|
2
14th March 03:39
External User
|
Pentagon frameup investigation is conclusive -- 9-11 was a frameup Here is all the proof a grand jury will need.
..
The truth about how the Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-Feith have cut the wires of
interaction with non-politically appointed research and ****ysis
staff.
=======
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/6424570.htm
Career officer does eye-opening stint inside Pentagon
By Karen Kwiatkowski, a recently retired Air Force Lieutenant colonel.
After eight years of Bill Clinton, many military officers breathed a
sigh of relief when George W. Bush was named president. I was in that
plurality. At one time, I would have believed the administration's
accusations of anti-Americanism against anyone who questioned the
integrity and good faith of President Bush, Vice President Cheney or
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
However, while working from May 2002 through February 2003 in the
office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Near East South
Asia and Special Plans (USDP/NESA and SP) in the Pentagon, I observed
the environment in which decisions about post-war Iraq were made.
Those observations changed everything.
What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and
discipline. If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of
``intelligence'' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the
post-Hussein occupation has been distinguished by confusion and false
steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of
the Secretary of Defense. I can identify three prevailing themes.
• Functional isolation of the professional corps. Civil service and
active-duty military professionals assigned to the USDP/NESA and SP
were noticeably uninvolved in key areas of interest to Undersecretary
for Policy Douglas Feith, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and
Rumsfeld. These included Israel, Iraq and to a lesser extent, Saudi
Arabia.
When the New York Times broke the story last summer of Richard Perle's
invitation of Laurent Muraviec to brief the Defense Policy Board on
Saudi Arabia as the next enemy of the United States, this briefing was
news to the Saudi desk officer. He even had some difficulty getting a
copy of it, while receiving assignments related to it.
In terms of Israel and Iraq, all primary staff work was conducted by
political appointees, in the case of Israel a desk officer appointee
from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and in the case of
Iraq, Abe Shulsky and several other appointees. These personnel may be
exceptionally qualified; Shulsky authored a 1993 textbook Silent
Warfare: Understanding the World of Intelligence.
But the human resource depth made possible through broad-based
teamwork with the professional policy and intelligence corps was never
established, and apparently, never wanted by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld
organization.
for Security Policy and the American Enterprise Institute and their
new positions in the Bush administration. Certainly, appointees
sharing particular viewpoints are expected to congregate, and an
overwhelming number of these appointees having such organizational
ties is neither conspiratorial nor unusual. What is unusual is the way
this network operates solely with its membership across the various
agencies -- in particular the State Department, the National Security
Council and the Office of the Vice President.
Within the Central Intelligence Agency, it was less clear to me who
the appointees were, if any. This might explain the level of interest
in the CIA taken by the Office of the Vice President. In any case, I
personally witnessed several cases of staff officers being told not to
contact their counterparts at State or the National Security Council
because that particular decision would be processed through a
different channel. This cliquishness is cause for amu*****t in such
movies as Never Been Kissed or The Hot Chick. In the development and
implementation of war planning it is neither amusing nor beneficial
for American security because opposing points of view and information
that doesn't ``fit'' aren't considered.
• Groupthink. Defined as ``reasoning or decision-making by a group,
often characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to
prevailing points of view,'' groupthink was, and probably remains, the
predominant characteristic of Pentagon Middle East policy development.
The result of groupthink is the elevation of opinion into a kind of
accepted ``fact,'' and uncritical acceptance of extremely narrow and
isolated points of view.
The result of groupthink has been extensively studied in the history
of American foreign policy, and it will have a prominent role when the
history of the Bush administration is written. Groupthink, in this
most recent case leading to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, will
be found, I believe, to have caused a subversion of constitutional
limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large
segment of the Congress.
I am now retired. Shortly before my retirement I was allowed to return
to my primary office of assignment, having served in NESA as a desk
officer backfill for 10 months. The transfer was something I had
sought, but my wish was granted only after I made a particular comment
to my superior, in response to my reading of a February Secretary of
State cable answering a long list of questions from a Middle Eastern
country regarding U.S. planning for the aftermath in Iraq. The answers
had been heavily crafted by the Pentagon, and to me, they were
remarkably inadequate, given the late stage of the game. I suggested
to my boss that if this was as good as it got, some folks on the
Pentagon's E-ring may be sitting beside Hussein in the war crimes
tribunals.
Hussein is not yet sitting before a war crimes tribunal. Nor have the
key decision-makers in the Pentagon been forced to account for the odd
set of cir***stances that placed us as a long-term occupying force in
the world's nastiest rat's nest, without a nation-building plan,
without significant international support and without an exit plan.
