There are many reasons the U.S. shouldn’t go to war with the Islamic State — and the best one may be because that is exactly what they want us to do.
A growing number of people I consider experts in the field believe that the recent beheadings of two American journalists and a British aid worker were deliberate acts of provocation, and that ISIS is not just hoping for an American overreaction, but depending on it — perhaps even for its own survival.
Ali Soufan, the former FBI agent who was one of the few heroes of modern American counter-terrorism, tells Mehdi Hasan of the Huffington Post UK:
They are trying to suck the west into the war with them…. Then they’ll be not only the regional bad boy, but also the bad boy for the global jihadi movement. They can then claim they are in an international war – a modern day Crusade – against all the countries coming to fight them.
What good would that do? According to Soufan:
[The Islamic State is] fearful of Islamists within [their movement] turning against them…. They want to fight the British and the Americans… to unify the extremists within and diminish any kind of meaningful threat within their support base. They are not fearful of secular or moderate people.
Journalist and author Steve Weissman writes for Reader Supported News that Obama is giving ISIS just what it wants:
He plays the role they purposely provoked with their brutal beheadings, summary executions, and sickening use of mass rape to keep their fighters happy. He becomes the foreign, Christian crusader defiling a Muslim land, and he does it in company with Iranian as well as Iraqi Shiites, whom Islamic State despises as heretics, and with the blessing of Sunni Arab leaders it correctly sees as outrageously corrupt.
In other words, the more jihadis Obama kills, the more Sunnis that Obama recruits to their ranks. Not a winning strategy.
Syndicated columnist Cynthia Tucker writes:
You have to give the bloodthirsty jihadists of the Islamic State (also known as ISIL or ISIS) credit: They may be savages, but they know us well. They used well-produced, high-quality videos of their grisly murders of American journalists to provoke the United States into a bipartisan frenzy of retribution.
But an editorial in the Guardian on Sunday lays out the case for self-control in the immediate aftermath of the third ISIS beheading last week, of British aid worker David Haines:
The killing of Mr Haines was not an act of revenge. It was an act of provocation. Like the two murders of the American journalists, it was designed to frighten and to inflame. It seems nothing would please Isis more than for these killings to provoke an intemperate and thoughtless violent reaction from those at whom they are aimed. Such a reaction might, in Isis’s crude and perverse logic, give them public legitimacy as victims rather than as killers. Such things have happened all too often in history. This in itself is a good enough reason for western leaders to have cool reactions.
Matthew Hoh, a former State Department official who resigned in protest in 2009 over U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, responded to ISIS provocation with a provocative headline in his Huffington Post essay: “The Beheadings Are Bait.”
He sees a repeat of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which achieved the goals of radical extremists vastly more than it achieved those of the U.S.:
While escalating American airstrikes and sending more troops to Iraq may assuage the fear and horror affecting the American public, and motivating America’s politicians, acting on those feelings will ensure greater conflict and loss.
The Islamic State, like al Qaeda, requires the United States to serve as a villain in order for the Islamic State to receive manpower, logistics and financial support from Sunni Muslim communities. Additionally, an American military re-entry into the Iraqi Civil War in support of Shia and Kurdish factions, without lasting and serious political concessions from Baghdad towards Sunni grievances, will worsen the same political disenfranchisement and sense of existential danger that has pushed the Sunnis to align with the Islamic State. In the short-term American bombs may hurt the Islamic State, but in the long-term it is what they need and want.
The Islamic State is a parasite of war. Its members and its narrative need war for their personal, organizational and ideological validation and success. That is why the only way to defeat the Islamic State is to take the war away from them.
A few members of Congress have raised concerns about playing into the Islamic State’s hands. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) recently spoke from the House floor, saying:
We have got to be sure that we are not falling into doing something that could be counterproductive because, clearly, ISIL did that to provoke a reaction, and I think that needs to be a part of the debate we have.
And Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN last month:
[W]e shouldn’t allow this horrible act to provoke us into doing things that are counterproductive.
There’s nothing that ISIS would like more than having us reintroduce ground troops in Iraq, for example. So we have to be careful not to let this, the horror of this act provoke us to doing things that don’t make sense for us to do and that’s very difficult, but I think it’s extraordinarily important we keep our focus on what we can achieve.
Whether a military response would be exactly what the Islamic State wants was the first question that former CIA Middle East expert Paul Pillar raised when I asked him earlier this month what sorts of questions the press should be pursuing instead of banging the drums for war.
And Juan Cole, the University of Michigan professor and authoritative Middle East blogger, writes that journalists are also getting played, by giving the beheadings too much free media:
These acts of public brutality against a helpless individual are intended in part to announce that despite their military superiority, Westerners are not 10 feet tall and can be cut down to size. They announce leadership and encourage angry young men to join ISIL rather than one of its many rivals. They also push Western publics to demand reprisals. Reprisals in turn can be used by the radical group as proof to its followers that it really is being unjustly targeted by the big bad superpower. It is a passive aggressive form of terrorism.
It seems to me that editors should refuse to play along with this sick game.
The fact is that almost no news organization covers the killing of American troops in Afghanistan any more. If it happens it is on page 17, and this had been the case for years. So let’s get this straight. The Taliban can actually kill US troops without our headlining the fact. But the slaughter of an innocent captive is front page news. These are editorial decisions, not acts of nature.
(As it happens, Cole was wrong about one thing: The latest deaths of Americans in Afghanistan — in a massive suicide car-bombing right outside the Kabul Embassy — did make the papers: page A10 in the Washington Post; page A7 in the New York Times.)
Photo: Raqqa Media Center of the Islamic State group/AP
the craig..
re: Syria Chemical Attacks
‘Dear Mr. President:
Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has once again violated your red line, using chemical weapons to kill as many as 1,400 people in the suburbs of Damascus..’
With all due respect, the very first sentence in the letter is ‘controversial’. The UN report on the *Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in the Ghouta Area of Damascus on 21 August 2013, doesn’t conclude as to who was responsible for said attacks. Which begs the question as to whose evidence is being utilized to substantiate the letter’s claims?
You’re in good company, though. I’m still waiting for either Mr Scahill, Mr Hussain, or this Mr Froomkin character to provide said evidence in question.
Good day to you..
* https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/report.pdf
“…….With all due respect, the very first sentence in the letter is ‘controversial’……”
What you really mean to say is that no one has proven that Assad used chemical weapons, but most Americans including the neoconservatives who signed the letter to the President believe that Assad murdered innocent civilians with chemical weapons. In other words, there was no controversy for these people. There have been more “baseless” accusations leveled against the Syrian regime for the use of chlorine against the rebels by the Assad regime – at least according to the Telegraph (Chlorine is banned for use in warfare):
“…..President Bashar al-Assad is still using chemical weapons against civilians, a scientific analysis of samples from multiple gas attacks has shown.
In the first independent testing of its kind, conducted exclusively for The Telegraph, soil samples from the scene of three recent attacks in the country were collected by trained individuals known to this news organisation and analysed by a chemical warfare expert.
Our results show sizeable and unambiguous traces of chlorine and ammonia present at the site of all three attacks.
The use in war of “asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases” – both of which can be produced by chlorine and ammonia – is banned by the Geneva Protocol, of which Syria is a signatory.
The attacks, which in some cases used canisters marked with their chemical contents, were conducted by helicopter. In the Syrian civil war, only the regime has access to aerial power, making it now certain that the recent chemical attacks could only have been carried out by the regime, not the opposition……”
Thanks suave.
Actually Craig, if you see this, I’ve kind of changed my mind about the suggestion, to be honest. As I finished reading Goliath on Sunday night, I had one of those polar reversal, 180 degree flips in thinking, and as I closed the book, I thought, “Why on earth am I hectoring this poor man to read a book that he is bound to find profoundly depressing? Why would I ask him to exchange the bliss of ignorance for the sorrow of understanding the truth? And if he cherishes some fantasy of Israel being this vibrant, inclusive democracy that embodies all that is the best of Judaism and the Jewish people, why would I want to deprive him of that comforting thought? Because even if his belief systems are not so rigid and ossified that he was capable of absorbing that knowledge and giving it credence, he could never do anything to change it or make it better.” Or something along those lines.
Two months ago, I had never heard of AIPAC. Now I know a fair amount about it, and I’m not happy about what I know. I’m not happy about the fact that some shadowy special interest group has hijacked the American political system, and for that privilege we pay them over $3B a year, which moneys they then use to finance a ruthless military machine that slaughters large groups of innocent people on a semi-regular basis, in the process turning every citizen (taxpayers at least) of this country into an unwitting war criminal. And what makes me really unhappy about that, is the deep feeling of helplessness that accompanies that understanding. Because technically speaking, I really shouldn’t have a dog in this fight. I can’t imagine that when the founding fathers of this country drew up the constitution, that they could have ever anticipated the possibility of a monster like AIPAC.
