Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Can Neoconservative Belligerent Dogmatism be Halted by the Empire’s Realists?

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786

    Can Neoconservative Belligerent Dogmatism be Halted by the Empire’s Realists?

    In mid-September 2006, CNN invited retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, previously a strategic scholar at various U.S. Army War Colleges, to discuss the probability of a U.S. military strike against Iran. Responding on how close, in his opinion, the Bush Administration was away from giving the go-ahead order regarding Iran, Gardiner unmistakably said: "It’s been given. In fact, we’ve probably been executing military operations inside Iran for at least 18 months. The evidence is overwhelming." He is now promptly interrupted by his interviewer’s anticipatory obedience, who recalls that the President had underlined that he wanted diplomacy to work in order to convince the Iranian government to stop enriching uranium. Quoting Bush, in an interview by David Ignatius of the Washington Post from the day before, with the words "I would tell the Iranian people that we have no desire for conflict," CNN’s familiar face Wolf Blitzer turns back to Gardiner and repeats his initial question. Almost desperately the colonel replies with great emphasis: "We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now. The evidence is overwhelming, from both the Iranians [and] Americans, and Congressional sources."

    This blunt affirmation came from someone who was closely affiliated with the issue of how to handle the Iran case. It was in 2004 that Gardiner conducted a war game organized by the Atlantic Monthly magazine to gauge how an American president might respond, militarily or otherwise, to Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, concluding that military strikes would at the end represent a quite inadequate instrument to confront the issue. However, the go-for-war crew at the White House further underscored their firmness of ‘all options being on the table.’ In that same CNN appearance, Gardiner laid out that despite serious concerns of military leaders about whether U.S. attacks on Iran would be effective, the Neoconservative officials remained fervent to their regime change goal: "The House Committee on Emerging Threats tried to have a hearing some weeks ago in which they asked the Department of State and Defense to come and answer this question [of military operations in Iran underway—the author] because it’s serious enough to be answered without congressional approval, and they didn’t come to the hearing." He stressed the gravity of the situation as the Pentagon war plans have gone to the White House, which is "not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House, that means we’ve gone to a different state."

    The United War Front Gathers

    It is that different state that we are in for a half a year now. With covert military operations inside Iran still underway, war preparations with huge military troops lurking in the Persian Gulf being completed, the outbreak of an all-out war only needs the President’s nodding through. In this light, the recent capture and due-time release by Iran of the British Royal Navy mission ‘gathering intelligence’ in and around its waters has finally avoided the escalation emanating from an act of provocation by Anglo-American troops in the region.

    A highly significant indicator as to the probability of this Neoconservative covetousness to be realized or not was this year’s annual Policy Conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Estimated to be the United States’ most influential political lobby and renowned for its harsh anti-Iran stance, AIPAC welcomed a number of highest ranking U.S. and Israeli officials to its ever-largest conference held, which was primarily devoted to the issue of the ‘Iranian nuclear threat.’ Vice President Cheney, welcomed by standing ovations, made a hawkish speech par excellence: "We [the American and Israeli people—the author] are the prime targets of the terror movement that is global in nature, and yes global in its ambitions. The leader of this movement speak openly and specifically of building a totalitarian empire covering the Middle East, extending into Europe and reaching across to the islands of Indonesia." Unmistakably displaying his commitment to take action against Iran, Cheney called for "moral clarity, the courage of our convictions, a willingness to act when action is necessary and a refusal to submit to any form of intimidation ever." His speech was concluded with the words: "we’re in a war that was begun on the enemy’s terms. We’re fighting that war on our own terms and we will prevail." His statements which were marked by a peculiar version of the historical reality the world is witnessing today in the Near and Middle East, were not all too surprising as he is known as the Administration’s key figure pushing for ‘regime change’ in Iran, but still remain highly perturbing.

