Endgame: What's next for the Neocons?

[entanglement]

It's not exactly a good time to be a Neocon now. The protective cover of lies, deceit and corporate media support is slowly beginning to lift and Iraq is going from bad to worse every day. However, a large part of the Neocon agenda remains unfinished and it is unlikely that they have grown a conscience and abandoned their long-term objectives (Iran, Syria, etc) altogether. So, what's the likely next move for them?

First of all, it should be realized that the present administration is neither sufficient nor necessary for the neocons to achieve their goals. On the contrary, the neocons realize that they cannot afford to hitch their fortunes to that of GW any longer and seek alternatives. The greatest danger, IMHO, is the neocons gaining a sympathetic ear or a backdoor to the new administration in 2008. You may be damn sure they'll try. Witness their attempts to start a war with Iraq in 1998.

Expect them to push the idea that the Iraq war is a fundamentally sound plan lacking competent execution. That is the way out for the neocon ideologues: to deflect the ire of the masses away from themselves and solely towards the administration.

Of course, popular opinion by itself is only part of the problem for them. The other big hurdle: not enough troops for a move against Iran. Let's assume they engineer the balkanization of Iraq into mutually antagonistic states, withdraw forces entirely into fortified bases and other key areas and give up trying to assert military control till the civil war exhausts itself. While this might be one way to free up some troops, it would still fall far short of what's needed to take on Iran. Iran does have massive gas reserves, but it is not clear that another ground offensive is what they have on their minds. It is more likely they seek to replace the ayatollahs with a pliant regime that's less threatening to Israel. That's easier said than done; a sustained aerial assault would weaken Iran and hurt its civilians, but it is unlikely to weaken the position of the revolutionary government. So what's their last resort? To try to arrange an 'event' that justifies the escalation of hostilities against Iran beyond the conventional. Not easy, but these people don't balk at anything. They expect Syria to 'get the message' once they've made an example of Iran.

Recall the post 9/11 - 'we were attacked, let's kick everybody's butt' mind set? That's exactly what they'd like to recreate, and exploit to their advantage.

The big question is : when? Some of them would prefer now, but there are definite advantages to postponing such an adventure till a new administration is comfortably in power.

So, to the 'all options on the table against Iran' folk: every time you say that you embolden a neocon :)

--entanglement

[bluestateguy]

1. They need to all be removed from office in the next Administration

I'm not just talking about cabinet secretaries, but undersecretaries, deputy undersecretaries, assisstants, deputy assistant undersecreataries, various "advisors", and other hangers-on with offices in the Pentagon. All of them, need to be purged fron government payrolls. Otherwise, the neo-cons will still have access points to the federal government, where they can undermine the next president's efforts to rollback the Bush foreign policy while they sit around on their asses waiting for their old bosses to come back.

Oh, and Peter Pace must be fired immediately on Inaguration Day.

[Lasher]

2. Neocons are already blaming Junior for failing to properly execute their perfect plan.

I feel a little better about getting Rummy out of the Pentagon but I know the neocons would love to launch a war with Iran. They would do it today if they could. Remember, it doesn't have to make sense. The invasion of Iraq didn't make sense either. If they could manage to get at least one major US aircraft carrier sunk by one or more of those fancy new Iranian missiles, so much the better. They figure we would resultingly rally around the flag agin. They might be right about that.

But now, whenever they claim Iran is a threat, most people who have brains just laugh in their faces, figuratively speaking. The complicit US 'news' media is still just repeating whatever they are told by the neocons, however, with no signs of remorse for what they have become.

They have already started to make inroads into the Democratic party. Case in point: Joe Lieberman. We must be alert to this.

When we win the presidency in 2008 every last one of them must be purged from government. They will retreat to their megabuck defense contractor jobs and their stink tanks that are bursting with billions of dollars in donations from the military/industrial complex. At this point they must be marginalized as much as possible.

[Amonester]

3. And those billions (yes, BILLIONS) come from:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

(The National Debt Clock: UPdated at each "refresh" click!) :mad:

Of course they all must be removed (fired)!

And the reasons for their removal must be explained in plain black on white:

Taxpayers Cannot Afford Them And Their Bankrupting Plans!

[Lasher]

6. Here's the debt that neocons have run up

http://zfacts.com/p/gross-national-debt.html

We currently spend almost as much on 'defense' as the entire rest of the world combined. This is a wasteful squandering of our resources and also provides places where neocons, like roaches, can breed and multiply. Our military spending needs to be cut about in half, just for starters, and expenditures need to be focused on actually defending our country.

[librechik]

4. double back flip with a half gainer

into the cesspool.

[DFW]

5. Invade Iran?

Not likely.

Republicans are essentially cowards.
They don't start fights when they know
their opponents will shoot back. Otherwise,
they would have invaded North Korea long ago.
The most vocal among them are (surprise!) those
who never saw combat.

They thought Iraq would be a cakewalk. Remember
Rummy saying maybe six days, maybe six weeks,
certainly not six months? If they had known how
it would have turned out, they would never have
invaded. All the opposition we put up in 2002 and
2003 was to no avail. but a good crystal ball would
have stopped their plans cold.