So I’ll probably stop badgering you Craig. Enjoy this nice fall weather.
Hi Dabney
“……I’m not happy about the fact that some shadowy special interest group has hijacked the American political system…..”
The one thing that the intercept really promotes is free speech. Greenwald sincerely supports the concept in theory and action. Comments will not be deleted from this site unless you abuse the system. However, the content is protected which I appreciate. Lobbying the US government is also a form of free speech. Plenty of special interests lobby the government including representatives of Agriculture, the environment, the military industrial complex, banking, finances, foreign governments, gay and lesbian alliances, teachers and the list goes on. AIPAC is a strong lobby working within the law in the US to influence the US government. Most Americans support Israel’s right to exist free of terrorism. Reading one book on AIPAC doesn’t make you an expert on the Israeli lobby any more than reading a book by a far left wing nut makes you an expert on Israelis.
Take a deep breath Gabney. The world is not black and white.
I love fall, but in Boise, October-November might be the beast months of the year. Thanks.
I can’t claim to be an expert; just less ignorant than I was 2 months ago. Or, to phrase it another way, substantially more knowledgeable. But, as I pointed out above, having more knowledge doesn’t always lead to happiness. That being said, I don’t believe the pursuit of knowledge should always be driven by a desire to simply reinforce and justify one’s own preconceptions. For me, anyway. That’s just not how I’m wired.
You on the other hand, are a different story. Reading Blumenthal would be like a red pill moment for you, and you are not a red pill kind of a guy. You most definitely are a blue pill kind of a guy. So please don’t take the red pill. You wouldn’t like it.
Mr Summers (aka – one deviled-craig chumpwich to go, please)..
re:
“Did neoconservatives influence the Bush administration? No doubt (especially in Iraq), but Bush steadily moved away from that *philosophy in his second term (‘Jan 2009′):” -deviled one
Reference w/ respect to the *philosophy in question..
I’m calling, bullshit, Stallion (cblo). “In addition, you fail to mention one of their main guiding principles: ‘…..Instead, Mr. Bush embraced more intensive COVERT operations actions aimed at Iran…..’. I doubt you left that out because you overlooked it.”
suave`
commonsensimilla party chair
ps.. coeur d’alene was splendid, much appreciated.
..
‘U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site’
By David E. Sanger
Published: ‘January 10, 2009′
[snip]
‘WASHINGTON — President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex and told the Israelis that he had authorized new COVERT action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, according to senior American and foreign officials.
White House officials never conclusively determined whether Israel had decided to go ahead with the strike before the United States protested, or whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel was trying to goad the White House into more decisive action before Mr. Bush left office. But the Bush administration was particularly alarmed by an Israeli request to fly over Iraq to reach Iran’s major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country’s only known uranium enrichment plant is located.
The White House denied that request outright, American officials said, and the Israelis backed off their plans, at least temporarily. But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major COVERT program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.
This account of the expanded American covert program and the Bush administration’s efforts to dissuade Israel from an aerial attack on Iran emerged in interviews over the past 15 months with current and former American officials, outside experts, international nuclear inspectors and European and Israeli officials. None would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran.
Several details of the COVERT effort have been omitted from this account, at the request of senior United States intelligence and administration officials, to avoid harming continuing operations.
The interviews also suggest that while Mr. Bush was extensively briefed on options for an overt American attack on Iran’s facilities, he never instructed the Pentagon to move beyond contingency planning, even during the final year of his presidency, contrary to what some critics have suggested.
The interviews also indicate that Mr. Bush was convinced by top administration officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, that any overt attack on Iran would probably prove ineffective, lead to the expulsion of international inspectors and drive Iran’s nuclear effort further out of view. Mr. Bush and his aides also discussed the possibility that an airstrike could ignite a broad Middle East war in which America’s 140,000 troops in Iraq would inevitably become involved.
Instead, Mr. Bush embraced more intensive COVERT operations actions aimed at Iran, the interviews show, having concluded that the sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies were failing to slow the uranium enrichment efforts. Those COVERT operations, and the question of whether Israel will settle for something less than a conventional attack on Iran, pose immediate and wrenching decisions for Mr. Obama.
The COVERT American program, started in early 2008, includes renewed American efforts to penetrate Iran’s nuclear supply chain abroad, along with new efforts, some of them experimental, to undermine electrical systems, computer systems and other networks on which Iran relies. It is aimed at delaying the day that Iran can produce the weapons-grade fuel and designs it needs to produce a workable nuclear weapon.
Knowledge of the program has been closely held, yet inside the Bush administration some officials are skeptical about its chances of success, arguing that past efforts to undermine Iran’s nuclear program have been detected by the Iranians and have only delayed, not derailed, their drive to unlock the secrets of uranium enrichment.
Late last year, international inspectors estimated that Iran had 3,800 centrifuges spinning, but American intelligence officials now estimate that the figure is 4,000 to 5,000, enough to produce about one weapon’s worth of uranium every eight months or so.
While declining to be specific, one American official dismissed the latest COVERT operations against Iran as “science experiments.” One senior intelligence official argued that as Mr. Bush prepared to leave office, the Iranians were already so close to achieving a weapons capacity that they were unlikely to be stopped.
Others disagreed, making the point that the Israelis would not have been dissuaded from conducting an attack if they believed that the American effort was unlikely to prove effective.
Since his election on Nov. 4, Mr. Obama has been extensively briefed on the American actions in Iran, though his transition aides have refused to comment on the issue.
Early in his presidency, Mr. Obama must decide whether the COVERT actions begun by Mr. Bush are worth the risks of disrupting what he has pledged will be a more active diplomatic effort to engage with Iran..’
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?pagewanted=all
note: capitalized emphasis, mine.
Hi suave
“…..COVERT….”
Yea, like stuxnet virus and murdering Iranian scientists – but that falls way short of bombing Iran (i.e., starting a war) – or providing bunker buster bombs to Israel with a green light to bomb Iran. Israel opposes any deal which allows the Iranians to enrich uranium at home yet that is a distinct possibility as negotiations continue by Obama today. I’m not sure how this can be interpreted to indicate neoconservative “control” of the Bush Administration since Bush rejected bombing Iran either by the US or Israel (something one might expect neocons to support). Right now there is a zero chance of the US bombing or participating in the bombing of Iran. Israel probably would not go it alone. In general, Israelis oppose bombing Iran without US help, but Netanyahu is a hawk to say the least.
Thanks and enjoy your Sunday
“We are strongest as a nation when the president and Congress work together,” he said, calling it a “hallmark of American foreign policy at its best.” – President Obama, September 18, 2014 – Upon getting Congressional approval to fight ISIS.
The past 13 years have proved the exact opposite: we are more dysfunctional and less effective as a nation when both the congress and the President remain uninformed and act on emotion – not on rationalism; and never learn from their mistakes.
But then again, the same can be said for those that elected all of the above.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” – Isaac Asimov
You will not rid your house of cockroaches by tap-dancing on them, but it’s wonderful exercise. Killing ex-goatherders enraged by previous killings isn’t smart political policy, but it is excellent business.
War is good for Wall Street, and Wall Street owns this president, as millions of betrayed supporters discovered with horror in January 2009. Those who wail that we are falling into a trap devised by ISIS are sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting to maintain their belief in a political system that is hollow and lifeless. If every voter in America knew this new war was a trap and demanded with one voice that we not become entangled over there again, it would change… nothing. The screws might tighten another notch on our political liberties.
“… western leaders to have cool reactions.”
Sure, expect a cool reaction from the people who invaded Afghanistan as an act of vengeance, and Iraq over ‘yellow cake’. They are guaranteed to make sure ISIS gains more weapons and power in the region, so western politicians can continue to cry ‘wolf’ and the planet will continue to be disrupted. Hitler is throwing celebratory parties in hell over this.
This analysis is based on an old paradigm; that war is a zero sum game with a winner and loser. But what if both US and IS can achieve their strategic goals by waging war against each other? That would be the best outcome for everybody.
The IS will take a beating, but as long as the US commits to ‘no boots on the ground’, they can’t be physically displaced. In return, they gain status for taking on the US and surviving. This will lead to increased recruits over the long term and increased credibility in the region, allowing them to morph from a mere militia into a new statelet.
