Chapter 1 : Failure of War Party Foreign Policy Ad Policy  The preceding year Cold War witnessed many instances of high-level attempts to sabotage dã tente policies of US and Soviet leaders. April 15, Surely there has never been a presidential peroration as filled with contradictions â not to mention regrettable rhetoric â as President Donald J. Particularly striking was this bit of doubletalk: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children? No nation can succeed in the long run by promoting rogue states, brutal tyrants and murderous dictators. Does Trump really want to be judged by the friends he keeps? As recently as the Iran-Iraq war, our then-ally Saddam Hussein used poison gas, killing thousands, while the United States looked on approvingly. Agent Orange was used by US forces in the Vietnam war, to horrific effect. Furthermore, the invocation of the Great War brings to mind the shameless British propaganda that lured us into a conflict that we should never have entered: Perfidious Albion strikes again! Yet the thrill will be brief. He was joined by Laura Ingraham, the next day, as missiles flew: Trumpist radio host Michael Savage denounced the attack: Savage is quite correct: The key states Trump won and that gave him the margin of victory were won due to his anti-interventionist campaign rhetoric. Now they see that this was a fraud and they are bound to desert him in droves as their daughters and sons are sent to Syria to fight for â what? Good media reviews from the New York Times for a childishly insecure President? They reject neoconservatism and the old leadership of the GOP, which is interventionist to its rotten core, which is why they put Trump in the White House. Now they must learn from his betrayal â and our job, here at Antiwar. As I put it in this space months ago: And we are covering that in these pages, without regard for partisan considerations: In short, it is necessary to take the long view and try to see what the ideological victory that was won this past November augurs for the future. All the elements that make for the restoration of our old republic are in place, including a growing mass movement in this country that rejects the old internationalist dogma. The Beltway quasi-libertarians never cared about building a grassroots movement: We had to meet in secret since I was â and still am â considered persona non grata by those preening worthies. How, he asked me, can we build a movement to oppose the coming war? And very often being a renegade invites certain rewards, and that is certainly the case with the Niskanenites. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud. You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard Prometheus Books,, my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here. Read more by Justin Raimondo. Page 1
Chapter 2 : GOP Foreign Policy Experts Warn A Trump Presidency Would Endanger America HuffPost Kristol and his followers did walk out of the GOP to support warhawk John McCain, who, from Day One of the Kosovo war, called for putting in American ground troops, and whose blustering bullying style perfectly reflects the neocon foreign policy. For years, Kristol and his gang have been clamoring for war not only with Iraq, but with the entire. One widely-noted example of neocon dominance: My own book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement also tells the story of how the limited government and pro-peace conservatism of Senator Robert A. Taft was subverted by a coterie of ex-stalinists and ex-trotskyists and made consonant with a right-wing form of social democracy. This is old news: But Seeman is blissfully oblivious to all this, or pretends to be, and blithely derides the very idea of a neocon agenda as "one of those gems you might find littered in fascinating periodicals with names like the Journal of Canadian Studies. The paleocons, for their part, abhor war, albeit not on pacifist but on decentralist and libertarian grounds. Kristol called for "cracking Serb skulls" long before the Great Pantsdropper decided, three years ago today [March 24], to drop bombs on Belgrade. For years, Kristol and his gang have been clamoring for war not only with Iraq, but with the entire Arab Middle East. Kristol and a coterie of his fellow neocons recently signed an open letter to the President calling for the military occupation of not only Iraq, but also Syria, Iran, and much of the rest of the Middle East. That would leave the US with a lone ally in the region: To show you how much presidential elections, or any sort of elections, mean in this country: Curiously, though, the anti-war, anti-neocon cant continues. Not so long ago, neoconservatives were a few estranged liberals, mugged by reality. The neocons may be all over the map on domestic policy, exhibiting none of the gut-level distrust of government power that defines the traditional American Right, but on the vital question of foreign policy they have been the most consistently belligerent faction in American politics. Burnham went on to set the tone at National Review, and Shachtman had an influence on the slower-moving ex-lefists who became Reaganites in the s and 80s. During the Vietnam era, the leading lights of the neocon movement left the Democratic party when the antiwar McGovernites took over. During the cold war, as Sobran correctly notes, the neocons were the most militant faction, and they came into policy positions during the Reagan administration, boring their way into the National Endowment for Democracy, and under the aegis of such ex-democrats as Jeanne Kirkpatrick. This marriage of Right and ex-left was consummated, symbolically, when President Ronald Reagan awarded the Medal of Freedom to Sidney Hook, a lifelong socialist and fervent anti-communist. With the end of the cold war, however, the neocons were temporarily in a funk. And what