Will Blog for Food

Neocon Rats Leaving the Sinking Ship

In an article to be published in Vanity Fair, the principle neocon architects of the war in Iraq wring their hands over the total failure of the policies they advocated. They blame Bush for his incompetence. They blame Rumsfield for his incompetence. They blame Bremer. Never once do they stop and think that maybe they had their heads up their asses to advocate such a cockamamie and utterly immoral idea as preemptive war, in other words a war of aggression. They might as well blame President Cheney too because Bush was merely the Cheerleader-in-Chief, a President prior to 9/11 who was shopping for a legacy and was sold a bill of goods by the neocons, and it was a traditional Republican legacy after all: WAR. Now the neocons such as Richard Perle on the left are backing away from their involvement in designing and promoting a "splendid little war" with Iraq. The reason they were so enthusisatic about it was that toppling Sadam Hussein in their eyes was like shooting fish in a barrel. None of them had the foresight to envision the chaos and destabilization that has occurred.

According to [Richard] Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the administration of President George W. Bush. Perle says, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.… At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty." Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."

The whole neocon idea of spreading democracy in the middle east by attacking and invading a country in order to change it from a dictatorship to a democracy is a ridiculous proposition on the face of it but that's what the neocons were selling. And the preposterous notion that this was a moral undertaking - it was morally a good thing to do - to bring death and destruction to a nation in order to spread democracy is as repugnant as the notion that Hitler was morally correct to invade weaker countries because the Germans were the most advanced civilization composed of the stongest and best people. The American supermensch, according to the neocons, would advance the Iraqi undermensch to democracy and freedom. Depite the cost in death and deatruction, they would thank us some day. They would throw flowers at the advancing troops much as the Austrians threw flowers at the German army during the Anscluss. The only difference was the Iraqis didn't throw flowers while the Austrians actuallly did.

A President shopping for a legacy was sold a bill of goods by a pretentious, pompous Prince of Darkness, Richard Perle, and others and now they're blaming the Bush Administration for incompetence. If they had only executed their duties flawlessly, Iraqi democracy and freedom would be flowering. With a little American water and fertilizer, whole generations of Iraqis from the old and grizzled to Iraqi schioolchildren would be thanking us and singing our praises. And those who didn't would be the dead enders, the sore losers.

What these ideologue neocons misunderstand is human nature itself, not to mention the history and culture of the Iraqi people. And their disingenuousness belies their true motives which are much the same as Hitler's - to extend American (German) power over a greater part of the world by means of establishing humongous military bases in Iraq and turn Iraqi "freedom" into the free enterprise system (otherwise known as capitalism) goal of extracting oil for profit - said profit not to be shared in an egalitarian manner among the Iraqi people but in the best globalistic tradition put up for sale to the highest bidder whether Iraqi or some other member of the global community (read: BIG OIL).

Human nature is such that you can't invade a country in order to save it; you can't destroy a country in order to save it; you can't subjugate a people who refuse to be subjugated. Neocon doctrine is similar to Hitler era Nazi doctrine: the strong should assert their superiority over the weak. Power should be used and exerted to train and tailor the world to conform to American interests and values: Pax Americana similar to Pax Germana. This is the morality of survival of the fittest: social Darwinism which underlay Nazi as well as neocon doctrine. A nation that has it within its power to use that power to help instead wants to use that power in the interests of enriching and ennobling those who wield the power since they believe they are the natural superiors of everybody else.

Instead of using its military to "help" people, instead of using the forces of destruction to bring about a better life and a better world, America should use its might to bring about a better world by waging peace - what a novel notion! By being constructive rather than destructive, by not using military means to achieve goals, but instead using constructive means, much good could be achieved. But this is an alien notion to right-wing Republicans who have sufficiently castigated and demonized do-gooders. Instead they want the invigorating and masculine action of a fully charged military. Military action will hasten a new day, a day in which all the cobwebs of stagnating inaction have been cleared away. Helping to fight poverty and disease, supplying the basic needs of humanity for Americans (Charity begins at home) and foreign peoples, constructing rather than destructing ennabling rather than enslaving, letting people define themselves instead of trying to define them to themselves - all these things were and are possible. Instead  of being a constructive force for peace in the world, America has left it to a few good billionaires and multi-millionaire entertainers to cure disease aand to provide clean drinking water to those who lack even the bare essentials of life while winking at the corrupt politicians and businessmen who have access to the inner circles of power - the nexus between lobbyists for powerful corporations and Team Earmark, the congressional me firsters.

