Neoconservatism

The U.S. Military Buildup in the Persian Gulf: Neocon Policies Are Alive and Well

/28 Comments/in /by

Although the neocons certainly oppose the withdrawal from Iraq, there are certainly some consolations. As Glenn Greenwald points out at Salon,

The U.S. has Iran completely encircled. It has over 100,000 troops in the nation on Iran’s eastern border (Afghanistan, where, just incidentally, the U.S. continued through this year to turn over detainees to a prison notorious for torture) and has occupied the nation on Iran’s western border (Iraq) for eight years, and will continue to maintain a “small army” of private contractors and CIA officials after it “withdraws.” The U.S. continuously flies drone aircraft over and drops bombs on the nation on Iran’s southeastern border (Pakistan). Its NATO ally (Turkey) is situated on Iran’s northwestern border. The U.S. has troops stationed in multiple countries just a few hundred miles across the Persian Gulf from Iran, virtually all of which are client states. The U.S. has its Fifth Fleet stationed in a country less than 500 miles from Iran (Bahrain) containing“US warships and contingents of U.S. Marines.” And the U.S. routinely arms Iran’s two most virulent rivals (Israel and Saudi Arabia) with sophisticated weaponry.

Greenwald rightly points to  the ludicrousness of Hilary Clinton’s statement:

“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.

Apparently, the U.S. doesn’t count as outside interference, perhaps because the Obama administration considers the entire area to be American territory. Read more

The Neocon’s Defeat in Iraq: On to Iran

/307 Comments/in , /by

The Obama Administration’s announcement of a complete troop withdrawal from Iraq is a stunning defeat for the neocons. The neocon plan was an indefinite military presence in Iraq on the model of the continuing American military bases in Japan and Germany after WWII. Obviously, Iran is a big winner, at least for now, with an ally in the Shiite-dominated government of Iraq.

Of great interest is whether Iraq will maintain the democratic institutions established by the Americans. In the long run, I suspect that from the viewpoint of the neocons, the operation certainly bought time — the time needed for Iraq to rebuild and once again pose a danger to Israeli interests. Read more

Neocons and the Incredible Jewish Ethnic Infrastructure

/71 Comments/in , /by

Yet another glimpse into the massive Jewish ethnic infrastructure, the infrastructure that undergirds the power of the Israel Lobby. A column by Justin Logan in The National Interest (“Memo to Leslie Gelb: The neocons never left“) points out that neocons are alive and well, dominating the foreign policy of the Republican Party. Logan points to Mitt Romney’s foreign policy advisers, most of whom are neocon Jews. And we certainly can’t expect anything better from the likes of Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain.

The reason the neocons have been so successful in taking over the Republican foreign policy establishment is that they provide careers for like-minded people:

As Scott McConnell has pointed out, neoconservatism is a career. Or as Bill Kristol remarked in 2005, the neoconservatives have done such an excellent job building institutions and infrastructure for developing the next generation of neocons that “soon there are going to be more neoconservative magazines than there are neoconservatives.” There are dozens of twenty-something, thirty-something, forty-something and older neocons throughout Washington, working at think tanks, editorial pages, in government and elsewhere. I could probably count on two hands the number of youngish national-security types I know in town who I could strain to call realists. This imbalance among foreign-policy elites helps create the mistaken impression that there are lots of neoconservatives in America generally, which there aren’t. Neoconservatism really is a head without a body.

But that’s how foreign policy (not to mention immigration policy and policy related to all things multicultural) is made in the US—by elites with money and political connections, not by popular sentiment. The interests of America be damned. Read more

Jennifer Rubin’s Self-Serving Analysis of the Norwegian Terror

/28 Comments/in , /by

Award for the most idiotic (not to mention self-serving) comment on the events in Norway goes to Jennifer Rubin, a neocon publicist with access to the elite media (and a remarkably low threshold for detecting anti-Semitism). Writing in her blog for the Washington Post (“Norway Bombing“), she quotes Thomas Joscelyn writing in (surprise!) The Weekly Standard:

We don’t know if al Qaeda was directly responsible for today’s events, but in all likelihood the attack was launched by part of the jihadist hydra. Prominent jihadists have already claimed online that the attack is payback for Norway’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan.

She goes on to write “there is a specific jihadist connection here: ‘Just nine days ago, Norwegian authorities filed charges against Mullah Krekar, an infamous al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist who, with help from Osama bin Laden, founded Ansar al Islam – a branch of al Qaeda in northern Iraq – in late 2001.’”

Her take home point is that U.S. has to recommit to fighting jihadists.

But we know now that Breivik was a strong supporter of Rubin’s favorite country, Israel, and would be more than happy to engage in jihad against the Muslims. Amazingly, even Rubin’s critics haven’t pointed this out (James Fallows and Steve Clemons in The Atlantic blog). Clemons wrote that he “appears to be a right wing, Christian fundamentalist”—a hopelessly inadequate description. Breivik comes across as someone who sees a positive role for historic Christianity in combating Islam but not as a devout believer.

Despite plenty of opportunity, Rubin has not issued a retraction.

The Jewish Donors Behind the Foundation for Defense of Democracies

/100 Comments/in , /by

In case there are still doubts about the Jewish nature of neoconservatism, a recent article “Documents Shed Light On Those Underwriting The Foundation For Defense Of Democracies”  by Eli Clifton at Think Progress should clear things up. The FDD supports all the past and future wars in the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran. It supports “the Bush administration’s militant “war on terror” and policies espoused by Israel’s right wing Likud party.” Yet the FDD statement of purpose completely omits any mention of Israel. Touring their website would lead one to believe that there is no connection at all to Israel or anything Jewish.

All of the identifiable donors to The Foundation for Defense of Democracies are Jews, including a host of well-known Jewish activists like Edgar M. Bronfman ($1,050,000)  and Michael Steinhardt ($850,000) who co-founded the Birthright Israel program that brings Jewish young people to Israel for a dose of Jewish patriotism. Haim Saban, who is a pro-Israel fanatic but usually supports left-wing causes in the Diaspora, donated $10,000. I’m shocked that a liberal like Saban would contribute to an organization that is so prominent in Republican circles. Read more

Daniel Bell and Jewish ethnic networking

/73 Comments/in , /by

The death of Daniel Bell is another one of those moments when you get a glimpse of how the world works. Writing in Slate, Jacob Weisberg recalls his fond memories of the great man. It’s a totally Jewish reminiscence. As a student, Weisberg wrote a letter to Bell. Bell responded, inviting Weisberg “for a ”nosh'” — “over lox and bagels” as we later find out. Read more

George Bush: “The First Jewish President”

/66 Comments/in /by

Michael Kinsley’s review of Bush’s memoir has this tidbit:

When Bush called for a new Palestinian leadership, Barbara Bush the elder (“Mother,” he invariably calls her) rang up to say, “How’s the first Jewish president doing?” Maybe I’m deficient in humor, but I don’t see why this is funny, as her son clearly believes it to be. I might even find it alarming if Bush didn’t crowd this book with ­maybe-you-had-to-be-there witticisms.

Philip Weiss writes that the comment is

a little window into the important mystery of how the realist [G. H. W] Bush absorbed the shocking reality of his neoconnized son — after all, a question of huge historical import. I.e by gentle ribbing, in the hope that it might eventually make a difference. Perhaps it even did; Bush didn’t attack Iran. Jeffrey Goldberg reported that he began to call Kristol and Krauthammer “the bomber boys” in the last years of his presidency. I’m a little surprised that Kinsley would have thought it alarming. Read more