Neither may ever be required to answer their accusers, thanks to this
administration's military as well as publicity machine, and the
disgraceful political compromises already made by most of the
Congress. Ironically, only Saddam Hussein, buried under tons of rubble
or in hiding, has a good excuse.
=====================================
NeoConservatism - Where
Trotsky Meets Stalin & Hitler
By Srdja Trifkovic
Chronicles Magazine
8-3-3
The neoconservatives are often depicted as former Trotskyites who have
morphed into a new, closely related life form. It is pointed out that
many early neocons -- including The Public Interest founder Irving
Kristol and coeditor Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, and Albert
Wohlstetter -- belonged to the anti-Stalinist far left in the late
1930s and early 1940s, and that their successors, including Joshua
Muravchik, and Carl Gershman, came to neoconservatism through the
Socialist Party at a time when it was Trotskyite in outlook and
politics. As early as 1963 Richard Hofstadter commented on the
progression of many ex-Communists from the paranoid left to the
paranoid right, clinging all the while to the fundamentally Manichean
psychology that underlies both. Four decades later the dominant strain
of neoconservatism is declared to be a mixture of geopolitical
militarism and "inverted socialist internationalism."
Blanket depictions of neoconservatives as redesigned Trotskyites need
to be corrected in favor of a more nuanced ****ysis. In several
important respects the neoconservative world outlook has diverged from
the Trotskyite one and acquired some striking similarities with
Stalinism and German National Socialism. Today's neoconservatives
share with Stalin and Hitler an ideology of nationalist socialism and
internationalist imperialism. The similarities deserve closer scrutiny
and may contribute to a better understanding of the most influential
group in the U.S. foreign policy-making community.
Certain important differences remain, notably the neoconservatives'
hostility not only to Nazi race-theory but even to the most benign
understanding of national or ethnic coherence. On the surface, there
are also glaring differences in economics. However, the
neoconservative glorification of the free market is more rhetoric,
designed to placate the businessmen who fund them, than reality. In
fact, the neoconservatives favor not free enterprise but a kind of
state capitalism -- within the context of the global apparatus of the
World Bank and the IMF -- that Hitler would have appreciated.
Some form of gradual but irreversible and desirable withering away of
the state is a key tenet of the Trotskyite theoretical outlook. The
neoconservatives, by contrast, are statists par excellence. Their core
belief -- that society can be managed by the state in both its
political and economic life -- is equally at odds with the traditional
conservative outlook and with the non-Stalinist Left. In this
important respect the neoconservatives are much closer to Stalinism
and National Socialism.
They do not want to abolish the state; they want to control it --
especially if the state they control is capable of controlling all
others. They are not "patriotic" in any conventional sense of the term
and do not identify themselves with the real and historic America but
see the United States merely as the host organism for the exercise of
their Will to Power. Whereas the American political tradition has been
fixated on the dangers of centralized state power, on the desirability
of limited government and non-intervention in foreign affairs, the
neoconservatives exalt and worship state power, and want America to
become a hyper-state in order to be an effective global hegemon. Even
when they support local government it is on the grounds that it is
more efficient and responsive to the demands of the Empire, not on
Constitutional grounds.
The neoconservative view of America as a hybrid, "imagined" nation had
an ardent supporter eight decades ago: in Mein Kampf Adolf Hitler
argued for a new, tightly centralized Germany by invoking the example
of the United States and the triumph of the Union over states' rights.
He concluded that "National Socialism, as a matter of principle, must
lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German
nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries."
Hitler was going to make a new Germany the way he imagined it, or else
destroy it. In the same vein the Weekly Standard writers are
"patriots" only insofar as the America they imagine is a pliable tool
of their global design. Their relentless pursuit of an American Empire
overseas is coupled by their deliberate domestic transformation of the
United States' federal government into a Leviathan unbound by
constitutional restraints. The lines they inserted into President
Bush's State of the Union address last January aptly summarized their
Messianic obsessions: the call of history has come to the right
country, we exercise power without conquest, and sacrifice for the
liberty of strangers, we know that freedom is the right of every
person and the future of every nation: "The liberty we prize is not
America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity."
Such megalomania is light years away from a patriotic appreciation of
one's nation. A psychotic quest for power and dominance is the driving
force, and the "nationalist" discourse its justification. The reality
is visible in ultimate distress: Towards the end of the Second World
War Josef Goebbels welcomed the Allied bombing for its destruction of
the old bourgeois cuckoo-clock and marzipan Germany of the feudal
principalities. Driven by the same impulse, Bill Kristol's "national
greatness" psychosis seeks to sweep away the old localized,
decentralized America of bingo parlors and little league games.