[entanglement]

7. I hope you're right

n/t

[vickitulsa]

8. I agree on most of your points here. Another thing to consider

is the likelihood (imo) that the neocons would love to "gift" the next administration -- which even they must admit privately if not publicly could well be a Democratic administration -- with the launching of a war of some type on Iran just before the new President takes office.

We do remember Somalia, right? I always felt GHWB took wicked pleasure in sending U.S. troops to Mogadishu just before he rode off into the sunset, leaving WJC to deal with the consequences. Our military was sent in after a few months of considering the options and the likely outcome(s), on a purportedly "humanitarian" mission that of course didn't remain strictly humanitarian at all.

Doing it like they did was a bit of a risk to them, of course, since there was always the possibility that the whole misadventure could have gone very well under Clinton and benefited him, not them. Yet I think they took that risk because they figured it was far outweighed by the opportunity to dump an Iraq-like mess on the new administration that the Democrats would then be saddled with, tarnishing them right out of the box, so to speak -- at least in matters of WAR, you see?

Their ill intentions bore fruit for them, as it turned out. I have said that the bad guys (neocons/Repukes) could never have imagined such a positive outcome from their point of view as the events of "Blackhawk Down." After that, WJC had no good options, so he made the decision to pull all U.S. troops out of that quagmire before they had sunk too deep too retrieve!

"Look at how that new Democratic President failed in Somalia!" the Republicans whispered (or did they shout it?) with glee in their hearts at the rap he took for a war launched in haste -- and not by him.

Neocons seem to like repeating tactics that have worked well for them before (witness the second presidential election theft). Why wouldn't they then recall the Mogadishu gambit and deploy a new version of that in Iran just before GW departs the White House grounds?

It all fits the picture I have in my mind of what the Neocons want to do in the region -- namely, keep it unstable and insecure, so that the U.S. could say there are "good reasons" for any further military meddling or power grabs there.

And it makes sense to me that the shadow government, the fascist cabal of Neocon wet-dreamers, may well be working on the details of initiating a major attack of some sort, perhaps a devastating bombing, that takes out U.S. troops in the region or part of the authoritarian power structure of our "allies" like Saudi Arabia.

Neocons would not have to be in power at the time, say in early 2009, to carry out a "false flag" operation of sorts. They simply have to have it ready ahead of time, planned by treasonous CIA operators, for instance, and then executed at just the right moment. They could use a mercenary contractor or some other entity.

I've also considered previously the possibility that the Neocons/PNACkers took a lesson or two from Hitler -- in this case the faked attack on the Reichstag, and separate faked attacks on German interests or territory near the Polish border.


Just some of my thoughts on this issue of "what happens next" for the criminals who brought us the profitable war and occupation of Iraq!

[no_hypocrisy]

9. Neocons aren't "going away" after 2009. Who is their next "body host"?

My guess is Giuliani.

Neocons need a megalomaniac who loves being seen as a "leader" in the tradition of a fascist organization. Giuliani has a past history in the way he ran NYC with an iron fist, taking credit for others' contributions, being secretive about what he was doing, having police issue citations to jaywalkers and squeegee (windshield) washers, putting up (literal) barriers around Cityhall, and having a "toughguy" image.

OTOH, the Neocons have a trade-off here. Giuliani has the right image in their eyes, but he's also independent. Very much. He won't be a puppet like GWB and be a frontman. He wants to run the show, not let Neocons tell him what to do. He will entertain what they want if it make Giuliani look powerful and a leader (like * does), but NO ONE tells Giuliani what to do.

The other candidates (McCain, Romney, Brownback) have other constituencies to answer to, and even if Neocons were in the mix, they wouldn't have as much influence as they do with *.)

[TwilightGardener]

13. McCain and Romney are also lined up to carry the mantle--

especially Romney--Jeb Bush (signer of PNAC) is supporting him. I don't believe either of them have other constituents to answer to, unless you mean Mormons. McCain doesn't seem to represent anything except his own ambitions anymore. I don't think Fred Thompson is ultimately going to get anywhere, but he is a disciple of AEI, and has said the US should "help" bring about regime change in Iran--very much a neocon. Not even BushCo is openly advocating that right now.

[jody]

10. Endgame: for the Neocons, never as long as greed exists to fuel the evil empire! n/t

[annabanana]

11. We really DO have to keep our eyes on them....

and their deep pocket guys. . the arms dealers. Let's face it. They'd just be in a basement talking to each other if there wasn't so much money to be made in war.

You've made very good points, the B*sh administration is a worn out carry-on for their agenda now and they need some new luggage. There are some receptive ears out there on the Democratic side too.

[Tesha]

12. Why do you think it's a bad time for them?

Why do you think it's a bad time for the neocons?

While they've lost their clear majority in the House and
Senate to a small and completely ineffective Democratic
majority, the neocons still own:

o The Presidency

o The Supreme Court

o Essentially *ALL* of the American media

o The Religious Reich

o A huge swath of American mindshare

Has the USA PATRIOT Act (parts I or II) been repealed?
Do the Detainees in Guantanamo have habeus corpus rights?
Is your food safe? Are your pharmaceuticals safe? Is you
*JOB* safe?

Whatever gives you the idea that the neocons are in trouble?

Tesha