The US has a strategic goal of maintaining military dominance of the Middle East, to ensure control over the critical global oil supplies. This will allow them to maintain a critical military mass in the region, and perfect the technologies for ‘remote control’ war which will dominate the 21st strategy. The political price will be acceptable, since without ground troops, actual US casualties will be very limited.
What’s not to like?
Benito
“……What’s not to like…..”
What is interesting – and which has been highlighted by Froomkin in previous articles – is the complexities of the alliances in bombing the ISIS. In affect, we are helping Syria and Iran which cannot make Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and other Arab states happy. Saudi Arabia, for example, opposes the jihadists but find them useful to thwart Iran’s regional ambitions – and useful for keeping the Assad regime bogged down in a civil/regional conflict. So the US will be walking a regional tight rope by entering a conflict against the ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The vote by Congress to fund the Syrian rebels was probably meant to reassure the Saudis that toppling the Assad regime is our number one priority.
Thanks.
“Saudi Arabia, for example, opposes the jihadists…”
Craig, an excerpt from Patrick Cockburn on TomDispatch:
“In 2009, eight years after 9/11, a cable from the U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, revealed by WikiLeaks, complained that donors in Saudi Arabia constituted the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”
There’s more, here:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175884/tomgram%3A_patrick_cockburn,_how_to_ensure_a_thriving_caliphate/
Good Sunday morning Dabney
Good article by Cockburn.
As I have mentioned numerous times, the politics in the Middle East Is complex. One needs to distinguish between short term geopolitical goals which means aligning with potential enemies like ISIS in Iraq and Syria to undercut a regional rival, and long term goals which means self preservation and maintaining your power and influence. ISIS and al-Qaeda are threats to the Saudi regime. The Saudis supported the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood by al-Sissi because the MB oppose the monarchy as do all jihadists who favor a return to a Caliphate under sharia law. That’s the geopolitical game for the Arab (and Persian) regimes. In the process, you create or support Frankenstein to enhance your regional goals (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Of course, the US has been the leader in the world when it comes to using insurgencies to attain political goals. Why would anyone expect other governments to conduct foreign policy any different?
One also needs to distinguish between the Arab people and the Arab governments. The Arab governments were decidedly quiet during the recent IP conflict choosing, in effect, to support Israel. In no way does this reflect the opinion of the Arab people. Polls show that Arabs have an unfavorable opinion of Jews (in general) in the 80-90th percentile. In addition, Cockburn needs to distinguish between “Saudi” government financing of Jihadists and “donors” which might be private, very rich Saudis. The Saudi government may or may not have knowledge of this financing of Jihadists. Were the Saudis behind 911? Nothing definitive has been published on that, but I sincerely doubt the government funded the 911 attacks. Bin Laden has long been banished from Saudi Arabia because of his criticism of the monarchy.
There is no doubt that the spread of Wahhabism in the world has been financed by Saudi Arabia including the construction of madrassas in Pakistan where radicalization of the Taliban took place. The Saudi government funded and supported the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan along with the Pakistan government. Many of the fundamentalists supported by the Saudi government (world-wide) became terrorists like the perpetrators of 911. Saudi Arabia is extremely rich which has improved the quality of life of Saudis, but their oppressive regime is headed for a downfall sooner or later. People want political rights in their country.
Thanks.
I’m sure it was easier for you to write those three paragraphs, than it would be for you to read Goliath, which admittedly is 400 pages long but far pithier. Have you ordered it yet? I’m on last 50pp. Can send you mine when I’m done. Please advise.
Dabney
I would not rule out reading portions of the book in the future.
Thanks
Tom
“… The U.S. military in the joint Arab-American operations room for the Syrian insurgency in Amman Jordan may well plan to use the murky new “war on ISIS” as pretext for attacks on the Syrian army divisions protecting Damascus from the south. Coordinated with a ground attack by Jabhat al-Nusra and others from Quneitra such air attacks would seriously degrade the Syrian forces and enable a destructive push into Damascus…”
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/09/syria-the-southern-attack-on-damascus.html#comments
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/09/the-stampede-towards-war-on-isis.html
Mr. Froomkin
“…….A growing number of people I consider experts in the field believe that the recent beheadings of two American journalists and a British aid worker were deliberate acts of provocation…..”
Sorry, but the theme of this article is laughable.
Islamic terrorist are “setting a trap” for the world (not just the US) to respond to their racist philosophy, terror and murder. Jihadists world-wide terrorize and murder (mostly Muslims) to gain power. Boko Haram kidnaps “comfort” girls for their “holy warriors” without so much as a one written paragraph of precious space at the Intercept still perpetuating the far left wing myth that the Jihadists respond because Israel and the US kill Muslims. When Israel bombs Gaza, a spasm of articles suddenly appears decrying the brutal “racists” Israel military – but no amount of racist, bigoted acts of terror by Islamic fanatics warrants even one article in the Intercept – except to scare monger that the jihadists are brilliantly setting a trap – and will recruit more Islamic fundamentalists or attack Americans on US soil.
The US bombed ISIS positions in mid-August to retake a hydroelectric dam which threatened several Iraqi cities. The ISIS forced the Yazidis to flee in early August and threatened to exterminate them. Both of these “provocations” by the ISIS drew military responses by the US. In addition, the ISIS turned their attention to the Iraqi Kurds (provocatively) taking over several Kurdish towns in August as well. The ISIS is also fighting the Kurds in Syria. The ISIS has executed hundreds (if not thousands) of prisoners in Iraq and Syria. Clearly, the ISIS beheaded the journalists in response to US humanitarian and geopolitically-motivated air strikes against the terrorists.
Are the ISIS terrorists setting a trap for the US, bringing the “Great Satan” into a war for purposes of propaganda i.e., supplanting al-Qaeda as the supreme jihadist in the world? Will thousands of young jihadist flock to Iraq and Syria to fight against America? Will new jihadists spring up at every Saudi-financed madrassa? The Intercept is all about fear mongering while ignoring the murder by terrorists; who seek power; who hate freedom and democracy; who oppose globalization and could care less how many Muslims they kill to impose their will on others.
At times, the Intercept is a cowardly publication.
craigsummers:
If the Intercept is indeed “perpetuating the far left wing myth that the Jihadists respond because Israel and the US kill Muslims” – can you provide any evidence to back up this assertion?
In your second paragraph you mention other “provocations” such as the taking of a dam, towns and attempted genocide. Those actions are the tactical advances and goals of an army. The videos that are put out however are not necessary for their war effort, why do they need to produce these videos if they are not inviting attacks against them? The IS leadership are extremely careful about which videos are made public, and there is a reason for that. They can continue to make money through ransom and separately further their own war efforts without provocatively publicising the executions.
“…….If the Intercept is indeed “perpetuating the far left wing myth that the Jihadists respond because Israel and the US kill Muslims” – can you provide any evidence to back up this assertion?……”
What evidence do you want? Look up world terror statistics. Muslims are the largest recipients of terror in the world – and Sunni terrorists commit more acts of terror than anyone else. The ISIS is murdering Muslims all the time targeting Iraqi Shia and Kurds (and Muslims associated with the Assad regime). Killing Muslims means no more to ISIS than a means to an end – which is to gain power and impose their will on others through violence. The Pakistan and Afghanistan Taliban, Boko Haram, ISIS and al-Qaeda (etc.) are all examples of Islamic terrorist organizations which use extreme violence against mostly (Muslim) civilian populations to gain power.
Can Propagandist working for Islamic terrorist organizations recruit using Israel and the US? No doubt, but you have to be a complete moron to believe any of those lies if you just spend one day fighting with ISIS murdering and terrorizing Muslims (or any of the world-wide Islamic terrorists organizations).
“……The videos that are put out however are not necessary for their war effort, why do they need to produce these videos if they are not inviting attacks against them?……”
They beheaded these people AFTER the US conducted military strikes against the ISIS – in retaliation (and as a threat). But even if they were inviting attacks so they can recruit more jihadists to Syria and Iraq (or “King of the Hill” Jihadists), that seems like the ideal time to bomb the piss out of them – when they are all gathered in one location. My only reservation is that bombing ISIS in may help the Assad regime survive. Priority number one for US foreign policy should continue to be regime change in Syria for multiple reasons.
Finally, I agree that genocide committed against a helpless minority is tactical. This is used to break down the will of a population using extreme violence. That is the value of terrorism.
Thanks.