    That is why it was, however, more interesting to hear the speech by the new Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi—a long-standing friend of AIPAC, as she was introduced by a former AIPAC president. Her first statement with a political dimension was dedicated to "recall[ing] the history of a Persian leader threatening the Jewish people and the heroine Esther who had the courage to speak out and save them. Today the Israeli people have that same courage to meet that same challenge." Pelosi went on saying: "Let us be very clear; Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. It threatens the security of Israel, the stability of the region and the safety of the world," underlining that "confronting that challenge […] when Israel has a choice to make it makes courageous choices for peace." At the apogée of fundamentalist rhetoric which was absorbed by an often electrified crowd, the evangelical pastor John Hagee proclaimed that "[t]he sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awoken!"

    Although an explicit claim for waging a war on Iran was not made, implicit hints for the necessity for doing so were not missing at all. But AIPAC’s momentary plan seems to be further escalating the nuclear stand-off with Iran. According to its ‘Iran memo,’ the pro-Israel lobby group called for much harsher sanctions to be pursued on economic and financial grounds with the hope of letting the Iranian regime to collapse. This flows into a new bill entitled the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, introduced by the ranking members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Democrat Tom Lantos and Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. In a single day thousands of AIPAC lobbyists descended to Capitol Hill where "they were greeted by nearly every U.S. senator and more than half the members of the House of Representatives – approximately 500 meetings were held between AIPAC representatives and members of Congress."

    But what do such avowals tell us about an imminent threat of a war on Iran? First of all, they show a pro bellum camp horrifyingly certain about their mission. They also signal that the spearhead of the Democratic opposition backs the Administration’s fervent commitment to confront Iran with all means necessary. There are however some obstacle to be overcome.

    The Empire’s Realists’ Fight Against the White House’s "Gut Instincts"

    While the current U.S. president received the largest applause among all his predecessors during an AIPAC slide show, at the same time the same president was graded with an ‘F’ for its foreign policy performance one of the country’s leading pundits on foreign policy. In his new book Second Chance – Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, the Realist guru Zbigniew Brzezinski designates presidency of Bush jr. as having "strong gut instincts but no knowledge of global complexities and a temperament prone to dogmatic formulations." Brzezinski bluntly expressed of what is at stake for the American Empire:

    "We are facing a very serious crisis regarding the future. Our next twenty months are going to be absolutely decisive. If we surmount the next twenty months without the war in Iraq getting worse and expanding to a war with Iran, I think there is a good chance we’ll recoup. […] But if we do get into that larger conflict, then I’m afraid the era of American global preeminence will prove to be historically very, very short."

    With Bush’s presidency being in a deep crisis, the decision to expand the ‘war on terror’ onto Iran can be momentous for the fate of both his administration and his party—but first of all decisive for the future of American global preponderance. It seems that the fragmented camp of war opponents in Congress can hardly prevent the President to unilaterally set the stage for a disastrous war. It is up to influential strategic thinkers affiliated to Realist beliefs to convince Bush not to follow the path predetermined by Cheney. Recently also Henry Kissinger pointed to the very opposite direction of what the Bush Administration is heading to. He proposed an extensive deal with Iran through clever diplomacy. One thing is clear: the outcome of this decisive struggle between the Realist and Neoconservative camps will determine whether we will face a terrible war theater in the Middle East with tremendous global repercussions.

    The situation remains strained as those pushing for war are in the corridors of power—in the American, but also Israeli capital. With Tehran announcing its non-compliance vis-à-vis the recent UN Security Council Resolution 1747’s indeed misleading demands, Iranian affinity for negotiations remains. But Tehran’s sole precondition for talks must be met if a peaceful settlement should be achieved: And that is, that the preconditions set by its primarily Western counterparts should be put aside.

    In the United States, the pro bellum camp is sensing that through their president’s miserable performance the rug—which is believed to serve them to fully implement the Neoconservative agenda for the Middle East—could be pulled out from under its feet by the final yards. As the godfather of U.S. Neoconservatism Bill Kristol demands in the current issue of their influential organ The Weekly Standard, Bush and other Republicans ought to fight back in order to ensure the Administration’s survival. As the British Guardian just reported, during the recently evoked Anglo-Iranian ‘hostage crisis’ Washington had offered aggressive air patrols in Iranian airspace. But such action, which could have easily triggered a war, was rejected by London. But what else, if not a new war, for saving the Bush/Cheney crew?