could take the place of the Kremlin in their pantheon of evil? But no one was quite up to snuff: Slobodan Milosevic was supposed to be "another Hitler," but instead turned out to be a smalltime hoodlum. Saddam Hussein was only a threat to Israel and Kuwait, in spite of the propaganda campaign that tried to paint his regime as the second coming of the Third Reich. From the beginning, they looked beyond Afghanistan and took a position that was, as they say, more royalist than the King. As the President and his secretary of state looked to build a broad anti-terrorist coalition, including key Arab countries, the neocons accused him of selling out Israel. And here we come to yet another key element of the neocon agenda, and that is unconditional support for Israeli aggression and expansionism. As far as they are concerned, any talk of compromise or conciliation in the Middle East is "appeasement. He is also wise to the fact that a war on Iraq can only benefit Israel, and that the neocons are more than ready to sell American interests down the river if that is what Israel requires. It scares him that a cabal of ideologues who revel in the idea of waging World War IV has worked its way into the White House, and is being given the run of the place. As well it should. This working alliance is a revamped version of the same right-wing Popular Front that took over the conservative movement in the late s, the union of big business and neoconservative intellectuals that blossomed into lushly funded thinktanks, magazines, and front organizations which proliferated like worms after a rain. The neocons crawled up through the ranks during the Reagan era, and began to aggressively assert their dominance on the Right. Invade and conquer the Page 2
Middle East? Is the United Kingdom a police state? When you go over there and hang out in a pub, are you worried that some pockmarked dude with a black leather trench coat might be eavesdropping? Or else how do we explain this London Times story " Distasteful Views Policed " about a squad of undercover British cops deployed in pubs, and assigned to eavesdrop on conversations?: Police in Gloucester have begun a crackdown on racial abuse in ethnic restaurants by going undercover to make sure that diners keep unpalatable opinions to themselves. The first two days resulted in a year-old man being arrested for racially aggravated harassment in an Indian restaurant. He is to appear before magistrates in Gloucester tomorrow. Another man was overheard by the plain-clothes officers as he mimicked an Indian waiter, but police decided that his behaviour was not bad enough to warrant prosecution. Chief Inspector Dean Walker said: The constabulary is now taking a proactive stance in relation to racist offences rather than waiting for people to report them to us. But, then, Goldstein, unlike Goldberg, is an authentic conservative of a libertarian bent, and actually knows something about the British condition. Here is someone who rose to prominence on the strength of his connection with his mother, Lucianne Goldberg, whose 15 minutes of fame occurred when she had the Clinton-Monica tapes in her hot little hands. In a post-cold war Right without any real ideology except a defunct anti-communism, Jonah naturally slithered into place as a key figure at National Review, the fountainhead of conservative orthodoxy. Please post news articles, columns and comment from legitimate on-line newspapers, magazines or news sites only. Just the other day, however, they did it again: Once again, that self-consciously overweening proclamation was posted for all to read: Are you sure about that? No wonder Jonah dismisses the metaphor with such airy disdain, and valorizes the authoritarian Ashcroft: Nor is it recognizable as conservative in any meaningful sense of the term: If "war is the health of the state," as Randolph Bourne put it, then the neocons would agree, except they would add: On the foreign policy front, the neocon policy is not only perpetual war, but, specifically, war on behalf of Israel. The one leftover from their left-wing days has been the affinity for serving the interests of a foreign power: Oldtime conservatives put America first: KVETCHING The whining that the neocons are being picked on by the "liberal media" and the "Left" is a joke coming from those busy compiling lists of "unpatriotic" college professors and others whose loyalty to America is being questioned on account of their opposition to the policy of perpetual war. The analogy of the "Soviet mole" is exactly on target, including the implication that a mole naturally pursues the interests of a foreign power. What is clear, above all, about the new push for war with Iraq, and now even Iran, is that any such war will benefit Israel and only Israel. Murphy Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA Page 3
Chapter 3 : Trump: Prisoner of the War Party The American Conservative The continuous foreign policy failures of the entrenched establishment goes back well over a century. Notwithstanding, the missed opportunity with the collapse of the Soviet Communism has emboldened the war party of the American Empire to become the main existential threat not only to our own. Osama bin Laden traveled to Afghanistan and helped organize Arab mujahideen to resist the Soviets. Muslim legal scholars "have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries", according to bin Laden. Osama bin Laden, Death of Osama bin Laden, and Videos of Osama bin Laden Osama bin Laden at about 40 years of age, Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks and initially denied involvement but later recanted his false statements. In the video, bin Laden is seen talking to Khaled al-harbi and admits foreknowledge of the attacks. In the video, he said: It has become clear that the West in general and America in particular have an unspeakable hatred for Islam. It is the hatred of crusaders. Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people. We say that the end of the United States is imminent, whether Bin Laden or his followers are alive or dead, for the awakening of the Muslim umma nation has occurred but he stopped short of admitting responsibility for the attacks. Shortly before the U. He admitted his direct link to the attacks and said they were carried out because: As you undermine our security, we undermine yours. He was then held at multiple CIA secret prisons and Guantanamo Bay where he was interrogated and tortured with methods including waterboarding. At the same time, another 17 al-qaeda members were sentenced to penalties of between six and eleven years. He was sentenced to life without parole in the United States. He was released in October, and deported to Morocco. In, al-qaeda wrote, "for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. Planning of the September 11 attacks Map showing the attacks on the World Trade Center the planes are not drawn to scale The idea for the attacks came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who first presented it to Osama bin Laden in A series of meetings occurred in early, involving Mohammed, bin Laden, and his deputy Mohammed Atef. Bank Tower in Los Angeles because "there was not enough time to prepare for such an operation". Hazmi and Mihdhar arrived in the United States in mid-january While the agency feared that "Something nefarious might be afoot", it took no further action. While Alec Station alerted intelligence agencies worldwide about this fact, it did not share this information with the FBI. They had specific information about individual terrorists. None of that information got to me or the White House. The CIA never responded. The Intelink database informed her not to share intelligence material on the meeting to criminal investigators. Their request to search his laptop was denied by FBI headquarters due to the lack of probable cause. American Airlines Flight United Airlines Flight The hijackers flew the plane into the western facade of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, at 9: As passengers attempted to subdue the hijackers, the aircraft crashed into a field in Stonycreek Township near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at Media coverage was extensive during the attacks and aftermath, beginning moments after the first crash into the World Trade Center. Among the unconfirmed and often contradictory news reports aired throughout the day, one of the most prevalent said a car bomb had been detonated at the U. Of these, 70 were civilians and 55 were military personnel, many of whom worked for the United States Army or the United States Navy. The Army lost 47 civilian employees, six civilian contractors, and 22 soldiers, while the Navy lost six civilian employees, three civilian contractors, and 33 sailors. The destruction of all three staircases in the tower when Flight 11 hit made it impossible for anyone above the impact zone to escape. New York City Page 4
Chapter 4 : September 11 attacks - Wikipedia "Destabilizing the Whole Structure of American Foreign Policy," NYT --good news for the "War Party," lots more enemies. Opinions and News: War Party's China blog.quintoapp.com The Saudis were growing increasingly nervous. For more than two years they had been relying heavily on U. Now, the Senate was considering a bipartisan resolution to cut off military aid and halt a big sale of American-made bombs to Saudi Arabia. Fortunately for them, despite mounting evidence that the U. That year, their forces in Washington included members of more than two dozen lobbying and public relations firms. On June 13th, along with a majority of his fellow senators, Scott voted to allow the Saudis to get their bombs. A year later, the type of bomb authorized in that sale has reportedly been used in air strikes that have killed civilians in Yemen. It was, in fact, very much the norm. The Saudi government has hired lobbyists in profusion and they, in turn, have effectively helped convince members of Congress and the president to ignore blatant human rights violations and civilian casualties in Yemen. According to a forthcoming report by the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative program, which I direct, at the Center for International Policy, registered foreign agents working on behalf of interests in Saudi Arabia contacted Congressional representatives, the White House, the media, and figures at influential think tanks more than 2, times in alone. The role of Marc Lampkin is just a tiny sub-plot in the expansive and ongoing story of Saudi money in Washington. Think of it as a striking tale of pay-to-play politics that will undoubtedly be revving up again in the coming weeks as the Saudi lobby works to block new Congressional efforts to end U. As you may remember, with 15 of those 19 suicidal hijackers being citizens of Saudi Arabia, it was hardly surprising that American public opinion had soured on the Kingdom. That lobbying facelift proved a success until, in, relations soured with the Obama administration over the Iran nuclear deal. Once Donald Trump won the presidency, however, the Saudis saw an unparalleled opportunity and launched the equivalent of a full-court press, an aggressive campaign to woo the newly elected president and the Republican-led Congress, which, of course, cost real money. As a result, the growth of Saudi lobbying operations would prove extraordinary. This meteoric rise in spending allowed the Saudis to dramatically increase the number of lobbyists representing their interests on both sides of the aisle. His firm also represents Lockheed Martin, one of the top providers of military equipment to the Kingdom. Tony Podesta later dissolved his firm and has allegedly been investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for serving as an unregistered foreign agent. All told, during, Saudi Arabia inked 45 different contracts with FARA-registered firms and more than individuals registered as Saudi foreign agents in the U. They proved to be extremely busy. Such activity reveals a clear pattern: Saudi foreign agents are working tirelessly to shape perceptions of that country, its royals, its policies, and especially its grim war in Yemen, while simultaneously working to keep U. For example, in, Saudi foreign agents reported contacting media outlets more than times, including significant outreach to national ones like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and PBS, which has aired multiple documentaries about the Kingdom. Also included, however, were smaller papers like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and more specialized outlets, even ESPN, in hopes of encouraging positive stories. For example, Saudi agents contacted officials at the State Department, which oversees most commercial arms transfers and sales, nearly times in, according to FARA filings. Above all, however, their focus was on Congress, especially members with seniority on key committees. As a result, at some point between late and the end of, Saudi lobbyists contacted more than of them, including every single Senator. The ones most often dealt with were, not surprisingly, those with the greatest leverage over U. He sits on the appropriations and foreign relations committees. The FARA documents that record all foreign-agent political activity also list campaign contributions reported by those agents. Just as we did for political activities, the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative program conducted an analysis of all campaign contributions reported in those filings by firms that represented Saudi interests. This flow of money is best exemplified by the 11 separate occasions we uncovered in which a firm Page 5
reported contacting a congressional representative on behalf of Saudi clients on the same day someone at the same firm made a campaign contribution to the same senator or House member. While some might argue that contributions like these look a lot like bribery, they turn out to be perfectly legal. Any foreign power hoping to line the pockets of American politicians just has to hire a local lobbyist to do it for them. As Jimmy Williams, a former lobbyist, wrote: Such lobbyists and publicists are using the deep pockets of the Saudi royals to spread their propaganda, highlighting the charitable work that government is doing in Yemen. What they fail to emphasize, of course, are the Saudi blockade of the country and the American-backed, armed, and fueled air strikes that are killing civilians at weddings, funerals, school bus trips, and other civilian events. All of this is, in addition, helping to create a grotesque famine, a potential disaster of the most extreme sort and the very reason such humanitarian assistance is needed. Since September, that reality has proven remarkably convincing in Washington, as copious dollars flowed from Saudi Arabia to U. Is this really how U. This is the world we cover. Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them togetherâ all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We want the world to be a better place. If you can help todayâ because every gift of every size mattersâ please do. Page 6
Chapter 5 : Trump Bombs Syria â and His Base Connecting Israeli Zionist influence on America's Foreign Policy the BBC investigative journalism show Panorama aired The War Party on May 18th, right after the start of the Iraq War. Before they could begin to wrap their heads around the significance of the events taking place around them, their government had already set plans into motion to wage a decades-long military conflict in the Middle East, a conflict which rages at full force to this day. Among the general populace, a widely-accepted narrative has developed which attempts to make sense of all that has happened since September 11th. Any substantial explanation of this tie, however, has seemingly fallen away into the ethereal memory hole of American historical conscience. Of all the oft-repeated talking points which comprise the terror war narrative, the question of the highest importance almost always goes unasked: It is extremely peculiar that the largest-scale, most significant conflict to date in the war on terrorism has no widely-understood explanation. Those who have paid the highest price to initiate this war, the American people, seem to be the least informed on the matter. It is because of this lack of understanding regarding Iraq in particular that the terror war was ever able to get underway, and, indeed, build up a seemingly unstoppable momentum. On this 13th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, and in light of the recent escalation of hostilities in Iraq related to the Islamic State, it is vital to return to these basic questions. How did this happen? What justifications were given to go into Iraq in the first place? After more than a decade, the American people still cannot provide firm answers to such questions. In basic terms, the official US government justification for the Iraq War goes something like this: This anthrax was, in turn, said to be related to the September anthrax-letter attacks targeting media outlets as well as Senators Patrick Leahy and Thomas Daschle who both, coincidentally, happened to oppose the invasion of Iraq. As we shall see, absolutely none of this has any resemblance to truth or reality. Through a complex network of government officialsâ primarily connected to the Pentagon, and the office of VP Cheneyâ media pundits and journalistsâ such as Judith Miller and others at the New York Times, also the neocon PNAC crowd at the Weekly Standard â as well as foreign sourcesâ Iraqi ex-pats and Israeli intelligenceâ the Iraq War was set off without a hitch, built upon a grand web of deception. An important link in this chain of lies is the Pentagon-created Office of Special Plans. This agency, indeed, lies at the very heart of the War Party push to invade Iraq. Chalabi, the darling of the neocons, was selected by administration war hawks as early as the Gulf War to lead the Iraqi political march to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Exiled from Iraq, and a convicted bank fraudster, Chalabi weaseled his way into high positions in the post-saddam Iraqi state after helping the Bush Administration successfully bamboozle their way into war. These particular lies, among others, are officially debunked by a Senate Report download PDF in link. None of the information used to bolster the WMD claims held any weight, and a large portion of the US intelligence community had said so all along. While it remains remotely possible this was all an accident, a result of mistaken intelligence, it seems much more likely that it was, instead, intelligence deliberately concocted in order to send the nation back to war, to finish the job started in the Gulf War. This appears to be precisely what occurred. Additionally, before, during, and after the war, a multitude of intelligence sources, as well as journalists, conveyed skepticism toward the dubious claims of weapons and ties to terror. There certainly were dissenting voices in the lead up to the war; these voices simply went unheeded and unheard, at least until after the invasion. The mainstream media chose, instead, to create an echo chamber for the flurry of false claims emanating from the tightly-knit group of neo-conservatives in high office and positions of public influence. Also proven false in the Senate Report are the allegations of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake uranium from the Nigerian government in The documents passed along from Italian intelligence, in fact, turned out to be crude forgeries! It suggests that here, too, the same cabal of neo-conservative war hawks were involved in the dissemination, and possibly even the creation, of this fabricated piece of intelligence, all coordinated during meetings held in Rome. One might speculate that their Niger investigations Page 7
probed too close to the truth, rubbing those in power the wrong way. Another key example of botched intelligence is the claim of the meeting in Prague between Mohammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence, as well as the later attempt to link this meeting with the anthrax-letter attacksâ a secondary result of which was to help along the passage of the totalitarian US Patriot Act. The Prague meeting was initially reported by Czech officials, although there were many conflicting accounts where different Czech officials claimed the opposite. Nevertheless, a Select Committee on Intelligence report repeats the conclusion made among US intelligence circles that the Prague meeting was dubious at best, definitely not solid enough base an invasion on. Despite the massive FBI probe into the case, no definitive answers were ever provided as to who was responsible. From these investigations came a series of very strange discoveries, not the least of which was the fact that the weaponized anthrax strains used in the letter-attacks originated in US Army labs! The second of the two, one Dr. Ayaad Assaad, an Egyptian-American scientist, worked at the Fort Detrick facility from which samples of anthrax, among other dangerous biological compounds, went missing years before the letter-attacks. In seemingly unrelated events at Fort Detrick, Dr. This same Phillip Zack was a suspect in a internal Army inquiry, thought to be making unauthorized access, by cover of night, to a biological compounds lab, where pathogens like anthrax, Ebola, and the Hanta virus had gone missing. Moreover, in late September, an anonymous letter sent to military-police officials in Quantico, Virginia alleged that Dr. Assaad was behind a terrorist plot to use biological agents in the United States. This accusatory letter was sent after the anthrax-letters were mailed, but before they were discovered to contain anthrax. This suggests that some third-party, somebody other than Dr. Assaad, had foreknowledge of the attacks. One might speculate that this Phillip Zack, or somebody closely related, had a hand in the anthrax-letters, based on his unauthorized access to pathogens labs, his clear hatred for Dr. While they admit they made mistakes, most of them, unbelievably, deny they ever made claims about nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. They also deny ever asserting there were ties between Saddam and al-qaeda. Needless to say, there are mountains of direct evidence proving without a shadow of a doubt that these people are complete liars, guilty of the highest crimes against humanity imaginable. The Iraq War quagmire is often blamed on faulty intelligence alone, and for some of the people involved this may well be true. However, the absolutely damning ties between the neocon cabal responsible for the war, and the Israeli foreign policy apparatus might persuade one to think otherwise. Here they outline a detailed plan to destabilize and break apart various Arab nations, seen as threats by the Israeli defense establishment. To these neocons, American and Israeli security interests are one in the same, certainly including the aggressive Zionism which characterizes Israeli policy, both domestic and foreign. This incestuous neocon-israeli involvement in the crafting of state-policy should, of course, come as no surprise. This is a well-known phenomenon, not any sort of nutty conspiracy fringe. Israel not only has long-standing ties with influential conservative movers-and-shakers in the foreign policy field, but also a history of deceptive