THE
HIGH
PRIESTS
OF WAR
.
. .“If
it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this
war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish
community are influential enough that they could change the direction
of where this is going, and I think they should.”
. . .— U.S. Congressman Jim Moran
(Democrat of Virginia) speaking at a public forum in his congressional
district.1
. . .Despite the very public frenzy
in the United States that followed these remarks by liberal Congressman
Jim Moran, even the influential New York-based Jewish newspaper,
Forward, was forced to admit in its Feb.
28, 2003 issue that the role of the pro-Israel lobby and its adherents
who held high-level policy-making positions in the administration
of President George W. Bush were increasingly becoming a topic of
public discussion. Congressman Moran had simply summarized the issue
in a few short but controversial remarks.
. . .Forward
cited liberal American Jewish columnist Michael Kinsley who wrote
on Oct. 24, 2002 that Israel’s central role in the American
debate over possible war with Iraq was “the proverbial elephant
in the room.” Of that elephant, Kinsley added: “Everybody
sees it, no one mentions it.” Forward
stated it flatly: “Kinsley was referring to a debate, once
only whispered in back rooms but lately splashed in bold characters
across the mainstream media, over Jewish and Israeli influence in
shap-
across the mainstream media, over Jewish and Israeli influence in
shap
2 .
. . . . . . . . . . . MICHAEL
COLLINS PIPER
_______________________________________________________
ing American foreign policy.”2
. . .The Jewish newspaper noted that
now, even “mainstream” American publications, ranging
from The Washington Post to The
Economist and even broadcast outlets such as CNN and
MSNBC were featuring frank and open discussion of the topic. According
to Forward’s assessment:
. . .Many of these
articles project an image of President Bush and Prime Minister
Sharon working in tandem to promote war against Iraq. Several
of them described an administration packed with conservatives
motivated primarily, if not solely, by a dedication to defending
Israel.
. . .A few respected voices have
even touched openly on the role of American Jewish organizations
in the equation, suggesting a significant shift to the right on
Middle East issues and an intense loyalty to Sharon. Still others
raise the notion of Jewish and Israeli influence only to attack
it as anti-Semitism.3
. . .Yet, as if in
confirmation of the basic thrust behind Congressman Moran’s
comments, even Ari Shavit, writing on April 9, 2003 in Ha’aretz,
the Israeli newspaper, declared simply: “The war in Iraq was
conceived by 25 neo-conservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish,
who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.”4
. . . In fact, as we will demonstrate,
the historical record indicates — beyond question —
that the then-impending war on Iraq was indeed largely the product
of a long-standing — and carefully calculated and orchestrated
— plan. That this plan aimed to establish an American global
hegemony based upon the geopolitical aims of a small, but influential,
group of policy makers inside the administration of President George
W. Bush — a group tied intimately, for nearly a quarter of
a century, to the grand design of a “Greater Israel,”
a longtime dream of the Zionist pioneers who founded the state of
Israel and whose modern-day hawkish “right wing” followers
are increasingly influential in all areas of Israeli society, particularly
in the government realm.
. . .This select group of Americans
— now increasingly well known — describe themselves
as the “neo-conservatives.” They constitute a virtual
“War Party” in America. They are unabashedly admiring
and supportive of the hard-line Likud bloc in Israel led by Ariel
Sharon. These neo-conservatives have directed policy decisions inside
the Bush administration that have essentially placed the United
States of America (under President
THE HIGH
PRIESTS OF WAR .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
_______________________________________________________
George W. Bush) in firm alliance with the Sharon regime in Israel.
. . .The study we are about to undertake
will provide a comprehensive overview of the history and development
of the neo-conservative network, naming names and linking their
policies to the elements in Israel with which they are allied.
. . .But it is important to recognize
that, in many respects, the policies that the neo-conservative “War
Party” has been advancing are, from a historical standpoint,
much at variance with the traditional American outlook. The policies
of the “War Party” represent only a miniscule —
albeit forceful and influential — faction in America. Philip
Golub, a journalist and lecturer at the University of Paris VIII,
has written of the neo-conservative strategy:
. . .The neo-conservative
right has been attempting, with varying success, to establish
itself as the dominant ideological force in the United States
for more than 25 years, especially in the definition of foreign
policy.