Rome tried to  control the world. Pax Romana was defeated by internal corruption and profligate spending as well as miltary overstretch. Then Napoleon tried it; Hitler tried it.  And now the neocons have tried to bring about Pax Americana. Just as Hitler blamed the incompetence of  his Generals and the unwillingness of the German people to assert their superiority over the undermensch, the neocons are blaming the incompetence of the Bush Administration and the impatience of the American people rather than blaming and questioning the wisdom of their own philosophy which led to their ideology of American aggression. It looks like their Pax Americana is unraveling. The American people have had enough of it. They're not wling to die for the glory of the Bush Administration and its concomitant neocon think tanks.

Liesiness and Truthiness: Illusions and Delusions

Whereas truthiness refers to the tendency in the modern world to rely on gut feeling, emotion etc rather than real facts to confer a version of the truth, liesiness is the tendency to present a version of the truth or reality which totally belies the truth and/or reality or is a distortion thereof. In both truthiness and liesiness the goal of the propagandist is to convert others to his point of view. In the former, the speaker doesn't know what the truth is; in the latter he knows very well what the truth is but presents a version of reality that is completely contrary to it and intended to deceive. As such it is not spin. Spin is when someone tries to present a version of the truth that is beneficial to him. Liesiness does not even pretend to be a version of the truth. Liesiness tries to convert people to a version of reality that totally contradicts the truth.

Both truthiness and liesiness can be used as propaganda. Propaganda tries to persuade the populace to have a particular version of reality. If that version of reality bears some resemblance to the truth, then we could call it spin or truthiness. If that version of reality has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth, we call it liesiness. Take the run-up to the Iraq war: lie by lie. While the Bush Administration had already decided to invade Iraq, Bush said on 3/8/2003: "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq." This was an outright lie. They were doing everything they could to justify going to war with Iraq, which was a foregone conclusion as far as they were concerned.

For example, consider Dick Cheney's performance on Meet the Press recently. Even though it is beyond the shadow of a doubt that Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11, had nothing to do with Al Quaeda and had no weapons of mass destruction, Cheney and other in the administration continue to link Sadam with the War on Terror. Here's how they are able to lie and get away with it. First, when asked directly whether Sadam had anything to do with 9/11, they'll respond directly "No." Then they'll go on to elaborate in such a way as to suggest, imply, allude and hint that Sadam did have something to do with it. They don't come out and say directly that he did. They just suggest 10 times, compared to the brief direct statement that he didn't, that he did. Get it? Suggest 10 times that he did. Reply directly one time that he didn't. This is another form of liesiness.

Another example: the docudrama shown on ABC without commercial interruption: "The Path to 9/11." Since it was a docudrama and not a documentary, the producers were free to fabricate, make up stuff, put words in people's mouths that were never said etc. Certain scenes implied or suggested or outright portrayed things that were contrary to the truth as the producers very well knew in order to convey a certain impression or version of reality which was that the Clinton Administration was responsible for 9/11 while letting the Bush Administration off the hook although it's well documented by Richard Clark ("Against All Enemies") and others that Bush and his Administration had no interest in terrorism whatsoever prior to 9/11. This is liesiness at its best. Just put in a brief disclaimer that some of the content may be fictional, and then leave the audience to figure out exactly what that is. Of course, words were put in the mouths of real people that were never said. So what does it matter what's true and what's false? Viewers will come away with whatever point of view the producers wish to present. Exactly what liesiness is all about: converting viewers to their version of reality.

Liesiness is also running ads on TV which distort the truth and smear an opponent. The idea is to denigrate, castigate, heap aspersions upon, blame, mock, humiliate etc. The "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" campaign against John Kerry is just one example. The Willie Horton ads against Michael Dukakis are another. The bottom line is that the campaign with the most money for negative, attack ads wins. That's why the Republicans despite all their obvious incompetence, failure and venality will probably win the mid-term elections. They have the most money for negative attack ads. This is why their philosopy of giving tax breaks to the rich makes so much sense. The rich, returning favor, have the money to donate to Republican campaign coffers which translates into more attack ads than the Democrats can muster. Lies repeated more often than their opponents' lies or, God forbid, the opponents' truth, win elections. In this game those who tell the truth are eliminated in the first round.

Neocon Principles: #4 Ceasefires are only desirable after our military objectives have been accomplished

Ceasefires should only occur after our enemy has been completely vanquished. Any ceasefire short of achieving our military objectives is a bad ceasefire. Only the enemy's surrender should signal a ceasefire. A ceasefire prior to the achievement of our objectives will only give the enemy an opportunity to rearm and resupply himself. It will only encourage the enemy to continue fighting at some future date.

Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of politics by other means.  Neocons say that politics is a less desirable means for the continuation of war than war itself. Indeed, there is no need to see war as a continuation of politics which is to say something that is pursued only when diplomacy breaks down. For neocons war is the primary value in itself.