    Ali Fathollah-Nejad is the author of a study on the Iran crisis entitled Iran in the Eye of Storm – Why a Global War Has Begun (pdf). ali_fna@yahoo.de

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=5308

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786
    In his new book Second Chance – Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, the Realist guru Zbigniew Brzezinski designates presidency of Bush jr. as having "strong gut instincts but no knowledge of global complexities and a temperament prone to dogmatic formulations." Brzezinski bluntly expressed of what is at stake for the American Empire:

    "We are facing a very serious crisis regarding the future. Our next twenty months are going to be absolutely decisive. If we surmount the next twenty months without the war in Iraq getting worse and expanding to a war with Iran, I think there is a good chance we’ll recoup. […] But if we do get into that larger conflict, then I’m afraid the era of American global preeminence will prove to be historically very, very short."

    With Bush’s presidency being in a deep crisis, the decision to expand the ‘war on terror’ onto Iran can be momentous for the fate of both his administration and his party—but first of all decisive for the future of American global preponderance. It seems that the fragmented camp of war opponents in Congress can hardly prevent the President to unilaterally set the stage for a disastrous war. It is up to influential strategic thinkers affiliated to Realist beliefs to convince Bush not to follow the path predetermined by Cheney. Recently also Henry Kissinger pointed to the very opposite direction of what the Bush Administration is heading to. He proposed an extensive deal with Iran through clever diplomacy. One thing is clear: the outcome of this decisive struggle between the Realist and Neoconservative camps will determine whether we will face a terrible war theater in the Middle East with tremendous global repercussions.
    Zbigniew Brzezinski has been on TV quite frequently the past few months. Not only to sell his book. He is on point regarding this administration.

    Cheney's predetermined path that even Henry Kissinger says not to follow should be adhered to. With Iran recently announcing that they can produce Weapons Grade Nuclear material, an attack can cause some serious global warming.

    This administration was almost out of control. The past election slowed the train down. I don't know if it was enough to stop it yet. It is good to see that someone in the press realizes that Cheney is the impetus for this madness.

    Again another article from outside the USA delivering what our media seems to be incapable of

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg
    Again another article from outside the USA
    Bumping your own thread Dog?

    America First, right Dog? Is that way all these articles by Non-Americans (with their own interests, goals and priorities....few of which are the same as Americas) get posted by you?? America First indeed.......

    Wrap yourself in the flag all you want Dog, the truth is that you, like Bitonti and Kenny, are an Anti-Nationalist, who prefers your own personal version of "Ultimate Justice and Absolute Fairness" over the actual well being and betterment of the Nation you reside in, and provides you the freedoms you posess. But I know, you say you served, so only your opinion counts, and we can never understand, and Marine is blah, blah, blah.....heard it all before.

    Looking forward to your next article posting. Maybe one from al-Sadr telling us about the forthcoming demise of the "American Imperialist Capitalist-Pig Empire", next time eh?

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish
    Wrap yourself in the flag all you want Dog, the truth is that you, like Bitonti and Kenny, are an Anti-Nationalist...

    Does that make him a globalist then?

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan
    Does that make him a globalist then?
    One World Government Utopian might be more accurate.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish
    One World Government Utopian might be more accurate.

    Urghhh. That's pretty bad. I'd rather have Bush installed as El Presdiente for life than go down that road.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786
    I find it funny how I always get attacked even when I don't post on the thread.

    How about managing the content for a change? I am "Pro American". I just don't see things the way you do. That is the beauty of America, you can speak your mind. Something that you and others like you clearly want to suppress.

    What are you guys so afraid of?

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg
    I find it funny how I always get attacked even when I don't post on the thread.
    Um, you started the thread.

  9. #9
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg
    I find it funny how I always get attacked even when I don't post on the thread.
    So you didn't post in the thread you created? As in you posted an article but refrained from posting an opinion of that article....as you do far too often, specificly so you choose to spin your agreement if criticized for it.

    If you don't want to be criticised for posting an Anti-American article, then I suggest next time you decide to post one you make YOUR OWN opinion on it clear at the outset. Can't be any confusion then, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg
    I am "Pro American". I just don't see things the way you do. That is the beauty of America, you can speak your mind.
    But....you just said you DIDN'T speak YOUR mind here. Read what you posted first, I quoted it right above....you claim to be attacked for not "posting in the thread" you yourself started.