and outright murderous behavior all around. From the decades of military occupation of the Palestinian people, to Israeli spying on American institutions, to multiple cases of Israeli theft of sensitive US intelligence-related secrets and actual uranium in the s, to build nuclear bombs with, to their deliberate sinking of the USS Liberty, Israel has quite a dark history indeed. This issue is surrounded by a high degree of taboo, but one should never let such nonsensical concerns get in the way of historical understanding and intellectual honesty. Again, books-worth could be said about this particular issue, but for sake of brevity it will be left here. I have hardly even begun to broach the voluminous content of the Iraq War chronicles, but this short review should alone serve to prove the case. The United States government, or rather a militant clique within its most powerful and influential agencies, sent this nation to war with a largely disarmed and impoverished adversary. Let us never forget how easily this happened, as we are faced with yet another attempt to send troops to Iraq. For almost a half-century now, the United States has constantly intervened in Iraq, and to what avail? Of all the trillions of dollars, the millions of lives, the rivers of blood poured into Iraq, it has only given rise to the most brutal, out of control problem to date: ISIS, as they are called, are currently rampaging across Iraq and Syria, taking entire swaths of territory and proclaiming the establishment of a Page 8
long-sought Islamic Caliphate in the Levant region. As the United States, with its regional allies the Turks and Saudis, continues to funnel material support to the anti-assad rebels in Syria, they fund and back precisely the same people they claim to oppose in Iraq. The anti-assad rebels and the pro-caliphate militants are, in many cases, the very same people. Considering these issues, it is long, long, overdue that the American people and, less likely, the politicians who craft US policy, reexamine the issue of Iraq, and the long-standing practice of US foreign intervention in general. For any hope to avoid future bloodshed and destruction, it is vital that we remember the past, that we return to history in order to inform our knowledge of the present and the future. On this 13th anniversary of the most horrific example of blowback this country has ever seen, let us never forget Iraq. Another thanks goes out to Scott Horton, whose radio show exposed me to a vast amount of the journalism sourced here. Page 9
Chapter 6 : 9/11 & Iraq: Remembering How We Were Lied Into War - The Art of Not Being Governed The alliance of Hillary and foreign-policy hard-liners has, however, scarcely dampened the enthusiasm of her phalanx of liberal and progressive boosters, who endlessly talk, talk, talk about her. If so, who made that fateful decision for this republic? Ambassador Nikki Haley confirmed Sunday there would be no drawdown of the 2, U. We are going deeper in. Only when Russia and Iran began to pay a larger price in Syria will they have any incentive to negotiate an end to the war or even contemplate a peace based on dividing the country into ethnic-based enclaves. Apparently, we are to bleed Syria, Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran until they cannot stand the pain and submit to subdividing Syria the way we want. But suppose that, as in our Civil War of, the Spanish Civil War of, and the Chinese Civil War of, Assad and his Russian, Iranian, and Shiite militia allies go all out to win and reunite the nation. Suppose they choose to fight to consolidate the victory they have won after seven years of war. Where do we find the troops to take back the territory our rebels lost? Or do we just bomb mercilessly? The British and French say they will back us in future attacks if chemical weapons are used, but they are not plunging into Syria. Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: Targets within Iran should not be off limits. When did Congress authorize the killing of the president of Syria whose country has not attacked us? Clearly, with the U. But he is being pushed into becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man, opposed his election. We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Syrian army, they will yield to our demands. But where is the evidence for this? What reason is there to believe these forces will surrender what they have paid in blood to win? And if they choose to fight and widen the war to the larger Middle East, are we prepared for that? The Shiites control Iraq because President Bush invaded and overthrew Saddam and his Sunni Baath Party, disbanded his Sunni-led army, and let the Shiite majority take control of the country. The Shiites are dominant in Lebanon because they rose up and ran out the Israelis, who invaded in to run out the PLO. How many American dead will it take to reverse this history? How long will we have to stay in the Middle East to assure the permanent hegemony of Sunni over Shiite? To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www. Page 10