. . .Long thwarted by democratic
process and public resistance to the national security state,
it is now on the brink of success, thanks to George Bush’s
disputed electoral victory in 2000, and to 11 September 2001,
which transformed an accidental president into an American Caesar.
President Bush has become the neo-conservative vehicle for a policy
that is based on unilateralism, permanent mobilisation and “preventive
war.”
. . .War and militarisation would
have been impossible without 11 September, which tipped the institutional
balance in favour of the new right. Apart from such opportunist
motives as seizing the strategic chance to redraw the map of the
Middle East and the Persian Gulf, this choice reflects much more
far-reaching imperial ambitions . . .
. . .This authoritarian project became
feasible in the unipolar world after 1991, when the US got a monopoly
on the use of force in interstate relations. But it was conceived
in the 1970s, when the extremist coalition now in control was
first formed.
. . .The aim is to unite the nation
and secure US strategic supremacy worldwide. The instruments are
war and permanent mobilization, both requiring the constant identification
of new enemies and the establishment of a strong national security
state, which is independent of society.5
. . .American author
Michael Lind points out that the imperial dream outlined by the
neo-conservative clique “was opposed by the mainstream U.S.
foreign policy elite and by a majority of the American people, who
4.
. . . . . . . . . . . MICHAEL
COLLINS PIPER
_______________________________________________________
according to polls opposed U.S. military action
in Iraq and elsewhere without the support of allies and international
institutions like the United Nations. The foreign policy of the
radical right was enthusiastically supported by only two groups
in the United States — neo-conservative policymakers and intellectuals
at the elite level, and Southern Protestant voters within the mass
voting public.”6
. . .Despite widespread opposition
— both in the United States and cross the globe — on
March 17, 2003, American President George W. Bush formally announced
that a war upon Iraq was imminent. After many long months of acrimonious
debate, the American president declared that the United States —
allied with Britain and a handful of countries — would effectively
“go it alone,” without the support of the world community.
. . .Some critics would call to attention
the fact that March 17 was the eve of Purim, the traditional Jewish
holiday celebrating the victory by the ancient Jewish people over
their hated enemy, Haman. However, not all Jews — in America
or elsewhere — lined up with the “neo-conservative”
clique, even though, in fact, most of the pivotal neo-conservative
leaders are indeed Jewish.
RICHARD PERLE & WILLIAM KRISTOL
. . .As American Jewish writer Stanley
Heller pointed out in the days prior to the attack on Iraq: “We
owe it to Americans to tell them the whole truth, that part of the
war drive is being fueled by a wacko militarist clique from Israel
and its interlocking bands of American Jewish and Christian supporters.”7
In addition, Professor Paul Gottfried — an American Jewish
academic who calls himself a “conservative” but who
objects strenuously to the activities of the self-styled “neo-Conservatives”
— added, writing elsewhere:
No one who is sane is claiming that all Jews
are collaborating with [neo-conservative pro-war leaders such
as] Richard Perle and [William] Kristol. What is being correctly
observed is a convergence of interests in which neo-conservatives
have played a pivotal role. At this point they control almost
all [Washington, D.C.] “conservative” think tanks,
the “conservative” TV channel [pro-Zionist billionaire
Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News],The Wall Street Journal,
The New York Post, and several major
presses, together with just about every magazine that claims to
be conservative.8
THE
HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR
. . . . . . . . .
%55
_______________________________________________________
. . .Professor Gottfried’s
comments thus introduce us to two key names that shall appear again
and again in these pages: Richard Perle and William Kristol. They
are perhaps the two most influential of the “War Party”
neo-conservatives—by virtue of combined position, outreach
and financial clout. They are the central players who have been
responsible, in overwhelming part, for shaping the policies of the
Bush administration that have led to the current conflict in the
Middle East involving the deployment of American military forces
against Iraq and the undeniably disastrous occupation which has
followed.
. . .Although we shall learn much more
about Perle and Kristol, a brief introduction to the two neo-conservative
figures is appropriate.
. . .Often called “the Prince
of Darkness,” Richard Perle (who is Jewish) has been active
in pro-Israel causes in official Washington since the mid- 1970s
when he was then an aide to powerful (now deceased) Sen. Henry
M. Jackson (D-Washington), a leading congressional supporter of
Israel. During that period, Perle was investigated on charges of
espionage for Israel. Later Perle became a lobbyist for Israeli
arms interests and eventually was appointed by President Ronald
Reagan to a key post in the Department of Defense.
. . .After leaving the Reagan administration,
Perle remained active in Washington, DC, enmeshed in a wide variety
of institutions and organizations, almost exclusively devoting his
energies to advancing Israel’s cause, and particularly that
of the Likud Party of Ariel Sharon. Of recent date, Perle has maintained
a special affiliation with the “neo-conservative” think
tank known as the American Enterprise Institute.
. . .However, when George W. Bush assumed
the presidency, he named
Perle to head the Defense Policy Board, a little-known but influential
advisory board. It was from this post that Perle — utilizing
his multiple contacts with longtime associates named to high posts
inside the Bush administration itself — began making an active
drive to advance the war against Iraq.
. . .Although Perle resigned as chairman
of the Defense Policy Board just days after the firing of the opening
guns against Iraq — following allegations that he had conflicts
of interest, stemming from his private financial business dealings
that intersected with official government policies upon which he
had an impact and from which he stood to personal-
66.
. . . . . . . . . MICHAEL
COLLINS PIPER
_______________________________________________________
ly benefit — he remained a member of the
board, and certainly its most influential, until his formal resignation
in March of 2004.
. . .Considering all that we now know
about Perle, it may be no coincidence that as far back as 1986 it
was reported that once, while on a visit to Britain, Perle was introduced
during a debate with then-Labor Party leader Denis Healey as “the
person in charge of World War III.”9
Some Perle critics later suggested that the gentleman who made the
remarks may have been empowered with psychic abilities, considering
the critical role Perle has indeed played in sparking the American
war against Iraq.
. . .William Kristol (also Jewish)
is equally influential, although in a different realm. As the son
of an equally influential father, Irving Kristol —
once described as the “godfather” of the neo-conservative
movement — the younger Kristol parlayed his father’s
connections into a post as chief of staff to Vice President Dan
Quayle who served under the first President Bush. But that was only
Kristol’s first step in his rise to vast power.
. . .After the Bush-Quayle defeat by
Bill Clinton in 1992, the younger Kristol, through his own aggressive
efforts — not to mention increasingly favorable promotion
of Kristol — by the major media, emerged as perhaps the best
known voice of the “neo-conservative” philosophy. He
became actively involved in setting up a well-funded and far-reaching
public relations and information network, linked to numerous foundations
and think tanks with which his father had already been associated.
. . .In addition to accepting an appointment
as editor of Rupert Murdoch’s weekly national neo-conservative
magazine, The Weekly Standard, Kristol
also founded his own organization, Project for the New American
Century.
. . .As we shall see, Kristol’s
own operations and activities meshed precisely — actually,
interlocked — with those of Richard Perle. And as the push
for war against Iraq became increasingly more bellicose after George
W. Bush became president — and then, even more so after the
9- 11 terrorist attacks, which the neo-conservatives repeatedly
sought to link to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein — Perle and
Kristol worked ever more closely, merging their own networks of
influence to the point that the neoconservative philosophy became
the guiding force behind the entire Bush foreign policy making apparatus.
. . .William Kristol — along
with another close colleague, Robert
THE
HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR
. . . . . . . . .
%57
_______________________________________________________
Kagan — has been the foremost publicist
for the neo-conservative imperial strategy. Their book, released
in the year 2000, Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity
in American Foreign and Defense Policy, was a comprehensive
statement of the neo-conservative point of view, featuring essays
by Perle — of course — and an assembly of other neo-conservative
“stars” associated with Kristol and Perle.
. . .In a review of the book, former
British diplomat Jonathan Clark commented that: “If the book’s
recommendations were implemented all at once, the U.S. would risk
unilaterally fighting at least a five-front war, while simultaneously
urging Israel to abandon the peace process in favour of a new no-holds-barred
confrontation with the Palestinians.”10
. . .Ironically, as Michael Lind, a
foremost critic of the neo-conservatives, has pointed out: “This
turned out to be a prediction of the policies that the administration
of George W. Bush would adopt in the following two years.”11
Lind notes: “The radical Zionist right to which [Perle and
Kristol] belong is small in number but it has become a significant
force in Republican policymaking circles.”12
Lind adds that the chief concern of many of those in this neo-conservative
network is “the power and reputation of Israel.”13
He points out that they have waged vicious public relations campaigns
against anyone who stands in their way — even including prominent
and influential American military leaders who have questioned the
neo-conservative policies.