Consider the following:

...one might well ask whether the military thought of Carl von Clausewitz, developed over a hundred and seventy years ago, has anything relevant to offer to soldiers of the 21st century. Indeed, one author has recently argued that Clausewitz's wake is long overdue: "[Future] war will be fought not to pursue national interests, but to kill enemy leaders, to convert opponents to one's religion, to obtain booty, or sometimes, for simple entertainment. Thus the core of Clausewitz's philosophy of war--that states wage wars using armies in pursuit of political objectives--will disappear."... Other writers have maintained that nuclear weaponry, transnational constabulary warfare, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotrafficking, and the increased compartmentalization of political and military leadership evident in modern states have rendered obsolete Clausewitz's definition of war as an act of policy, and with it his tripartite conception of war. ...We are further told that the value of Clausewitz's masterwork, On War, is diminished because of its failure to address war as a cultural phenomenon: It not only fails to explain why wars occur, it views war from only a single perspective, from within the Western nation-state paradigm.

Thus war is the primary undertaking itself not just a means of achieving political objectives. Sometimes it is even pursued for its "entertainment value." Peace is undesirable because it's boring; the emotions go into hibernation. Only the violence of war spurs men on to glorious pursuits. As Nietsche said, "A good war hallows any cause." Nietzsche went on: "You say it is the good cause that hallows even war? I say unto you: it is the good war that hallows any cause. War and courage have accomplished more great things than love of thy neighbor." In  other words, you can achieve glory through war, and peace is for weenies.  Peace, neighbor love and other sissy sentiments will never achieve the grand and glorious things that war can and will achieve. As Rush Limbaugh says:  "Peace follows victory." There can be no peace until war has achieved a complete and total victory, and we have beaten our enemies into complete and total submission. Anything short of victory such as a "negotiated peace" can not possibly produce a state of affairs with which real men can be satisfied.

Neocon of the month: Elliott Abrams.

As assistant Secretary of State to Ronald Reagan, Abrams was deeply involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. Inexplicably appointed by George W Bush to oversee the Palestine-Israel conflict. Flew to London under the pseudonym Mr. Kenilworth and asked the Sultan of Brunei for a $10 million donation to the Iran-Contra startup. Plead guilty in 1991 to witholding information from Congress. Pardoned by George H W Bush for his Iran-Contra crimes. In 2005, appointed by George W Bush as Deputy National Security Adviser.

Neocon Principles: #3 The War Process Takes Precedence Over the Peace Process

President Clinton furthered the peace process by bringing Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat together. In an effort to undo all the good that Clinton did and Al Gore or John Kerry might have done, the neocons have pooh-poohed the peace process, eschewed it in fact, in favor of the war process. Our objectives can always be gained on more favorable terms by means of the war process rather than the peace process since we are the only remaining superpower.

Jimmy Carter engineered a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel by bringing Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat together. But these guys were Democrats, liberals, and hence wimps. What red-blooded neocon would want to have anything to do with a peace process when we are stronger than other nations? Therefore, they must do as we say or they are subject to being preemptively invaded by us or our allies. Neocons think the peace process is a sign of weakness. We don't negotiate with terrorists, and we don't try to "bring people together" ala Carter and Clinton. Did they sing "Kum Bay Ya?" Since neocons are highly moral and ethical (after all there has been no oral sex in the oval office for 6 years), it is incumbent on us to force our values on others. They must do what we say or else!

Neocon of the month: Richard Perle. A charter member of PNAC, Perle is known as the "Prince of Darkness" for obvious reasons. Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writing from Virginia Beach, Virginia has this to say. Perle was one of the most outspoken and influential advocates of war with Iraq. Perle is also a managing partner in a venture-capital company called Trireme Partners which invests in companies dealing in technology, goods, and services that are of value to homeland security and defense. So for the neocons war is always good for business. Without it they would hardly have the prospect of becoming rich men.

Perle castigates the French government for "appeasement" of Saddam Hussein yet maintains a Provence vacation home where he indulges a passion for French wine and food, especially souffles. Evidently, he has done very well in the war business!

Neocon Principles: #2 Diplomacy is a Waste of Time. We Can Always Accomplish our Objectives More Suitably by Taking Military Action.

Since we are not only the most powerful country on earth but the most moral and ethical, it's only our natural, God-given right to boss the other countries around. There's no need for diplomacy. Diplomacy is for wimps and Democrats. The idea of Jimmy Carter sitting around the fire in his cardigan sweater and negotiating with the Egyptians is revolting to Ann Coulter. So says her book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" in which she also famously lambastes the "Jersey girls" for having so much fun over their husbands' deaths. Carter's efforts resulted in a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, but it was entirely the wrong approach. We should have laid it on the line to the Egyptians, and, if they didn't come around, invaded them militarily!

