Edward Luttwak is one of those neocons who was
"expert" on war without much war experience. But what
he lacked in experience he more than made up for in
"realist reasoning" and a great sense of history. He
wrote the best article I ever read, warning of how we
fail to appreciate what continuing in Iraq is doing to
us in FOREIGN AFFAIRS 2005:
http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2007/LuttwakTestimony070123.pdfAlas, in a recent NY TIMES oped, Luttwak reverted to
exposing himself as a semi-doc historian of Islam and
neocon propagandist, asserting that Obama to Muslims
is an "apostate" because he became a Christian and not
a Muslim like his father and step-father. Therefore,
argues Luttwak, Muslim leaders would not negotiate
with him but would try instead to kill him for Allah.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?pagewanted=printThe NY Times reader's ombudsman criticized Luttwak's
piece for its uninformed allegations and the NY Times
for publishing such a piece without checking the
errors in its assertions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01pubed.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=printTo be quite honest, the NY TIMES oped page is not like
a high school biology textbook in which science is
adulterated with the absurdities of "intelligent
design," a silly notion that now even enjoys Jewish
advocates:
http://www.rae.org/dendar.htmlOp-eds are not the Science Section of the NY Times on
Tuesday, requiring expert fact-checking by the editor.
Readers owe it to themselves to double check biases
and not be so gullible.
On the other hand, the Luttwak argument is so absurd
and so uncharacteristic of his rational realism, that
one can only wonder if this is not representative of a
new neocon desperate "party line" designed to promote
the Clinton candidacy and, should it fail, that of
McCain. Its timing and argument suggest that.
Never having achieved academic standing, the neocons
have made the most of the publishing empire which
first the CIA and then Israeli and private interests
later funded for this group of so-called "public
intellectuals."
The real danger is that: voters are "dumb goyim,"
flavor that seems to be signature of the style of a
lot of what adherents to this "neoconservative" label
advocate. Their covert support of Hillary Clinton as
an alternative candidate they can work with-- in case
their Republican candidate doesn't make it-- is well
known. Though hiding their pro-Hillary positions, they
have taken to outspoken anti-Obama positions. In
appreciating the race aspect of the neocon aversion to
a "Swartza President," I do believe one should begin
with a read of Podhoretz's 1963 piece: "My Negro
Problem-- and Yours."
http://www.lukeford.net/Images/photos/out.pdfTwo recent articles elaborate on the impact of this
proclivity and the, until recently, Podhoretz support
for Giuliani.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2007/Giuliani-Worse-Bush1aug07.htmhttp://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0712.heilbrunn.htmlWhile there are varieties in intensity in the neocon
grouping (here I do not include their satellite
"goyim" hangers on), Obama gets hit with both barrels
firing at once: not only being black, but also by his
calling for talking to Iran, the neocons have come to
label him an apostate of their version of Americanism.
For that reason, Luttwak, a characteristically well
reasoned and well informed author with a heavy realist
overlay, surprised me in how far he would go in light
of the un-likelihood that Obama would endorse the
neocon demand that we bomb Iran.
For me, the issue is that neocon advocacy of extreme
intervention by force, whose costs would be reimbursed
by American oil piracy, would just be a "weird
science" idea that I would not pay much attention to,
were it not that it guided Bush into the running
aground of the American Ship of State. As more and
more media gives it exposure, what with Republican
Presidential candidate John McCain blithering the
extreme neocon views whispered in his ear by Senator
Lieberman, his neocon minder, the neocons are facing a
public resurgence with both a racial as well as an
anti-Islamic wind in their sails. Alas, for most
Americans, Wolfowitz's declaration that oil will make
the whole War on Terror against Arabs quite
profitable, is remembered bitterly, given that oil
costs twice as much as it had cost when we first
invaded oil rich Iraq. At the same time, Bush's
promise of Middle East peace between Israel and the
Palestinians has suddenly gone silent in the face of
the onset of Israel's construction of 700 new homes
for non-existent Jewish emigrants in East Jerusalem.
It should be remembered that the State Dept, in 2002
protested the continued housing construction given
that 74% of the finished domiciles lie empty as there
are no olims to occupy them. Now, as then, these are
merely meant to be "facts on the ground" for
maximizing Israel's expansion-- built at US taxpayers'
expense. And this comes at a time of baffling
allegedly crooked financial dealings between no less
than the Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and various
Jewish American financiers. I might remind that all
Israeli Prime Ministers since Rabin faced
investigations for such dollars laundering, this one
seeming to be the first to not end in obfuscation by
"raison d'etat."
Yet it would be a grave error to think that the
neocons are Zionist zealots. A financially motivated
trail, it seems to me, buried in "endowments" and
"consultantship" fees seem more likely motivators than
any zealotry, much as can be said of their penchant
for Pentagon spending on strategic weapons.