Chapter 7 : Trump Enrages the War Party - blog.quintoapp.com Original As you may remember, with 15 of those 19 suicidal hijackers being citizens of Saudi Arabia, it was hardly surprising that American public opinion had soured on the Kingdom. Buchanan Column November 17, by Patrick J. Yet those views are hemlock to the GOP foreign policy elite and the liberal Democratic interventionists of the Acela Corridor. Trump promised an "America First" foreign policy rooted in the national interest, not in nostalgia. The neocons insist that every Cold War and post-cold War commitment be maintained, in perpetuity. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U. They want to establish a no-fly zone and shoot down Syrian and Russian planes that violate it, acts of war Congress never authorized. They want to trash the Iran nuclear deal, though all 16 U. Other hardliners want to face down Beijing over its claims to the reefs and rocks of the South China Sea, though our Manila ally is talking of tightening ties to China and kicking us out of Subic Bay. In none of these places is there a U. Trump has the opportunity to be the president who, like Harry Truman, redirected U. In, suddenly, he had the atom bomb, and China, the most populous nation on earth, had fallen to the armies of Mao Zedong. As our situation was new, Truman acted anew. He adopted a George Kennan policy of containment of the world Communist empire, the Truman Doctrine, and sent an army to prevent South Korea from being overrun. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W. The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U. How did we expect Russian patriots to react? What should Trump say? We do not regard Russia or the Russian people as enemies of the United States, and we will work with President Putin to ease the tensions that have arisen between us. How nations govern themselves is their own business. While, as JFK said, we prefer democracies and republics to autocrats and dictators, we will base our attitude toward other nations upon their attitude toward us. We are not going to be forever committed to fighting their wars. They are going to have to defend themselves, and that transition begins now. We have no intention of bringing down the Assad regime, as that would open the door to Islamic terrorists. We have learned from Iraq and Libya. The ideal time for such a declaration, a Trump Doctrine, is when the president-elect presents his secretaries of state and defense. Buchanan and Creators Syndicate. Buchanan is an American paleoconservative, political commentator, author, syndicated columnist, politician and broadcaster. Buchanan was a senior advisor to U. His latest book is The Greatest Comeback: Page 11
Chapter 8 : OUR HIJACKED The War Party that Trump routed in the primaries is capturing and crafting his foreign policy. Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial page fairly blossomed with war plans. If so, who made that fateful decision for this republic? Ambassador Nikki Haley confirmed Sunday there would be no drawdown of the 2, U. Whatever Trump says, America is not coming out of Syria. We are going deeper in. Only when Russia and Iran began to pay a larger price in Syria will they have any incentive to negotiate an end to the war or even contemplate a peace based on dividing the country into ethnic-based enclaves. But suppose that, as in our Civil War of, the Spanish Civil War of, and the Chinese Civil War of, Assad and his Russian, Iranian and Shiite militia allies go all out to win and reunite the nation. Suppose they choose to fight to consolidate the victory they have won after seven years of civil war. Where do we find the troops to take back the territory our rebels lost? Or do we just bomb mercilessly? The British and French say they will back us in future attacks if chemical weapons are used, but they are not plunging into Syria. Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: Targets within Iran should not be off limits. When did Congress authorize the killing of the president of Syria whose country has not attacked us? Clearly, with the U. But he is being pushed into becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man, opposed his election. We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah and the Syrian army, they will yield to our demands. But where is the evidence for this? What reason is there to believe these forces will surrender what they have paid in blood to win? And if they choose to fight and widen the war to the larger Middle East, are we prepared for that? Yet consider how Iran acquired this "land corridor. The Shiites control Iraq because President Bush invaded and overthrew Saddam and his Sunni Baath Party, disbanded his Sunni-led army, and let the Shiite majority take control of the country. The Shiites are dominant in Lebanon because they rose up and ran out the Israelis, who invaded in to run out the PLO. How many American dead will it take to reverse this history? How long will we have to stay in the Middle East to assure the permanent hegemony of Sunni over Shiite? Photo of Patrick J. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www. We value our readers and encourage their participation, but in order to ensure a positive experience for our readership, we have a few guidelines for commenting on articles. If your post does not follow our policy, it will be deleted. No profanity, racial slurs, direct threats, or threatening language. Please post comments in English. Please keep your comments on topic with the article. If you wish to comment on another subject, you may search for a relevant article and join or start a discussion there. Page 12
Chapter 9 : Who Is Making American Foreign Policyâ the President or the War Party? The Nation To understand the broader war on terror, and how it came to dominate American foreign policy, it is necessary to fill in the blanks of the official narrative, as well as overturn some of the prevailing falsehoods about Iraq and its connection to 9/ To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch. Ready to fight back? Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue. Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Travel With The Nation Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits. Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine? It was May The Saudis were growing increasingly nervous. For more than two years they had been relying heavily on US military support and bombs to defeat Houthi rebels in Yemen. Now, the Senate was considering a bipartisan resolution to cut off military aid and halt a big sale of American-made bombs to Saudi Arabia. Fortunately for them, despite mounting evidence that the US-backed, supplied, and fueled air campaign in Yemen was targeting civilians, the Saudi government turned out to have just the weapon needed to keep those bombs and other kinds of aid coming their way: Ad Policy That year, their forces in Washington included members of more than two dozen lobbying and public relations firms. On June 13th, along with a majority of his fellow senators, Scott voted to allow the Saudis to get their bombs. A year later, the type of bomb authorized in that sale has reportedly been used in air strikes that have killed civilians in Yemen. It was, in fact, very much the norm. The Saudi government has hired lobbyists in profusion and they, in turn, have effectively helped convince members of Congress and the president to ignore blatant human rights violations and civilian casualties in Yemen. According to a forthcoming report by the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative program, which I direct, at the Center for International Policy, registered foreign agents working on behalf of interests in Saudi Arabia contacted congressional representatives, the White House, the media, and figures at influential think tanks more than 2, times in alone. The role of Marc Lampkin is just a tiny sub-plot in the expansive and ongoing story of Saudi money in Washington. Think of it as a striking tale of pay-to-play politics that will undoubtedly be revving up again in the coming weeks as the Saudi lobby works to block new congressional efforts to end US involvement in the disastrous war in Yemen. As you may remember, with 15 of those 19 suicidal hijackers being citizens of Saudi Arabia, it was hardly surprising that American public opinion had soured on the Kingdom. That lobbying facelift proved a success until, in, relations soured with the Obama administration over the Iran nuclear deal. Once Donald Trump won the presidency, however, the Saudis saw an unparalleled opportunity and launched the equivalent of a full-court press, an aggressive campaign to woo the newly elected president and the Republican-led Congress, which, of course, cost real money. As a result, the growth of Saudi lobbying operations would prove extraordinary. Current Issue View our current issue This meteoric rise in spending allowed the Saudis to dramatically increase the number of lobbyists representing their interests on both sides of the aisle. His firm also represents Lockheed Martin, one of the top providers of military equipment to the Kingdom. Tony Podesta later dissolved his firm and has allegedly been investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for serving as an unregistered foreign agent. They proved to be extremely busy. Such activity reveals a clear pattern: Saudi foreign agents are working tirelessly to shape perceptions of that country, its royals, its policies, and especially its grim war in Yemen, while simultaneously working to keep US weapons and military support flowing into the Kingdom. Also included, however, were smaller papers like The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and more specialized outlets, even ESPN, in hopes of encouraging positive stories. For example, Saudi agents contacted officials at the State Department, which oversees most commercial arms transfers and sales, nearly times in, according to FARA filings. Above all, however, their focus was on Congress, especially members with seniority on key committees. As a result, at some point Page 13
between late and the end of, Saudi lobbyists contacted more than of them, including every single senator. The ones most often dealt with were, not surprisingly, those with the greatest leverage over US relations with Saudi Arabia. He sits on the appropriations and foreign relations committees. The FARA documents that record all foreign-agent political activity also list campaign contributions reported by those agents. Just as we did for political activities, the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative program conducted an analysis of all campaign contributions reported in those filings by firms that represented Saudi interests. More than a third of the members of Congress contacted by such a firm also received a campaign contribution from a foreign agent at that firm. This flow of money is best exemplified by the 11 separate occasions we uncovered in which a firm reported contacting a congressional representative on behalf of Saudi clients on the same day someone at the same firm made a campaign contribution to the same senator or House member. While some might argue that contributions like these look a lot like bribery, they turn out to be perfectly legal. Any foreign power hoping to line the pockets of American politicians just has to hire a local lobbyist to do it for them. As Jimmy Williams, a former lobbyist, wrote: Such lobbyists and publicists are using the deep pockets of the Saudi royals to spread their propaganda, highlighting the charitable work that government is doing in Yemen. What they fail to emphasize, of course, are the Saudi blockade of the country and the American-backed, armed, and fueled air strikes that are killing civilians at weddings, funerals, school bus trips, and other civilian events. All of this is, in addition, helping to create a grotesque famine, a potential disaster of the most extreme sort and the very reason such humanitarian assistance is needed. Since September, that reality has proven remarkably convincing in Washington, as copious dollars flowed from Saudi Arabia to US military contractors who are making billions selling weapons to that country, to lobbying firms, and via those firms directly into congressional coffers. Is this really how US foreign policy should be determined? To submit a correction for our consideration, click here. For Reprints and Permissions, click here. Page 14