THE ISRAELI CONNECTION
. . .Thus, it is clear that the pro-Israel
orientation of the neo-conservatives
has been a primary matter of concern in the formulation (and conduct)
of the policies they have sought to implement.
. . .And this raises the question as
to how much influence the state of Israel (and its American adherents,
particularly in the neo-conservative network) did indeed play in
sparking the war against Iraq.
. . .As we have seen, the role of Israel
in the Iraq affair was a problematic
one in terms of protecting Israel (and American Jews) from a possible
backlash by many Americans who resented the idea that perhaps U.S.
policy was being predicated on the interests of Israel alone.
. . .On November 27, 2002 The Washington
Post reported that a group of
86.
. . . . . . . . . MICHAEL
COLLINS PIPER
_______________________________________________________
American political consultants who had previously
advised Israeli politicians had been hired by the Israel Project
— described as “a group funded by American Jewish organizations
and individual donors” — to draft a memo to American
Jewish leaders and Israeli leaders as to the best means by which
to address the raging controversy over Iraq. The memo advised them:
“If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful
with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not
want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to
protect Israel rather than to protect America.”14
However, as Michael Lind reflected in his new biography of President
Bush, the influence of Israel and the neoconservatives is undeniable:
. . .Under George
W. Bush, the American executive branch and the government of
Israel were fused in a degree without precedent in American
history. . . . Bizarre as it seems, thanks to the influence
of the Israeli model on neo-conservatives in the Bush administration,
the United States, the leading power in the world, began acting
as though it were an insecure and besieged international pariah
state, like Israel under the leadership of the Likud Party.15
. . .Writing in Time
on Feb. 17, 2003, one of the most prominent of the American neo-conservatives
in the media, columnist Charles Krauthammer, announced that the
proposed war against Iraq “is not just to disarm Saddam. It
is to reform a whole part of the world . . . What the U.S. needs
in the Arab world is not an exit strategy but an entry strategy.
Iraq is the beckoning door . . .” Krauthammer frankly named
the targets of the neo-conservative war policy: “Iran, Saudi
Arabia, Syria and beyond.”16
. . .In truth, published evidence indicates
that the government of Israel did indeed desire a U.S. assault upon
Iraq — as a first step toward additional action against other
perceived enemies of the state of Israel. On February 18, 2003,
the Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz,
reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was calling for
the United States to move on Iran, Libya and Syria after what was
presumed to be the successful destruction of Iraq by the United
States — a view no different than that expressed by the aforementioned
Krauthammer.
. . .Sharon said: “These are
irresponsible states, which must be disarmed
of weapons of mass destruction, and a successful American move in
Iraq
THE
HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR
. . . . . . . . .
%59
_______________________________________________________
as a model will make that easier to achieve.”
The Israeli prime minister told a visiting delegation of American
congressmen that “the American action [against Iraq] is of
vital importance.”17
. . .The Israeli newspaper also reported
that in meetings with Sharon and other Israeli officials, U.S. Undersecretary
of State John Bolton — one of
the key “neo-conservatives” inside the Bush administration
who had been promoting war against Iraq—had said, in the Israeli
newspaper’s words, that Bolton felt that after Iraq had been
dealt with “it would be necessary thereafter to deal with
threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea.”18
. . .In addition, on Feb. 27, 2003,
The New York Times freely reported that
Israel not only advocated a U.S. war on Iraq but that Israel also
believed that, ultimately, the war should be expanded to other nations
perceived to be threats to Israel. The Times
stated:
Many in Israel are so certain of the rightness
of a war on Iraq that officials are already thinking past that
conflict to urge a continued, assertive American role in the Middle
East. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told members of the Conference
of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations last week
that after Iraq, the United States should generate “political,
economic, diplomatic pressure’’ on Iran. “We
have great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after’’
a war, he said. Israel regards Iran and Syria as greater threats
and is hoping that once Saddam Hussein is dispensed with, the
dominoes will start to tumble.19
. . .And while there
were American Jews, acting independently of the established Jewish
community leadership organizations, who opposed the
war against Iraq, there is no question that elite American Jewish
organizations closely tied to Israeli intelligence and the government
of Israel were firmly behind the drive for war. Those organizations
were acting as Jewish organizations, purporting to represent all
Jewish Americans when in fact they did not.