Most heirs of the Trotskyite Left are internationalists and one-world
globalists, whereas all neoconservatives are unabashed imperialists.
The former advocate "multilateralism," in the form of an emerging
"international community" controlled by the United Nations or through
a gradual transfer of sovereign prerogatives to regional groupings
exemplified by the European Union. By contrast the neoconservative
urge for uninhibited physical control of other lands and peoples bears
resemblance to the New European Order of six decades ago, or to the
"Socialist Community" that succeeded it in Eastern Europe. Even when
they demand wars to export democracy, the term "democracy" is used as
an ideological concept. It does not signify broad participation of
informed citizens in the business of governance, but it denotes the
desirable social and political content of ostensibly popular
decisions. The process likely to produce undesirable outcomes --an
Islamic government in Iraq, say -- is a priori "undemocratic." Whereas
the Trotskyite Left is predominantly anti-militarist, the
neoconservatives are enthusiastically militarist in a manner
reminiscent of German and Soviet totalitarianism. Their strategic
doctrine, promulgated into official policy last September, calls for
an indefinite and massive military build-up unconnected to any
identifiable military threat to the United States. Their scribes
demand 'citizen involvement,' in effect, militarization of the
populace, but the traditional 'citizen soldier' concept is reversed.
Their goal is to get suitably indoctrinated young Americans to go and
risk their lives not for the honor and security of their own country,
but for the missions that have to be misrepresented to the public
(e.g. the non-existant Iraqi WMDs) in order to be made politically
acceptable. As Gary North has pointed out, neoconservative foreign
policy is guns before butter: "Butter always follows guns, but this is
regarded as the inescapable price of American regional presence
abroad." The neoconservatives' deep-seated distaste for the
traditional societies, regimes, and religion of the European
continent, particularly Russia and East European Slavs, is positively
Hitlerian.
The sentiment was most glaringly manifested in the 1999 NATO war
against the Serbs: William Kristol's urge to vicariously "crush Serb
skulls" went way beyond the 1914 Viennese slogan "Serbien muss
sterbien." In terms of strategic significance for the United States,
however, the neocons' visceral Russophobia is mush more significant.
In the aftermath of the Cold War the neoconservatives have continued
to regard Moscow as the enemy, enthusiastically supporting Chechen
separatists as "freedom fighters" and advocating NATO expansion. Their
atavism is comparable to Hitler's obsession with Russia, an animosity
that was equally unrelated to the nature of its regime. It is only a
matter of time before some neocons start advocating a new Drang nach
Osten, in the form of an American-led scramble for Siberia.
The neoconservative mindset is apocalyptic (which is a Nazi and
Stalinist trait), rather than utopian (which characterizes the
Trotskyite Left). The replacement of the Soviet threat with the more
amorphous "terrorism" reflects the doomsday revolutionary mentality
that can never rest. New missions and new wars will have to be
engineered, and pretexts manufactured, with the same subtlety that
characterized the "attack" on the German radio station at Gleiwitz on
August 31, 1939. Even the tools for the enforcement of domestic
acquiescence are not dissimilar: the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as
smoothly as the suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the
Reichstag fire. Echoing the revolutionary dynamism and the historicist
Messianism equally common to fascists and communists, Michael Ledeen
wrote that "creative destruction" is America's eternal mission, both
at home and abroad, and the reason America's "enemies" hate it: "They
cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence --
our existence, not our politics -- threatens their legitimacy. They
must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to
advance our historic mission." The neoconservatives' mendacity
apparent in the misrepresentation of the Iraqi crisis to the American
people recalls the Goebbelsian "hypodermic needle approach" to
communication, in which the communicator's objective was to "inject"
his ideas into the minds of the target population. "Why, of course,
the people don't want war," Goering said when it was all over, in his
prison cell in Nuremberg in 1946:
"Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war
when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in
one piece? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
communist dictatorship ... That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
It does indeed. Goering's observation is echoed in our time by the
Straussian dictum that perpetual deception of the citizens by those in
power is necessary because they need to be led, and they need to be
told what is good for them. On this, at least, Trotsky, Stalin, and
Hitler would all agree. (As Hitler had said, "The receptive powers of
the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble.")
In the Straussian-neoconservative mindset, those who are fit to rule
are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one
natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.
That mindset is America's enemy. It is the greatest threat to the
constitutional order, identity, and way of life of the United States,
in existence today. Its adherents have only modified the paradigm of
dialectical materialism in order to continue pursuing the same
eschatological dream, the End of History devoid of God. They are in
pursuit of Power for its own sake -- thus sinning against God and man
-- and the end of that insane quest will be the same as the end of the
Soviet empire and of the Thousand-Year Reich.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsST072303.html
|