Hi Craig, I think you misunderstood my question. I meant can you give me a link to, or show me a passage from, an article in the Intercept that is “perpetuating the far left wing myth that the Jihadists respond because Israel and the US kill Muslims”? Because I haven’t seen anything like this before.
It’s too simplistic to say that you could manage to bomb all the Jihadists in a single location – because they will be spread out across the country. It seems you agree with the aims of IS, to draw in like-minded fighters from across the region and to fight a war against western countries. Are you a secret admirer of IS?
“…….I meant can you give me a link to, or show me a passage from, an article in the Intercept that is “perpetuating the far left wing myth that the Jihadists respond because Israel and the US kill Muslims”……”
I can, although these quotes occurred before there was an Intercept (no joke). It would be hard to argue that Greenwald has suddenly changed what he believes to be true.
Here is what Greenwald has written in the past to explain the responses by jihadists which he terms “cause and effect”, but which conspicuously seems like “justification” for attacks on America (or the west like the Madrid train bombings, 7/7 etc.). The theme is, of course, always US and Israel together.
“……Indeed, much of that US violence is grounded in if not expressly justified by religion, including the aggressive attack on Iraq and steadfast support for Israeli aggression (to say nothing of the role Judaism plays in the decades-long oppression by the Israelis of Palestinians and all sorts of attacks on neighboring Arab and Muslim countries)…….”
“….. It likely won’t be in the form that has received the most media attention: the type of large Predator or Reaper drones that shoot Hellfire missiles which destroy homes and cars in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and multiple other countries aimed at Muslims…..”
“….I’m most certainly not suggesting that anyone who supports Awlaki’s killing is driven by racism or anti-Muslim bigotry. I am suggesting that the belief that Muslims are somehow less American, or even less human, is widespread….”
“….spending decades bombing, invading, occupying, droning, interfering in, imposing tyranny on, and creating lawless prisons in other countries generates intense anti-American and anti-western rage (for obvious reasons) and ensures that those western nations will be attacked as well…..”
“…..Every war – particularly protracted ones like the “War on Terror” – demands sustained dehumanization campaigns……..applied almost exclusively to Muslims…..It is worse than that: it is based on the implicit, and sometimes overtly stated, premise that Muslims generally, even those guilty of nothing, deserve what the US does to them……”
“……That study concluded that “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies”: specifically “American direct intervention in the Muslim world” — through the US’s “one sided support in favor of Israel”; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, “the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan”……”
“…….As usual, don’t look for Democratic partisan to object to any of this. To the extent that they talk about the sanctions regime at all, it is typically to celebrate it: as proof of Barack Obama’s “toughness” and his fealty to Israeli interests…..”
“……It’s in the world of reality, not conspiracy, where the US and Israel have continuously brought extreme amounts of violence to the Muslim world, routinely killing their innocent men, women and children. Listening to Engel, one would never know about tiny little matters like the bombing of Gaza and Lebanon, the almost five-decade long oppression of Palestinians, the widely hated, child-killing drone campaign, or the attack on Iraq…..”
Damn, good retort Craig.
Hi again Craig. I would have replied sooner but I am in a different time zone and it was time for bed. As you say, Glenn Greenwald calls that cause and effect because that’s exactly what it is. A justification is something different entirely. For example, I would often say that the 9/11 attack was a direct cause of the illegal war in Iraq – even though in that case the people of Iraq and Saddam Hussain had nothing to do with the 9/11 atrocity. That is not a justification of the war in Iraq, it is just a fact. American citizens who were not even directly affected by that demanded blood. Elsewhere in the world, if people see their whole families wiped out by American bombs, it is quite likely that they may become desperate and violent with nothing to lose. That doesn’t justify war crimes like murdering innocent civilians – but it does go a long way to explaining it.
When I asked earlier if you were a secret admirer of IS. I didn’t mean that as a jibe. I just sometimes see a parallel between people who justify war and violence on both sides. They may be enemies, but they respect warrior culture and see violence as a useful tool, and possibly have a grudging mutual respect for one another.
Hi nojokes
Thanks for your reply.
“……That doesn’t justify war crimes like murdering innocent civilians – but it does go a long way to explaining it……”
Terrorizing and murdering people to gain power has been a fact in human governance for thousands of years – and that’s how I view jihadists – and it is most certainly not limited to religion. Possibly as many as 100,000,000 million people died in the twentieth century under communist rule. So if you want to buy that ISIS and the Taliban (etc.) kill thousands of Muslims to avenge the US killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, that’s fine by me (but that is an odd way to show your support for fellow Muslims IMO). So on that point, we will just disagree no matter how long we debate the issue.
,
“…..They may be enemies, but they respect warrior culture and see violence as a useful tool……”
Of course, violence is a useful tool if you don’t believe in allowing political rights (Tienanmen Square, Stalin), desire your neighbor’s strategic or mineral rich land (Crimea) or want to build an empire (Japan, Germany). Being peaceful doesn’t necessarily lead to peace.
Thanks.
The acts of ISIS and other such fanatics are well covered in the press on the whole; why would The Intercept need to add much to that? On the other hand, coverage of the actual effects of Israel’s attacks in the US press is, on the whole, well, shall we say, understated. It is that gap that The Intercept filled. Israel is an ally of the US. Are we not allowed to learn about what it does and whether its activities meet expectations without reading still more about every act our enemies have committed?
“The acts of ISIS and other such fanatics are well covered in the press on the whole; why would The Intercept need to add much to that?”
Because The Intercept presents itself as the great defender of the truth. If Greenwald, Froomkin and others really want to inform the public, then they have a responsibility to cover and analyze the multiple angles of an international crisis specially from the Middle East.
“coverage of the actual effects of Israel’s attacks in the US press is, on the whole, well, shall we say, understated.”
Whoever has watched CNN, BBC or Al Jazeera have seen the devastating effects of the IDF. Anybody who has access to a TV should know that most of the damages during the conflict between Israel and Palestine happened in Gaza or other occupied territories. Israeli leaders, Hamas leaders and other Palestinian officials gave their views through the US press many times.
“Are we not allowed to learn about what it does and whether its activities meet expectations without reading still more about every act our enemies have committed?”
Yes we are. However, I would not place too much weight on The Intercept when it comes to its report regarding that area. The Intercept is more anti Israel than pro Palestinian. When I say pro Palestinian, I am referring to the people on the streets of Gaza or the West Bank under occupation, not their leaders. If The Intercept cares so much about the Palestinians, all its readers would know that Hamas has a terrible human rights record in Gaza.
“…….Yes we are. However, I would not place too much weight on The Intercept when it comes to its report regarding that area. The Intercept is more anti Israel than pro Palestinian. When I say pro Palestinian, I am referring to the people on the streets of Gaza or the West Bank under occupation, not their leaders. If The Intercept cares so much about the Palestinians, all its readers would know that Hamas has a terrible human rights record in Gaza…….”
Well said and completely true. Hamas hasn’t even been mentioned in several articles by Greenwald as if they are innocent bystanders as Israel pounds Gaza.
You did not even start to answer the question.
The CNN coverage was pro Israel, same for the major networks. Time after time we heard about rockets raining down on innocent Israeli citizens as justification for the Israeli “counter attacks”. How many Isarelis were killed? How many rockets needed to be intercepted? How many just landed where they did no harm?
Palestinians on CNN presented their views and were dismissed. Israelis presented there views, and were asked slow pitch softball questions that guided them to do a better job of presenting the Israeli view. But I do not expect you to understand that.
Few people watch the other two you mention.
The intercept is not anti Israel. Your Pro Israel agenda is now clear, and that is the only reason you bothered to answer my post. if you care to, show me how the intercept is anti Israel.
Again, why should Israel, a very close ally of the US, not be looked at carefully? Surely US citizens should be more concerned with evil deeds committed by their allies, than those committed by their enemies. We have some control over our allies, including breaking the alliance. Our enemies? Either we blow them up, or they become our allies some time in the future.
“…….The intercept is not anti Israel…..”
That is completely false. Greenwald is Israel-obsessed couching his anti Israel bias in the human rights of the Palestinians (while ignoring human rights abuses everywhere else in the world). He delights in (ridiculously) comparing Natanyahu to Goebbels – in effect, comparing Israel and Nazi Germany – while the racist, supremacists internationally recognized terrorist organization, Hamas, is conveniently ignored. In fact, Greenwald seems to have no problem calling Americans and Israelis racist while ignoring the supremacist and racist philosophies of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas (etc.). Do you really believe Greenwald cares how the Taliban treats women , or the Shia Hazaras in Pakistan? Maybe you can drum up a Greenwald article which disproves this Mike……
In this world you choose what you want to write about. Lack of bias is not demonstrated by equally distributed criticism, but by the truth of what you choose to write. So let’s not pretend that you can prove that GG is biased against A because he does not write enough bad things about B. The result of this approach is to reveal that you are justifying the actions of Israel with the weak claim that they are not as bad as someone else. Is this the moral compass you steer by?
