against Iraq seems destined to spur rather
than deter terrorism and perhaps provoke another 9/11-style attack on
the American homeland. For this and other reasons it suggests that the
security of the American people is not a priority for this government.
Their apparent lack of interest in national security might explain
President Bush's veto of $39 million for Port Container Security and
cuts of more than $1 billion out of existing grants for local
police/fire departments according to Democratic party sources. (See
How is it possible that the U.S. government could be disinterested,
even antagonistic to the security of its people? The answer is that
Americans already live in an Orwellian world where the leadership
understands that another 9/11-style attack might very well advance
their right wing domestic program and their international agenda of
permanent war. In the climate of fear and revenge that such another
attack would engender, the successor to the Patriot Act, already
leaked to the press, would head up a list of Bush administration
priorities that would almost certainly face little or no domestic
As noted above, the core of the neoconservative philosophy is the
commitment to American military strength and the desire to use force
as the chief option. Under President George W. Bush's leadership the
U.S. has worked to free itself from the restraints of multilateralism
and seeks war after war. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman put
it, the war against Iraq is merely "a pilot project," ("Things to
Come," 3.18.03). If circumstances allow, they will seek to wage war
against North Korea and Iran - the other wings of the axis of evil),
and afterwards to pursue regime change in some or all of Israel's
other enemies, including Syria, Lebanon, and Libya. During the second
week of the war, Secretary Rumsfeld complained publicly about Syrian
shipments of military equipment including night goggles to Iraq,
hinting that an attack on Syria might be a natural outgrowth the Iraq
war. The White House did not gainsay his remarks.
In the view of those currently running the U.S. government, the
unrivaled military power of the U.S. can operate to best advantage in
an atmosphere of anarchy and conflict. U.S. policy in the George W.
Bush era, is similar to the unprovoked aggression that the world
observed in the days of Hilter, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and
other leaders who stepped onto the world stage with unrivalled
military force. Characteristic of the Bush team's brutal cynicism is
their comparison of Saddam Hussein to Hitler when they are the ones
who most resemble Hitler in their power, their ruthless determination
for war at all costs and their threat to world peace and security.
The U.S. government is interested in war in part as a way of testing
and employing their high tech military weaponry, including nuclear
weapons. Since as far back as the Reagan administration they attempted
to move nuclear weapons away from the sphere of deterrence to actual
battlefield use. In the current administration, they have already
moved to break down the administrative barriers to the use of nuclear
weapons and to ease the way for their practical implementation. They
have announced that if circumstances warrant they intend to use
nuclear weapons even against countries that don't possess them. (See
"The Nuclear Option in Iraq: The U.S. has lowered the bar for using
the ultimate weapon," William M. Arkin, Los Angeles Times, 1.26.03
The implications of the Bush agenda for permanent war go beyond
rearranging the Middle East to Israel's liking. The logical conclusion
to their policy is eventually to make war against Russia and China
whom they regard as potential rivals. In effect, they want to make war
against the whole world. They want to fight World War V after they
have won WW3, the war against terrorism, and WW4 the war against
militant Islam. It remains to be seen how far the world will allow
them to pursue their goals. Noam Chomsky has suggested that their
desire to crush any perceived challenges to U.S. power "poses serious
dangers" and could even lead to "extinction of the species." ("Deep
Concerns, March 20, 2003, distributed over the internet by Znet.)
Extinction of the human species may actually be slightly ambitious
even for these superhawks, but Chomsky's concern is a serious one. The
threats of global warming, resource scarcity and the political
tensions they generate are indicators of extraordinary pressures on
our modern technological civilization and the Bush regime's
prescription for global war can only hasten a day of reckoning.
Clearly the neoconservative war plans are rife with contradictions and
ultimately suicidal, not to say reckless and irresponsible. But the
important thing to note is that any policy has winners and losers and
our task is to look at some of the consequences of a permanent war
agenda. First of all, it is a highly promising avenue to re-election
and permanent power. Just as the buildup to the Iraq war dominated the
2002 elections, so the Iraq war continues to obscure many other
pressing domestic and economic issues that might otherwise be
prominent. War divides the opposition and puts it on the defensive.
Moreover when the country is at war, it greases the wheels of the
right wing domestic agenda. A bloated military budget has already been
passed with much more for the military on the way. We have already
seen a curtailment of social spending, huge tax cuts for the wealthy,
derailment of environmental controls, and an attack on civil
liberties. If the war party manages to enact permanent war, it could
result in permanent rule, an end to democracy, an end to the republic.