    But now you're saying you ARE speaking you mind here?

    Maybe you need to MAKE UP YOUR MIND about WHAT you mean first, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg
    Something that you and others like you clearly want to suppress.
    Interesting.....the writer is clearly not an American. So it's NOT the "beauty of America" that HE gets to have this opinion at all. And I, for one, have no interest in "supressing" non-American media.......

    But unlike you, I don't lick it up and take it for ultimate truth like an obediant little One-World Anti-Nationalist lap-Dawgg either.

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    does anyone else find it disturbing that Cheney is in bed with AIPAC?

    at what point do the American leaders start serving the American public?

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish
    So you didn't post in the thread you created? As in you posted an article but refrained from posting an opinion of that article....as you do far too often, specificly so you choose to spin your agreement if criticized for it.

    If you don't want to be criticised for posting an Anti-American article, then I suggest next time you decide to post one you make YOUR OWN opinion on it clear at the outset. Can't be any confusion then, right?
    I agree that it is safe to assume that if someone posts an article without any comments that they implicitly agree with the opinions expressed in said article.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786
    Quote Originally Posted by HDCentStOhio
    Um, you started the thread.
    The extreme rw. Always taking everything so literal. I was talking about another thread. The next time, I will point it out specifically for you

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish
    So you didn't post in the thread you created? As in you posted an article but refrained from posting an opinion of that article....as you do far too often, specificly so you choose to spin your agreement if criticized for it.

    If you don't want to be criticised for posting an Anti-American article, then I suggest next time you decide to post one you make YOUR OWN opinion on it clear at the outset. Can't be any confusion then, right?



    But....you just said you DIDN'T speak YOUR mind here. Read what you posted first, I quoted it right above....you claim to be attacked for not "posting in the thread" you yourself started.

    But now you're saying you ARE speaking you mind here?

    Maybe you need to MAKE UP YOUR MIND about WHAT you mean first, eh?



    Interesting.....the writer is clearly not an American. So it's NOT the "beauty of America" that HE gets to have this opinion at all. And I, for one, have no interest in "supressing" non-American media.......

    But unlike you, I don't lick it up and take it for ultimate truth like an obediant little One-World Anti-Nationalist lap-Dawgg either.
    I never said it was the 'ultimate truth'. It is a scathing indictment of the 'rw' media here in the USA. Why is it that he can call out Cheney and the USA media does not?

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti
    does anyone else find it disturbing that Cheney is in bed with AIPAC?

    at what point do the American leaders start serving the American public?

    Bit, these guys are all in bed with AIPAC. I know that they all serve PAC's but how about serving America as you stated, first?

    I can go for that.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,165
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti
    does anyone else find it disturbing that Cheney is in bed with AIPAC?

    at what point do the American leaders start serving the American public?

    In 1992, AIPAC president David Steiner had to resign when he was tape recorded boasting about his political influence in obtaining aid for Israel. Steiner claimed that he had "met with [Bush's U.S. Secretary of State] Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear ... Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about." Steiner also claimed to be "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton administration over who Clinton would appoint as Secretary of State and Secretary of the National Security Agency. Steiner stated that AIPAC had "a dozen people in [the Clinton] campaign, in the headquarters ... in Little Rock, and they're all going to get big jobs."[4]

    Haim Katz told the Washington Times that he taped the conversation because
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...airs_Committee

    It isn't just Mr. Cheney...all shoes come in a left and a right, and they both fit.

  16. #16
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg
    The extreme rw. Always taking everything so literal. I was talking about another thread. The next time, I will point it out specifically for you
    There's a lot of implications in this comment......... does it mean that non rwers or lwers accepted the Clinton's because they weren't lying, just not being literal? And we definitely should not have taken things literally when Al Queda decalred war on usin the 90s. And Mr. Bush did expect Saddam to literally abide by the surrender and allow the UN inspectors open access.

    If things need not be taken literally, why not punch through the Bill of Rights? It seems they get taken pretty seriously.

    Since when is it wrong to expect someone to really mean what they say or suggest?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us