We don't negotiate with terrorists or anyone else. Our allies do what we tell them. Those who aren't our allies better do what we tell them or face the prospect of a military invasion. There is no need to negotiate. Talking is for girls. Let's all sit around the campfire, hold hands and sing "Cum Bay Ya."

The Neocon of the month is Paul Wolfowitz who famously said that our military excursion in Iraq would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues. A trillion dollars later we are still in the process of taking over the Iraq oil fields. However, not to worry. Our good friends, the Chinese central bankers, are happy to loan us the money to cover not only the war in Iraq but massive tax cuts as well. Since we're the world's only superpower, the dollar is the world's reserve currency. Other countries have to pay for oil in dollars. So there! We can borrow as much as we want whenever we want. That's no problem.

The "Wolfowitz Doctrine" is a major part of Neocon philosophy.

Hardliners in the US administration around Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and their ideological godfather Richard Pearle, are using the fall-out from the New York and Washington attacks to rework the United States' understanding of state sovereignty in the developing world. The concerns with democracy and human rights that dominated foreign policy in the Clinton era never sat comfortably with right-wing Republican promotion of US interests to the exclusion of all else.

That's right, baby. We promote US interests to the exclusion of all else. What else is there? We're number 1. We need to act like it, and the other countries better take heed! If they give us too much backtalk, they just might get invaded!

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) represents the deep thinking that goes into Neocon philosophy. War is always preferable to peace. The war process is preferable to the peace process. We must win every war so long as we stay the course since we are the world's most powerful nation. Anything else is unthinkable. More can be accomplished through war than through peace. Peace is for wimps and Democrats.

Maybe love will win out in the long run. Since Wolfowitz, a married man, has been dating a Muslim woman, maybe he will mellow from his hawkish stance. You know. Make love, not war. Other critics have said his womanizing has come home to roost, but this does not prevent him from being one of the principal architects of Bush's preemptive strike doctrine and his obsession with democratizing the Middle East. After we kill the bad Muslims, then the good Muslims presumably including the woman he's dating, will probably have a better relationship with Israel.

Neocon Principles: #1 - The US is the Only Remaining Superpower. Therefore, We Have the Historical Imperative to Impose our Will on Weaker Nations

The US Government is being run by a Neocon cabal. They won't tell you what their principles are so I will. Since we are the world's only remaining superpower, we have the right, even the historical necessity of imposing our will on other nations in order to get them to do our bidding. Notice that this is in contrast to the dialectically opposite point of view which would say we should work side-by-side with other nations to improve our common lot. Naturally, the UN is anathema to them.

In the Neocon world view diplomacy is a sign of weakness. We indulge in diplomacy at our peril because other nations sensing we're weak will soon start trying to take advantage of us. Conflict resolution is also a sign of weakness. But war is necessary in order to impose our will on others. There is no conflict that can't be resolved by means of a military solution which is the most desirable way to resolve conflicts. Other countries, being weaker, would be wise to back down to us and do what we tell them to. As Nietzsche said, "A good war hallows any cause." The Nietzschean "Will to Power" necessitates that the US not shrink from its role as the world's most powerful nation and that role is to dominate the other nations and bend them to our will. As Nietzsche said: "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome."

The Neocons have stated their ideals in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Their Statement of Principles asks the question: "Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?" In other words does the US have the "Will to Power," the will to dominate the world in such a way that is "favorable to American principles and interests"? Pre-emptive war is desirable because: "The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire." The only language the rest of the world understands is the exercise of power. Therefore, if we don't exercise power responsibly, that is by ordering other nations around, they will soon take over and start ordering us around. In other words we will lose our freedom.

William Kristol, chairman and founder of the PNAC, is editor of "The Weekly Standard", a leading Neocon journal. Kristol was chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle under the first President Bush. Kristol had a lot to do with Republican strategy for "killing" the Clinton universal health care plan. In keeping with Neocon and Nietzschean philosophy that the strong should dominate the weak rather than work to improve their lot, their philosophy bears a strong resemblance to social Darwinism. In the microcosm, the family is considered the smallest unit of domination ruled over by a father with an iron will who demands complete submission much as the US demands submission not cooperation from the weaker nations of the world.

Part of the Neocon philosophy is to not tell the American people what they're really about and really up to. Bush's role is Salesman-in-Chief for the Neocon philosophy disguised in a form as to not arouse interest in their core beliefs but to instill fear in the American people to justify their putting the US on a perpetual war footing. A military solution is always preferable to a peaceful one. Notice the lack of an exit date on Bush's Presidential bust.