War for oil or war for imperialism? Not really
While Iraq's immense oil reserves are very important and already one
of the contracts to rebuild the Iraqi oil infrastructure has gone to a
Halliburton subsidiary and undoubtedly more such contracts will flow
to American firms, nevertheless it's a misunderstanding to think that
this is a "war for oil." The numbers tell a good part of the story.
Although its oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's, Iraq
represents merely 3% of the world's pumping capacity. It would take
ten years and an estimated $40 billion to bring Iraqi output to 6
million barrels a day (double its pre 1991 pumping level). Over the
ten year post-war period, total revenue from Iraqi oil exports have
been estimated at $300 billion, short of the estimated $350 billion
that the war plus five years of peacekeeping is expected to cost the
United States. The costs of rebuilding Iraq over the next ten years
are estimated at $400 billion. In the current atmosphere it's more
than likely that the bulk of Iraq's oil revenue will go towards
rebuilding Iraq, rather than reimbursing the U.S. treasury for the
costs of the war. (Donald F. Hepburn, "Is It a War for Oil," Middle
East Policy, Vol X, No. 1 Spring 2003; see also "Iraq oil, the
reality," Dilip Hiro, Middle East International, 10 January 2003)
Similarly the argument that this is a war for oil misses the point
that such a war, however immoral would at least have a rational basis
in attempting to secure important resources. Yet, before embarking on
war, the U.S. was getting all the oil it wanted from Iraq and war has
only curtailed these supplies, and could conceivably threaten other
oil suppliers. The best way to secure Middle East oil would have been
to seriously grapple with the Israeli Palestinian conflict and avoid
war with Iraq at all costs. Paul Wolfowitz, chief architect of this
war has been quoted as saying: "If we're not true to our principles,
we're not serving our national interest." He believes that war on Iraq
will engender more democracy in the Middle East and "the tendency
toward successful representative self-government works for the benefit
of the United States." ("First Stop Iraq," Time Magazine, 3.31.03)
It's difficult to see how the reputedly brilliant Wolfowitz can
actually believe this rubbish since everybody knows that a democratic
Middle East would work against Israel's interests. Perhaps such talk
is the way policy makers convince themselves of the justice of their
cause. But in any event it should be clear that the Bush war policy is
not a rational solution to the problem of scarce and valuable
resources and has little to do with real world problem solving. Rather
it is an ideological and messianic vision of pursuing a permanent war
agenda by way of destroying Israel's enemies.
Similarly, the charge that this is a war to further U.S. imperialist
aims misses the point that the U.S. already dominates the world,
politically, militarily and economically. It is already a
The historical record shows that in the real world, hegemony never has
been a winning grand strategy. The reason is simple: The primary aim
of states in international politics is to survive and maintain their
sovereignty. And when one state becomes too powerful - becomes a
hegemon - the imbalance of power in its favor is a menace to the
security of all other states. So throughout modern international
political history, the rise of a would-be hegemon always has triggered
the formation of counter-hegemonic alliances by other states.
(Sniegoski, op cit.)
As an imperialist power there is little more that the United States
could wish for aside from redrawing the Middle East map in order to
eliminate Israel's enemies. But Israel has enemies because it
dominates and represses Arab peoples in order to consolidate a Jewish
state in the former Palestine. It's possible that the enormous
military power of U.S. can help to enforce the most grandiose Israeli
expansion plans, but this is an uncertain prospect for the long term.
By opting for unprovoked aggression against Israel's enemies, the U.S.
is embarking on a project beyond imperialism, and moving toward world
war and Armageddon.
World War IV Warning. This is not a drill.
The Winds of World War IV: Mobilization Underway.
Those concerned should pay serious attention to this listing of USA
Reserve and National Guard units mobilized for active duty as of March
26, 2003. This reserve mobilization is far larger than the 1990
Desert Storm call-up. More ominously, there is a complete
qualitative difference in the types of reserve units being called up.
This difference shows the current effort is merely a preliminary to a
far vaster general mobilization on the order of World War II. "The
Roster" shows four broad categories of reserve units that have already
been mobilized. The total 'package' is clearly designed as a balanced
First Wave of mobilization to prepare for still further mobilization.
And this is precisely how the USA began war mobilization in 1940.
Now it's being done again.
Category I. Round out reserve units for active regular units. This
grouping has some combat units and many more logistics support units.
These are explainable in the context of "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
Thus they are not exceptional if "Gulf War II" is considered in
isolation. It's much less understandable since the overwhelming
majority did not go there per Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle's specific
directions. Almost all are still in the USA with their parent regular
President Bush II had much more time for his Gulf build-up than
President Bush I did for his. The first one had from August 1990 to
January, 1991. That's 5 1/2 months. The second one had from October,
2002 until late March, 2003. That's around 6 months. And President
Bush II has better and more fast sealift ships available than his
daddy did. Acquiring such ships was one of the priority improvments
made after Desert Storm. Consequently CENTCOM's small force size is
the result of a fully conscious policy choice by the National Command
Authority. It does not arise from mere logistics limitations.