I think I did answer your question, but you exercise your right to disagree with the answer.
“The CNN coverage was pro Israel, same for the major networks.”
Now I am defending CNN, a private company, for FREE! I learned about the civilian deaths in Gaza by watching CNN. I learned about Israel point of view through CNN. I learned about Hamas point of view through CNN. The network even gave Khaleed Meshaal, a top Hamas leader the opportunity to explain his views. He dismissed the Israeli point of view, and the Israelis dismissed his views. It seems that you are blaming CNN for giving both sides of a conflict the opportunity to present themselves.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/03/world/meast/hamas-meshaal-interview/
” How many Israelis were killed? How many rockets needed to be intercepted? How many just landed where they did no harm?”
You can answer all these questions by going to cnn.com and type “Gaza” on “search”. This is an example of what you might find
” Gaza destruction from above” a video
” Disproportionate focus” on Israel
” Gazans return to rubble”
And you will learn that roughly 2100 Gazans were killed and roughly 70 Israelis were killed. Since you state that I do not understand, then my question for you is what CNN should have done better to meet your expectations of impartiality? Be precise please.
“The intercept is not anti Israel. Your Pro Israel agenda is now clear”.
Show me ONE sentence in my post in which I defend Israel policies. Just ONE. I am just curious to know why you believe that I have a Pro Israel agenda. I think The Intercept is anti Israel because Mr. Greenwald and the others consistently target and blame Israeli policies without presenting all the angles in the conflict. His concern for the Palestinians is vibrant whenever they are under attack from Israel. However, I wonder where he keeps his concern for the Palestinians when Human Rights Watch or Palestinian human rights groups are targeting Hamas. So, between CNN and The Intercept, I would pick CNN in a heartbeat. Watching CNN I would learn that Israel dropped a bomb next to a hospital and I would also learn that Hamas executed “spies” publicly without proper judicial procedures. Reading The Intercept I would o learn that the US government sent weapons to Israel, a fact that was already stated on CNN. However, The Intercept would not tell me how Hamas treat the Gazans!
“Again, why should Israel, a very close ally of the US, not be looked at carefully?”
Yes, Israel should be looked very carefully. Unfortunately, you are not looking at Israel carefully through The Intercept.
If finding the numbers is sufficient to prove lack of bias, then the intercept must also be unbiased, since similar numbers are here:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/29/terrorism-israelgaza-context/
Oh, and a few other facts as well.
Mike
“……If finding the numbers is sufficient to prove lack of bias, then the intercept must also be unbiased, since similar numbers are here….”
At this point, you are never going to be able to prove anything about the Intercept other than they represent “advocacy journalism” at its worst (for example, comparing Netanyahu to Goebbels). They have very good writers, but you only get one (far left) viewpoint. I’m not sure how you can argue anything else.
Thanks.
Did he really? This is what I find:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/21/netanyahus-telegenically-dead-comment-original/
What is compared is N’s comment on CNN to something Go wrote, hardly a comprehensive comparison of two men. Do you disagree with the the accuracy of this limited comparison? If so, why?
By the way, part of this discussion is about bias on CNN. The video available on CNN of this incident consists of WB’s softball questions intended to allow N to best express Israel’s goodness and humanity, and ends abruptly with the “telegenically dead” comment unchallenged.
I’m not sure why I have to explain this Mike. It’s very similar to comparing Israel and apartheid South Africa. This is done for political reasons even though the comparison is ridiculous. The same goes for the Nazi Germany-Israel comparison. By comparing Israel to the most distasteful, brutal and supremacists regimes of the twentieth century, the far left (and far right) advances distortions and lies to delegitimize Israel including, but not limited to: Zionism equals racism; Israel is an apartheid regime; a Jewish state is a supremacist ideal and so on.
Greenwald could have compared Netanyahu to any number of former leaders hated by the far left – like Bush or Blair. Greenwald carefully chose one of the most inflammatory figures representative of the Third Reich. That was a classic and predictable tactic of far left thinking which I outlined above. To believe for even one second that the Intercept is not biased in their reporting against Israel is to close your eyes completely to reality. To believe for even one second that that Netanyahu-Goebbels comparison by Greenwald was just a harmless comparison to make a point is to underestimate the hatred of and the obsession with Israel (a Jewish state) by far left wing activists.
Thanks Mike. I hope that helps explain why Greenwald made the comparison.
Could have, but for some reason he picked one who wrote something similar to what N. said.
As for South Africa and apartheid, the US, unlike most of the rest of the world, was slow to condemn it, and continued to maintain some relations, although at least a partial embargo did exist. And of course the ANC was always a terrorist organization to Ronald Reagan. As for Israel, the rest of the world is much closer to GG’s position than yours. Well, several billion people can be wrong, but on the other hand, Israel is the closest ally of the US, something South Africa never was, and something many of us are not comfortable with.
Fair enough. Thanks Mike
I would watch the phrasing…”The Intercept is more anti Israel than pro Palestinian.”
I don’t think The Intercept is “anti-Israel.” It would be more precise to say that articles in this forum are critical of contemporary Israeli state policy as it pertains to the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied territories. I am not just quibbling about semantics here; I believe this to be a crucial distinction. Israel is not the same thing as the state policy it practices. People that conflate the two tend to get emotional and pissy about it, unnecessarily.
“…….I would watch the phrasing…”The Intercept is more anti Israel than pro Palestinian.”……”
I think this is also a crucial statement. In other words, if this conflict didn’t involve the Israelis, there would be no coverage of the Palestinians by the Intercept. The above statement reflects that obvious reality. In other words, the pictures of dead Gaza children at the top of Greenwald’s articles are only there because Israel was bombing Gaza. Thousands of children are victims of wars in progress today (Syria, for example), but only dead children in Gaza warrant a picture at the Intercept. That’s because the Israelis are killing them – no other reason.
There is politics and there is human suffering – then there is the politics of human suffering. Greenwald is a brilliant and original writer. There is no excuse for ignoring conflicts which may not interest him (politically). The mission statement mentions “governments” so I’m going to hold to what he says – and that includes Russia, China, Iran and so on.
Thanks Dabney
Juan Cole as an authoritative source? This entire article is propaganda.
Oh come off it Craig. Stop being so obtuse. Boko Haram is more than adequately covered in the mainstream media. Why should that get rehashed ad nauseum on this web site? The Intercept, Truthdig, AlterNet, Mondoweiss and The Electronic Intifada are all examples of forums that present important alternative perspectives that are either censored or ignored by the mainstream media. I’m sure The Intercept wasn’t designed at inception to be just another clone of the NY Times.
“…….Boko Haram is more than adequately covered in the mainstream media. Why should that get rehashed ad nauseum on this web site?…..”
So is American and Israel policies (by journalists and news sites throughout the world; for example, al Jazeera). And your point is what other than to support the narrow political focus and “advocacy journalism” of the Intercept.
Thanks.
My point Craig, is that my best guess, since I don’t speak for anyone at The Intercept, is that The Intercept is striving to be relevant, and not redundant. Not long ago, there were only a few writers; by now you may have noticed more and more are being added. Perhaps over time, The Intercept will grow to have writers that have opposing ideologies on the masthead. Jeffrey Goldberg and Peter Beinart frequently have differing perspectives, and both write for The Atlantic. Maybe over time a similar situation will evolve at The Intercept. So why don’t you just chillax, and take a deep breath, and wait and see? Rome wasn’t built in a day. And if you’re really starving for some Israeli centric coverage in the meantime, there’s plenty of that to be found at the Times, or CNN, or MSNBC, or etc. etc. etc.
And I disagree with your assessment of The Intercept as being “anti-Israel.”
Can I make a friendly suggestion? I think it would really behoove you to read Max Blumenthal’s book Goliath: Fear and Loathing in Greater Israel. Because I can see that you are a smart guy who just is not in possession of all the facts. I think that book should be required reading for anyone that loves Israel and cares as much about its future as I know you do. Now I’m guessing the idea even touching that book is like anathema to you, but you stand to learn so much, and it’s never a bad thing to face your fears. So I dare you, I double dare you to read that book. And if you take me up on it, in the spirit of friendly quid pro quo, I’ll read one book of your choice, front to back. I’ll even read that Dershowitz book.