. . .After the war erupted, the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith — described by critics
as a propaganda arm of Israel’s clandestine services, the
Mossad — issued a statement. It declared: “We express
our support for the United States Government in its effort to stop
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the danger he poses to the stability
and safety of the region. The need to stop Saddam Hussein is clear.”20
106.
. . . . . . . . . MICHAEL
COLLINS PIPER
_______________________________________________________
CRITICS RISE UP IN AMERICA
However, while the Israeli leadership and their neo-conservative
allies were calling for war, there were many Americans of all races,
creeds and colors who were standing up and declaring their opposition.
. . .In the months of debate leading
up to the American attack on Iraq, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)
emerged as perhaps the most outspoken
and articulate congressional critic of the proposed war. He sounded
out multiple arguments against the war, ruling it totally unfounded
and counter to all traditional American policy:
. . .Unilateral
military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified,
unwarranted, and illegal. . . .
. . .Unilateral action on the part
of the United States, or in partnership with Great Britain, would
for the first time set our nation on the bloodstained path of
aggressive war, a sacrilege upon the memory of those who fought
to defend this country. America’s moral authority would
be undermined throughout the world. It would destabilize the entire
Persian Gulf and Middle East region . . .
. . .Policies of aggression are not
worthy of any nation with a democratic tradition, let alone a
nation of people who love liberty and whose sons and daughters
sacrifice to maintain that democracy.
. . .The question is not whether
or not America has the military power to destroy Saddam Hussein
and Iraq. The question is whether we destroy something essential
in this nation by asserting that America has the right to do so
anytime it pleases.
. . .America cannot and should not
be the world’s policeman. America cannot and should not
try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and
the American people be pressed into the service of international
oil interests and arms dealers . . .
. . .If the United States proceeds
with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation
a historic burden of committing a violation of international law,
and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope
to hold.21
. . .Quite remarkably,
even after the war actually began, Kucinich refused to be silent,
refusing to be bullied into supporting the war under the guise of
“supporting the troops” — a popular catchphrase
that has historically been used to convince Americans to support
an unpopular war after American troops have been formally committed
to action. Undaunted by accusations of being “unpatriotic,”
etc, Kucinich said:
THE
HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR
. . . . . . . . .
%511
_______________________________________________________
I support the troops. But, this war is illegal
and wrong. I do not support this mission. I will not vote to fund
this Administration’s war in Iraq. This war is killing our
troops. This war is killing innocent Iraqi civilians. This war
must end now. It was unjust when it started two weeks ago, and
is still unjust today. The U.S. should get out now and try to
save the lives of American troops and Iraqi citizens. Ending the
war now and resuming weapons inspections could salvage world opinion
of the United States. The greatest threat to the United States
at this time is terrorism, which this war will breed.22
. . .Kucinich was
not the only American public official to take a daring public stand
against the war — but he was certainly one of the most forthright
and outspoken.
. . .Just as American troops began
their assault on the Arab republic, the longest serving member of
the U.S. Senate — and the former leader of the Senate Democrats
— Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia delivered a blistering
address on the Senate floor, declaring the war to be totally at
odds with traditional American policy. He said, in part:
. . .Today I weep
for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with
a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong,
yet benevolent peacekeeper.
. . .We proclaim a new doctrine of
preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say
that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on
any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism.
We assert that right without the sanction of any international
body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous
place. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance.
. . .When did we become a nation
which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk
undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire
approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon
diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for
diplomacy?23
. . .Clearly, although
the neo-conservatives hardly reflected the thinking of many Americans
of many political persuasions, they did indeed reflect a particular
brand of philosophy and one indubitably bound up with the hard-line
imperial agenda of Israel’s Likud.
. . .And with that in mind, it is appropriate
to begin examining the nature of the neo-conservative network that
rules the roost in official Washington under the administration
of George W. Bush.
End of Sample Pages