Category II. Mobilization and garrison support units. These are US
Army Reserve units whose function is to provide stateside base
support. The sheer numbers of Army Reserve Garrison Support,
Mobilization Support, Finance, Adjutant General and Replacement units
are inexplicable except on the assumption many more bases are going to
be filling with still more people. This means yet more mobilization
is anticipated to occur. Supporting a large wartime mobilization is
the only reason these units exist. The existing peacetime bases
already have their own large bureaucracies.
Category III. US Army Reserve Training Divisions. These are numbered
'divisions' such as the 85th USAR Division in Illinois/Indiana, the
87th USAR Division in Florida/Georgia and so on. They're sub-divided
into Brigades and Battalions. Despite their historic combat unit
numbers these 'divisions' are not combat units any more. These are
units of drill sergeants and skill trainers organized to serve as the
teaching cadre staffs of individual replacement training centers.
These units are only called up when 'They' are planning to do a lot
more training of more civilians. This means training more civilians
than the Department of Defense's existing peacetime training
establishment can handle. The mobilization of such units is a
critical milestone on the road to mobilizing a far larger combat army.
So has this happened? Let's check 'The Roster'. And deah dey iz,
Rastus. Divisions and divisions of reserve drill sergeants and
soldier trainers summoned to active duty.
In Category II we saw the support cadres for more base bureaucracies.
Here in Category III we see the trainers needed to teach new
trainees. So where are these ''trainees"? Can you say draft? This
too is already being talked up by the appropriate authorities, meaning
Congress. It should be clear already that nothing these training
units could do would influence "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as planned by
Donald Rumsfeld. This fact was already well known to those
responsible for mobilizing them.
Category IV. Leading edge Army National Guard combat battalions.
This means combat units not attached to existing regular units as
'roundouts'. Without spreadsheeting The Roster there seem to be about
100 reserve combat battalions mobilized so far. All the different
combat branches (infantry, armor, artillery, air defense) are
represented. So why mobilize so many reserve combat battalions when
so many Regular Army and Marine battalions are still in North America
and 'unemployed' in "Iraqi Freedom"? More precisely, why does the
Secretary of Defense mobilize them all and then get involved in a
public dumbshow posing as McNamara sending Westmoreland too few active
There are several answers to these questions. The first answer is to
conserve forces for a much larger expected campaign. The next answer
is to bring the reserve combat units up to full training efficiency,
and especially their leadership cadres. See the list again and do
some internet spot checking. Most of these battalions were only
summoned in December, 2002, or later. The plans for "Operation Iraqi
Freedom" were already fairly final by then. Many other National Guard
combat battalions remain to be called up. Back in 1940 National Guard
mobilization proceeded in several waves, too. It didn't happen all at
once. Ultimately many of these units will receive still more troops.
Another thing these units can do if required is to spawn still more
combat units. In this process they subdivide just like bacteria. One
battalion extrudes a cadre of experienced officers and sergeants who
are promoted on the job to the next higher level. Then these form one
or two more identical battalions. Newly trained privates for these
newly formed combat units stream in from individual replacement
training centers. These centers are operated and can only be
operated by the training units discussed in Categories II and III above.
This is how it was done in World War II, also. Some National Guard
divisions (all called up in 1940) were subdivided so many times to
form more units that the original unit (with 90% new personnel by
then) didn't reach combat until 1944 or 1945. The 38th Infantry
Division is a good example. It was mobilized in 1940 but didn't reach
a Pacific combat area until 1944. In the interim period it extruded
cadre levy after cadre levy for many of the 88 other US Army combat
divisions that were created.
The current reserve mobilization has summoned forth precisely the
required machinery to begin the above process again. Many of these
units have been "in reserve" for half a century without being called
up. They were preserved to retain an option that is now being
exercised. ZOG is putting very heavy stakes on the table. And it is
doing so in a way that can be understood by most of the world's
general staffs and military intelligence agencies.
The extreme statements made by Ariel Sharon, by George Bush and his
Jewish-Zionist advisors, by the current and now by a former director
of the CIA concerning long term vast Warre, "clash of civilizations"
and "World War IV" are well known. Now we see specific miitary
actions being taken to turn these Words into horrible Reality. They
are taking this seriously. Self-perceived targets are taking this
Are you taking it seriously?
World War IV Warning. This is not a drill.