Hi Dabney
“……So I dare you, I double dare you to read that book. And if you take me up on it, in the spirit of friendly quid pro quo, I’ll read one book of your choice, front to back. I’ll even read that Dershowitz book……”
I’m going to decline your offer, but thanks. I did enough background checking on Blumenthal to realize his agenda is to provide support for the BDS movement and ultimately he believes there should be no Jewish state i.e., single state solution. I could never support that goal. Blumenthal is a radical leftist in the same mold and with the same agenda as the ones I mentioned (above) to Mike Sulzer. In other words, I have zero faith in what he might write because I’m (rightly) suspicious of his motives.
Blumenthal believes that Israelis are racist and fascist. I’m not going to deny there is racism in Israel anymore than denying there is racism in the US, France, Russia and anywhere else on earth. The Jews have been at war with Arabs for over half a century. There is plenty of hatred and racism on both sides. This has been a bitterly fought conflict. No one can deny that. Most Jews were expelled from the greater Middle East since Israeli independence (collectively punished). Arab Palestinians driven from their homes in the Israeli war of Independence (1948) will never be allowed to return to where they were raised (collectively punished). Those are the realities in Palestine and the Middle East.
Blumenthal focused only on Israel in his book writing responses from Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. He could certainly have found similar hatred and racism within the Palestinian community and the Arab Middle East. Jews are not allowed citizenship in Jordan, for example. What did Blumenthal expect to find after so many wars, terrorism, bombings and deaths? And why was his focus strictly on Israel? Racism is a two way street in Palestine. To focus on only one side is simply to expose your narrow political focus.
Even if a two state solution agreement was signed tomorrow, the bitterness and hatred would continue for decades on both sides. Both sides have lost people they care about. The current generation will have to be buried before the memories can begin to fade. That’s decades into the future. I think this is simply obvious – so why would you base your view of Israel on the writing of an author with a clear political agenda without any context provided from the other side of the conflict? Who can deny, for example, that antisemitism is rampant in the Arab Middle East? And is this hatred and racism acceptable to writers like Blumenthal because he believes they are the victims? How is that possible when nearly one million Jews were expelled from Arab and greater Middle East societies?
The Israelis are losing support slowly but surely internationally. Brutal bombings in Gaza are not helping their cause although Hamas always will diminish the international ramifications because of their own Islamists agenda. Other radical brutal Islamists (like ISIS) are certainly not helping Hamas portray themselves as “moderates” either. However, a boycott of Israel is certainly a good possibility in the future. You cannot deny Palestinians self determination even as you defend your own. In addition, the Israelis should return the West Bank to Palestinians in my opinion for a two state solution to work.
By the way, I have read “The Case For Israel” by Dershowitz (quite awhile back). A book I would recommend for you to read would be “The Case Against Israel” by Michael Neumann for a look at why Israel should never have been created. It’s short, but interesting. At least Mr. Neumann recognizes the realities on the ground cannot be reversed.
Thanks. Have a good weekend.
Correction: “….Jews are not allowed citizenship in Jordan, for example……”
This is not correct, apparently. Jews fighting in the war of independence were not allowed citizenship in Jordan, but not in general as far as I can tell.
Thanks.
@Craig – Craig, you can’t speak authoritatively about the motives of a writer you have never read, and you can’t speak authoritatively about the contents of a book you have never read. I’m not going to pick apart all of your assumptions about Blumenthal because that would take too long, but I will say in passing that Blumenthal does not believe ALL Israelis are fascist and/or racist. As is the case everywhere, there is a wide and varying spectrum, and his writing reflects that awareness. So don’t assume. Read the book.
“The current generation will have to be buried before the memories can begin to fade. That’s decades into the future.” I don’t know if I disagree or not. That’s assuming that Israel’s finished “mowing the lawn” in Gaza, and there are indications that it isn’t. And anyway, I know you will abhor this comparison, but how many generations of Jews will have age and die off before Jewish people in general, forget about the Holocaust? Hmmm? My point being, people tend to hang on to the formative tragedies that then become incorporated into their collective psyche’s. The Palestinians aren’t going to forget about the Nakba anytime soon, or any of the wars that followed it.
Well I’m glad you think that Israel should get out of the West Bank. I agree, but it’ll never happen now. They’ve covered 40% of it in illegal settlements and are continuing apace with plans for more. I probably don’t need to tell you what the Likud charter has to say about Greater Israel.
I would only consider reading the Neumann book if you could offer me a compelling reason why I should. Because my pile of books to read is just too big right now. Next up, a little potboiler by Walt and Mearsheimer called The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy.
Enjoy your weekend.
Thanks Dabney
I’m only suggesting that you read Neumann (if you have some spare time). The author argues the case for the Palestinians logically and succinctly. Neumann is a professor of Philosophy at Trent University in Canada.
As far as “…..you can’t speak authoritatively about the motives of a writer you have never read…..”, I’m fairly good at sniffing out the far left positions of political writers, but I also did some background work. I admit, maybe I will be surprised sometime in the future by this writer. I doubt it though.
@Craig Summers — Comfort zones are over-rated.
@Dabney,
I still stand by my belief that the Intercept is more anti Israel than pro Palestinian. If you read The Intercept exclusively without paying attention to other networks, you would not know how Hamas treat the Gazans. Moreover, you would never be able to have a proper judgment on the conflict with regards to civilian casualties because while you would be well informed on the IDF tactics there would be no analysis on Hamas strategy.
“You can’t speak authoritatively about the motives of a writer you have never read, and you can’t speak authoritatively about the contents of a book you have never read.”
However, a writer or a commentator may lose his or her credibility on certain areas because of his or her history of unfairness. For instance, I doubt you would consider Sean Hannity as an impartial author if he would write a book on the US Democratic Party.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”—Osama bin Laden (October 2001), as reported by CNN (from John Whitehead’s weekly “column” (Rutherford Institute))
‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ and the Project for the New American Century
by Bette Stockbauer
June 18, 2003
[snip]
“Rebuilding America’s Defenses (RAD)” is a policy document published by a neoconservative Washington think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Its pages have been compared to Hitler’s Mein Kampf in that they outline an aggressive military plan for U.S. world domination during the coming century. And just as Hitler’s book was not taken seriously until after his catastrophic rise to power, so it seems that relatively few Americans are expressing alarm at this published document that is a blueprint for many of the present actions of the Bush administration, actions which have begun to destabilize the balance of power between the nations of the world.
Some of these men have been advocating for a strong military posture since the ending of cold war hostilities with the Soviet Union. Wishing to capitalize on the fact that the US had emerged as the world’s preeminent superpower, they have lobbied for increases in military spending in order to establish what they call a Pax Americana that will reap the rewards of complete military and commercial control of land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. This, they said, would be accomplished by the waging of “multiple simultaneous large-scale wars” and one of their first orders of business was always the removal of Saddam Hussein, thereby giving the US a toehold in the oil-rich Middle East.
During the Clinton presidency, when the Republicans were out of power, this militaristic wing in American politics became highly organized and efficient. They formed the PNAC in 1997 And published “RAD” in September 2000. Determined to have their world empire, they offered an eerie prophecy on page 52 of that document about how it might be accomplished..
Although there could have been many responses to the tragedy of 9/11, the Bush administration seized upon that event to mold public opinion into accepting many ideas embodied in “RAD”. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein, was being proposed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz one day after 9/11, even before anyone knew who was responsible for the attacks. As soon as the war against Afghanistan was completed, the focus of US policy became regime change in Iraq, with all of the tragic consequences we are now seeing in that country..’
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/stockbauer1.html
questiontheanswers.now
I clearly remember reading that document and exploring the PNAC website around the time Ms. Stockbauer wrote that article. It was really chilling. Still is. Especially since they have been so successful at subsuming both sides of the aisle into wholehearted support of all of the goals that were listed within it. Clinton triangulated but every democrat since has genuflected and we see the results in Obama, who has expanded and cemented almost every single goal the initial PNAC group put on their list.
Thanks for that reminder suave. Not what I wanted to read with my morning coffee, but there never really is a good time for contemplating the shit that’s being shoveled over our heads.
suave
This is such old news and garbage with typical conspiratorial overtones – like these guys (and AIPAC) control US foreign policy. Did neoconservatives influence the Bush administration? No doubt (especially in Iraq), but Bush steadily moved away from that philosophy in his second term (Jan 2009):
“……WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush last year rejected a secret Israeli request for an air strike against the main Iranian nuclear complex using US bunker-busting bombs, The New York Times reported on its website……”
In addition, you fail to mention one of their main guiding principles: “…..we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad…..”. I doubt you left that out because you overlooked it. Can you far left wing pundits ever let PNAC go for God’s sake? It’s old fucking news.
the craig..