But frustrated Americans who face a choice between a
candidate for another 100 years of involvement in the
Iraq imbroglio and one who advocates an emphasis on
extrication (safe and reasonable) do take note of the
play on both his race and religion coming from this
group that is so trigger-prone to shout "anti-Semite"
at doubters of their advocacy. The question becomes:
will people just say "good riddance" to the neocons as
they fade or will they associate them with all the
tragic events that befell the public's life in one way
or another as neocon cowboy policies unfolded
post-9/11?
It is becoming clear now, as a result of Doug Feith's
and Scott McClellan's books that Bush was NOT the
"decider" but rather the cream-cheese part of the
Presidential cake onto which everyone else left his
footprint. As the "UNdecider" is exposed more and more
as irresponsibly "disengaged"-- a term popularized by
his one time Sec. of the Treasury in the first Bush
Administration expose book-- people are going to
wonder who ran this man?
Popular history-- much of it pushed by the egocentric
neocons in their hunger for fame and profit in search
of "mensch-hood"-- points to them as the driving
force.
Personally, I would say, fine, let Muse Clio give them
their historic up and comings. Unfortunately, it's not
that easy. For the neocons have claimed to be the
voice of American Jews and the soul of American
Zionism. Jews that oppose them they diagnosed as
"self-hating Jews" or, if they fail to be intimidated
by such approbation, they are pillared and persecuted,
as is the fate of Norman Fikelstein. Supported fully
by some Israeli politicians, the neocons inferred
quite a length to their reach in that Finklestein, a
Jews and hence cannot be denied entry into Israel, was
thrown out at Lod airport, denied entry by the very
government whose PM is facing criminal charges for his
involvement with, if I'm not mistaken, neocon money
men in the US.
So, the association is being painfully made in the
minds of average Americans: 9/11-->war in Iraq--> war
prospects with Iran--> doubling of oil prices-->
Bush's attempts to make peace in the Mideast-->the
encroachment into Palestinian territories to build 700
homes for non-existent Jewish settlers-->American
economic crisis-->increased funds for Israel-->AIPAC
and spy scandal-->Israeli PM and Jewish-American
financier scandal-->McCain advocating another century
of Iraq involvement with his neocon minder at his
shoulder-->neocon propaganda hitting on Obama racially
and religiously......on and on it goes and soon they
are not only seeing a neocon made fiasco but, alas, a
Jewish manipulation of the United States. AND THIS
DESPITE THE FACT THAT IN NOVEMBER-- I AM QUITE
CERTAIN-- A GOOD MAJORITY OF JEWS WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA
*EXACTLY* BECAUSE OF THE VIEWS THE NEOCONS DENOUNCE.
So propagandistic has been the assault on Obama and so
slanderous will be McCain's assaults on him-- because
that's McCain's nature, unprepared, inarticulate,
superficial, and when he loses an argument he goes
nuts (all with his neocon minder, Lieberman, at his
side)-- that it is quite possible that the simplest
finger pointing frenzied rage and frustration of many
Americans will manifest as: THE JEWS ARE DOING ALL
THIS TO US. All those neocons, who with such abandon
throw the term "anti-Semite" at others are feeding
that nightmarish tomorrow, one that may be a freight
train out of control heading for a catastrophic wreck
of our nation as a tolerant democracy. That could make
this century worst than the last and certainly more
absurd. Recently, a group wrote in the Jewish NY
TIMES, the FORWARD, that Jews need to manifest their
intrinsic moderation to neutralize the fraudulent
vitriol of the neocon propaganda machine; as one who
has seen American anti-isms manifest as herd behavior
in the past, I worry, worry indeed.
My solution is simple. I could never advocate
silencing anyone, especially not those who would
silence all who disagree with them. On the contrary,
they must be faced in debate. I remember that at a
university event I confronted the utter mendacity of a
neocon's anti-Islam and pro-Israel propaganda. After
ceremoniously calling me an anti-Semite, he suggested
that, " you start your own publication and put forward
your views if you disagree with me." That's exactly
the problem. We are not going to profit from a
European-like mass of factional presses. After all, we
only have two parties in this country. What will save
America now is exactly what students at UC Berkley
went out on strike for (25,000 out of 27,000
students): MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE. We must promote debate
and teach-ins as occurred during the Vietnam War. At
that time, both sides frequently met in debate; it was
only when one side dominated that we got into trouble
and when the other side dominated that we lost. We
must promote debate, not only between the two
candidates, but given the ugly propaganda of untruths
out there, between all who have a horse in the Mideast
race-- BUT ALWAYS IN MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE. I know from
experience that the opportunity for rebuttal-- both
for and against the neocons-- will defang them,
exposing these anaerobes to oxygen. And nothing like
debate will demonstrate clearly to everyone that when
you lock six Jews in a room you get debate of seven
opinions forevermore. That alone will nip in the bud
the conspiratorial impression that just might flower
because of the neocons' radical self-injection into
the Presidential Campaign.
Daniel E. Teodoru
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
Not working?