Do some research on the current ‘Foreign Policy Initiative’ (FPI) group. Seems that Dr William Kristol and Dr Robert Kagan have continued their Global Domination Blueprint (GDB.
Also, take a gander at this letter that was sent to Mr Obama, August ’13..
‘Dear Mr. President:
Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has once again violated your red line, using chemical weapons to kill as many as 1,400 people in the suburbs of Damascus. You have said that large-scale use of chemical weapons in Syria would implicate “core national interests,” including “making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies [and] our bases in the region.” The world—including Iran, North Korea, and other potential aggressors who seek or possess weapons of mass of destruction—is now watching to see how you respond.
We urge you to respond decisively by imposing meaningful consequences on the Assad regime. At a minimum, the United States, along with willing allies and partners, should use standoff weapons and airpower to target the Syrian dictatorship’s military units that were involved in the recent large-scale use of chemical weapons. It should also provide vetted moderate elements of Syria’s armed opposition with the military support required to identify and strike regime units armed with chemical weapons.
Moreover, the United States and other willing nations should consider direct military strikes against the pillars of the Assad regime. The objectives should be not only to ensure that Assad’s chemical weapons no longer threaten America, our allies in the region or the Syrian people, but also to deter or destroy the Assad regime’s airpower and other conventional military means of committing atrocities against civilian non-combatants. At the same time, the United States should accelerate efforts to vet, train, and arm moderate elements of Syria’s armed opposition, with the goal of empowering them to prevail against both the Assad regime and the growing presence of Al Qaeda-affiliated and other extremist rebel factions in the country.
Left unanswered, the Assad regime’s mounting attacks with chemical weapons will show the world that America’s red lines are only empty threats. It is a dangerous and destabilizing message that will surely come to haunt us—one that will certainly embolden Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons capability despite your repeated warnings that doing so is unacceptable. It is therefore time for the United States to take meaningful and decisive actions to stem the Assad regime’s relentless aggression, and help shape and influence the foundations for the post-Assad Syria that you have said is inevitable.
Sincerely,
[snip]
Dr Paula Dobriansky
Elliot Abrams
Randy Scheunemann
Bruce Pitcairn Jackson
http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/experts-obama-here-what-do-syria_751267.html?page=1
To be continued..
the craig..
Elliott Abrams – National Security Council – Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs
Richard Armitage – Department of State (2001-2005) – Deputy Secretary of State
John R. Bolton – Department of State – U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Richard Cheney – Bush Administration – Vice President
Seth Cropsey – Voice of America – Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau
Paula Dobriansky – Department of State – Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
Francis Fukuyama – President’s Council on Bioethics
Bruce Jackson – U.S. Committee on NATO President – (Former Lockheed Martin VP for Strategy & Planning)
Zalmay Khalilzad – U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby – Bush Administration (2001-2005) – Chief of Staff for the Vice President
Peter W. Rodman – Department of Defense – Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Donald Rumsfeld – Secretary of Defense
Randy Scheunemann – U.S. Committee on NATO
Paul Wolfowitz – World Bank President – Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005
Dov S. Zakheim – Department of Defense
Robert B. Zoellick – Deputy Secretary of State
the craig..
Sorry to disappoint you, Grumps, but I’ve been a card-carrying member of the ‘Commonsensimilla Party’ ever since I became cognizant of Mr Reagan ‘trickling’ us into that 3,000,000,000,000 hole..
How’s the family??
suave (Commonsensimilla Party Chair)
Family is great. How was your trip to beautiful northern Idaho?
suave
The US has advocated a strong defense and deterrence since WWII. The US government – both Democrat and Republican – has maintained hawkish policies for over half a century. The neoconservative movement has been a small, but influential part of US foreign policy for a long time advocating especially a strong military to deter the Soviet Union. Their position was reinforced when the USSR crumbled and fourteen countries were freed from Soviet domination and control (some even allow voting today…..can you imagine that?). As I mentioned above, they influenced the Bush Administration. No one can deny that. However, since the end of Bush’s first term, their influence has diminished. The Obama administration reached out to Assad reinstating the US Ambassador in Damascus. The US has negotiated with Iran on their nuclear program. The US criticized and cut some funding to a strong US ally, Egypt, for ousting Morsi. None of these sat real well with long time allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, these were not typical neoconservative backed policies implemented by Obama.
I never suggested that the Neoconservative movement disbanded or changed their basic philosophy. However, there is nothing remotely controversial in the above letter. Most Republicans and many Democrats agree that setting a red line in the sand (and backing down) was a huge blunder by Obama. The Assad regime recently (and illegally) used chlorine (a chemical weapon) on civilians so what did the US gain by agreeing to remove the chemical stockpile from Syria? Assad still used chemical weapons without any fear of US reprisals – and he can just replenish his chemical weapon stockpile anytime in the future.
“……To be continued…….”
Fine, but you are preaching to the devil on this topic.
The other possibility is that ISIS is supported by the U.S. (and its allies)…These quotes from the Cold War surprised me quite a bit:
————
Sutton’s conclusion was that the conflicts of the Cold War were “not fought to restrain communism”, since the United States, through financing the Soviet Union “directly or indirectly armed both sides in at least Korea and Vietnam”; rather, these wars were organised in order “to generate multibillion-dollar armaments contracts”.[1]
“In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This massive construction job has taken 50 years. Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.”[2] –Anthony C. Sutton (wikipedia)
—————
“Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military–industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, **until some other adversary could be invented**. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.”[14]
–George F. Kennan in forward to Norman Cousins’ 1987 book *The Pathology of Power*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex
————-
“It is the function of the CIA to keep the world unstable, and to propagandize and teach the American people to hate and fear, so we will let the Establishment spend any amount of money on arms.”
–John Stockwell, Excerpt from *The Praetorian Guard*
—————–
Yes. The flow of wealth is >Always< the thread to follow when trying to understand where the herd is being driven.
Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Syria. Iraq, again. Not one, single, solitary, meddling intervention instigated and orchestrated by the U.S. war machine has produced one ounce of stability. On the contrary, our military and covert missions have disrupted the entire region. Fostered unknown numbers of ‘revenge-seekers’ (call them terrorists if it makes you feel superior). And created conditions all but certain to insure we’ll be mucking around in the middle east for many, many years to come- or until the collapse of America altogether. Either way, if Muslim countries, who seemingly have the most to lose, can’t find it within themselves to defend their own piece of the world, why in the Hell should the U.S. risk what little she has left for them? And where’s Israel in all this crap? Why is any of this the business of the U.S. to correct? To be perfectly honest, I personally would love nothing more than to find the handle of that bowl of never-ending horror, and give it a good crank. I’d be sure to hold that handle down for a while to be sure it’s all gone.
“why in the Hell should the U.S. risk what little she has left for them?”
Because it is a conflict that can spread to other areas quickly. Hutus and Tutsis have not shown any interest in spreading their conflict around the globe. So, there was no point for the US to get involved. That was a similar situation in South Sudan where the genocide was contained in one area. ISIS has made it clear that it will not stop in Syria, and Irak. It intents to acquire more territory to establish the Caliphate and its ideology.
” And where’s Israel in all this crap?”
Israel’s priority at the moment is Hamas and Hezbollah. Moreover, ISIS has made it clear that the conflict between Sunnis and Shias is more important than the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
“Why is any of this the business of the U.S. to correct?”
Again, because it will spread quickly to other territories. Saudi Arabia could be targeted by ISIS, but the Saudis who are Sunnis cannot bomb ISIS. Irak, a Shia majority country, would never accept Sunni troops on its soil. Turkey is also ISIS’s enemy, but the Kurds would never accept Turkish troops on their soil. If the conflict could be contained in one area, then the US would not have to intervene.
The American public by a huge margin, want to strike back against ISIS but, at the same time don’t believe that it will make them safer. This indicates to me that the foremost motivation is revenge, not really a particularly good reason to go to war.
I had the same impression at first glance avelna, but here Matt Stoller makes the heterodox argument that this actually indicates a growing awareness on the part of the public.
https://medium.com/@matthewstoller/the-solution-to-isis-is-the-first-amendment-95fc2c94f52e
I wasn’t completely sold on that front, but this is an extremely important piece IMO. Stoller has a knack for zeroing in on our political agnosia.
Stoller makes a good argument, but I’m not convinced that the American public is becoming more aware of the realities of US foreign policy, in part because people are too busy struggling to survive to pay much attention to the details. And I think that is probably intentional on the part of TPTB.
FYI, the Juan Cole link (“journalists are also getting played”) connects to a non-existent webpage. The following appears to be the page it is supposed to be connecting to:
http://www.juancole.com/2014/09/media-politicians-should-stop-letting-isil-manipulated-them.html
It really bothers me that so few of american people want to stop going into other peoples business al over the world. That’s why there is so much terrorism and anti Americanism all over the world in the first place. I am living in the Us for long time and I tell you, all of my friends in Europe are sickened by Us foreign policy to say the least. And simultaneously Russia gets built up to an enemy again. Looks a lot like a plot of capitalist super rich to me, because they are the only to win for sure, even if America as a nation goes under.
“all of my friends in Europe are sickened by Us foreign policy to say the least”
What part of the US foreign policy in the last five years sickens them?
NATO members in Europe support US policy in Afghanistan, they backed the withdrawal of troops in Irak, they participated in the bombing of Libya, they have placed sanctions against Russia, they are providing military support to Irak against ISIS, they sell weapons to Israel. Did your friends look at their own governments before they got the virus?
>”US falling into the Islamic State’s trap”
Did you call the Islamic State’s UN Ambassador for confirmation Dan? … I didn’t think so.
*I do think it’s important to know [at least] the name(s), if not the place, of the people Obama declared war on. Otherwise, one might as well declare war on alphabetic letters; IS, ISIS, ISIL, AQ(IQ/AFPAK/YE)… or just lump them altogether and call it GWOT.
LOL
So we should not destabilize it still further by more intervention. That is part of what they want to take advantage of.
Perhaps, but I would argue that the alternative – IS advancing against the Iraqis – could have much more dire consequences for destabilizing the area. It could become an even greater humanitarian nightmare with more atrocities, religious conversions at the knife, and mass executions.
As I said before, the US shouldn’t be leading the charge. We should be a piece of a larger effort with as many other countries as possible. In a way, it should have a structured similarly to the NATO operation in Libya in 2011. The more this conflict is perceived as a 1v1 showdown between the US and IS, the less likely such a coalition is achieved. That is what frustrates me so much about Obama’s speech last week. He jumped the gun and detailed his strategy before assembling the team. They fell into their own trap – political pressure. a week before the pundits and partisans were lining up and bitching about the lack of a plan. Well, their impatience got them a half assed one.
The who? Did the US invade to prevent the break up of Yugoslavia? I see no reason why a country pieced together by the British should be forced back together by yet another US invasion, after a previous invasion left it in civil war.
Does it concern you that ISIS is taking more areas? Moreover, ISIS does not intent to break Iraq into different territories like the former Yugoslavia. It has made it clear that it will exterminate whoever disagrees with its ideology.
This whole article fixates on the “don’t fall for the bait” aspect, which is certainly compelling, but what about weighing it against the reasons that we should intervene?
Ethnic cleansing and the slaughter of bound or unarmed soldiers and innocents, in an area WE helped destabilize, makes me feel that we owe it to the Iraqis to at least help rid them of these parasites. What bothers me, other than the lack of planning and the bypassing of Congress, is that we always have to be the alpha male. instead of being a lesser player in a broader coalition, we have to be center stage. Sure, some of that comes with being a superpower but in this instance the leaders should be the countries most deeply affected and with the most to lose. Maybe if it was a collective ME effort instead of a US effort, places like Turkey wouldn’t be so loathe to join. And if they don’t want to, our assistance should decline accordingly.
If provocation was their true goal, then why did they wait to execute Foley AFTER we began airstrikes. Why not earlier? The videos make it quite clear that they used Foley and later Sotloff to not only extort money but to deter the US from further military strikes. The videos are obviously provocative but if IS truly wants an Islamic State – it’s own territory – and not to be just run of the mill guerrillas and terrorists who rely on hit and hide tactics, having the US blowing their shit up is not going to bode well for those plans.
Also, the notion that ISIS is depending on US intervention for survival is incredibly far-fetched. Their recruitment numbers have been increasing since they arrived in Iraq and they are strapped with cash. Their riches alone should bolster recruitment of the poor, ignorant, angry, and disillusioned. Yes, if the US were to go alone or have a weak coalition of westerners, it would be a recruitment tool. That’s why it is so critical for the US to build a coalition with ME stakeholders. There will always be increased recruitment because of U.S. involvement so it isn’t about avoidance but mitigation. The key is having such a vast coalition of allies and enemies (Iran, Russia, hell I think even Syria is less of a threat to the region but it’s politically impossible) that it is truly ISIS against the world.
But, Instead of first doing that, Obama idiotically announced his plan of action before gaining allies. Then he failed to justify planned attacks in Syria, and decided to bypass Congress. Those are what turn my face red. If we are going to enter into an indefinite war against IS, the Americans through their Congresspersons should have a choice in the matter, but only after we know who plans to ally with us. If the ME wants no part in dealing with their own backyard problems, then we shouldn’t be involved at all.
Nate
“…….Also, the notion that ISIS is depending on US intervention for survival is incredibly far-fetched. Their recruitment numbers have been increasing since they arrived in Iraq and they are strapped with cash. Their riches alone should bolster recruitment of the poor, ignorant, angry, and disillusioned……”
…..and the “stupid”, but I agree with you here – especially the part in your post where the Intercept seems to have conveniently forgot that the beheadings took place after US military took action against ISIS. Of course, one might argue that the ISIS threatened to exterminate the Yazidis knowing the US would react. No matter how you slice the cake, we are idiots while the Jihadists are brilliant laying the groundwork (setting the trap) for taking over the planet.
That’s a possibility but it seems a bit too elaborate and quite the gamble just to draw the U.S. Into the conflict. I say a gamble because it had the potential to unify many countries against IS. I was surprised that did not occur and would guess it was due to the lack of journalism in the area. We simply did not see images and videos of the horrific things being described.
If ISIS really just wanted to provoke the U.S., why risk provoking the rest of the world in the process? Maybe I cannot approach the question through reason, after all, IS lacks it.
Craig, what should be really interesting is how IS looks a year from now. Will they still be rolling through the deserts in tanks, easy targets for oerial strikes, or will our intervention force them to go “Al Qaeda” and return to their guerrilla roots, hiding amongst the people?
I knew you were being sarcastic on their taking over the planet ????
those 4 question marks were a smiley face on my iPad. I blame ios 8!
Ha! Technology is always a challenge……
By the way, Nate. I’m not saying they WILL take over the planet. They are lucky and opportunistic to have accomplished what they have in Syria and Iraq so far.
Thanks, Dan. I hold little hope it will change our heading though. I have watched the various news channels and CSPAN today and all are unanimous in calling for war against IS, ISIS, or ISIL(who cares what we call them?) with the ONLY disagreement is whether we put boots on the ground. This is not a rhetorical question, so if anybody has an inkling. Are our elected congressmen really that stupid to not see we are being baited or are they completely corrupted in trying to sustain perpetual war? Why aren’t more people up in arms(no pun intended) at being led from war to war without even a break anymore? What does it take for people to wake from their stupor? For me it was that fact that we had been at war for 10 years when I was able to finally see it and I’ll admit to not being the brightest bulb in the pack. Which begs the question why aren’t these supposedly intelligent leaders of ours able to see it? Sorry for ranting but I am really pissed off at these smart people(snicker).
The unnatural sphere roils underneath, showing bumpy protrusions, nodes of strife, which the “forces of smoothness” attempt to flatten into increasingly messy particularities. War is a Ratchet. Suck on this.
Impressive (& Noted.) …i’ve always thought there is certain power and unity in diversity./
*nods*
I’m not a supporter of the church, but a Pope speaking truth to power? I never anticipated it. Even with this decrepit institution on its knees. And yet here it is, bothering all the right people. It ain’t nothin’.
However tempting it may be to portray the US Government as merely foolishly reactionary in its Middle East military actions (and Congress does an excellent job of playing this role), much more seems to be at play here than responding to provocation. American, Israeli & Saudi interests all align to combat & degrade Bashar Assad and Hezbollah which at the same time would effect Iran & Russia negatively. It would be surprising if a deeper game is not revealed as events transpire.here.
About the American ‘boots on the ground’ thing…
“Not only is it not necessary. We don’t want them. We won’t allow them. Full stop” -Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, AP WIRE 17 September
Obama’s new man in Baghdad just might save our butt (until we figure out another means of killing our soldiers)