Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff (2001-2005), Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, makes taboo-statements on the role of the neocons and Israel in bringing about the war on Iraq in the following video....
Wilkerson's statements about the neocons and Israel are largely based on his own direct experience as a member of the Bush administration. Wilkerson has made similar statements before and I include some of them in my book, "The Transparent Cabal."
For example, "A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn't open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel's interest than our own." (T.C., p. 120)
In the video, Wilkerson also attributes the US war on Iraq to other factors – oil, war profiteering corporations, ultra-nationalists (Cheney and Rumsfeld), and the American people's fears ("the politics of fear"). I differ in whole or in part with some of these statements which would require knowledge that Wilkerson could not obtain directly by his work in the Bush administration. In some of these cases, Wilkerson merely presents the conventional wisdom, which greater research would show to be incorrect.
For example, I don't think he has a firm knowledge of the neocons' extensive writing on the Middle East, which I document in my book, "The Transparent Cabal." He thus neglects to point out that the neocons sought to reconfigure the entire Middle East for the interest of Israel. And that this position paralleled the position of the Israeli Likudniks who sought to destabilize and fragment Israel's enemies. Obviously, a fragmented Middle East would enhance Israel's security.
While this does not mean that the neocons would not have liked a pro-Israel government in Iraq (and other Middle Eastern countries), they were quite willing to accept the more probable destabilization, which most Middle East experts realized would be the result in Iraq if the US invaded. It should be noted that even though the occupation of Iraq did not bring about a pro-Israel government, no neocons have said that the outcome in Iraq was a failure, and they are now targeting Iran.
Regarding Cheney and Rumsfeld, whom he refers to as "ultra-nationalists," Wilkerson is apparently unaware of their close ties to the neocons. Cheney had numerous pre-2001 personal connections to the neocons. He was a member of the board of advisors of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a member of the board of trustees of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and a founding member of the neoconservative Project for a New American Century (PNAC). It also should be noted that Cheney's wife, Lynne Cheney, has been a prestigious member of AEI. So if Cheney is an ultra-nationalist, he is a special kind of ultra-nationalist who believes that neocon policies advance American goals-and that the interests of Israel coincide with those of the United States.
The personal benefits Cheney derives from his association with the neocons would indicate that his motives for promoting their agenda goes beyond the ideological. And certainly the neocon outlets have enabled Cheney to stay in the limelight since he left office.
Rumsfeld also had a connection to the neocons, being associated with PNAC. More than this, there was a convergence of interest between Rumsfeld and the neocons. Rumsfeld placed his faith in a in a sleek, mobile, high tech military. The neocon Iraq policy provided him with the type of war to demonstrate the merits of his military thinking. Moreover, Rumsfeld's unconventional military views and management style meant that he had few supporters in the Defense Department outside the neocon orbit, making their support all the more important. In a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship, the neocons praised and supported Rumsfeld, while Rumsfeld enabled the neocons to play a fundamental role in shaping foreign policy. Of course, when the violence in Iraq dramatically increased, the neocons blamed Rumsfeld for the problems, and advocated a larger army of occupation...
While Rumsfeld and more so Cheney played roles in implementing the neocon agenda, it is unlikely that they would have been able to do so without the neocons themselves in key areas of the government.
The American people's fears were certainly essential in bringing about the war. As I maintain in "The Transparent Cabal," if it had not been for 9/11, the neocons would not have been able to implement their war policy. However, the neocons certainly stoked this fear by their WMD and terrorist propaganda, which had the stamp of the US government.
Wilkerson also points out that certain corporations benefitted from the war. He did not show how any people associated with corporations were intimately involved in pushing for war but, of course, all American wars have had war profiteers. Since someone always financially benefits from war in any
government that allows private ownership of the means of production, the war profiteering argument could be used for all US wars-which means it does not really explain particular motives since it does not indicate why a particular war is chosen.
Finally, we have the oil argument. Wilkerson states the obvious in pointing out that Iraq has oil reserves. He does not show how particular individuals involved in the oil business lobbied for war. As I point out in my Chapter 18 of my book, the oil companies, instead of pushing for war, sought to
eliminate sanctions on Iraq in 2001. Moreover, they have not shown much interest in acquiring leases that the current Iraq government has auctioned off, which have almost completely gone to non-American oil companies. American oil companies, American business in general, and the US government is certainly concerned about Middle Eastern oil, but that does not mean that they advocate US wars in this region. Actually, the oil factor is often a reason that peace and stability are sought.
I provide additional information on the oil argument atAgain, Larry Wilkerson had close, personal knowledge of the activities of the neocons within the administration. His knowledge of the other groups he cited, however, was either second hand and significant, specific details are lacking. For example, he did not cite names of members of other groups-oil or war profiteers-pushing for war. As I pointed out, war profiteers would have supported all America's wars, so there would be nothing special about their support. He is certainly correct about the importance of Cheney and Rumsfeld, but he seems unaware of their close connection to the neocons.
http://surelysomemistake.blogspot.com/2010/02/book- review-transparent-cabal-by.html – See my comments at the end of Tim Wilkinson's (Tim Wilkinson is no relation to Larry Wilkerson) review of "The Transparent Cabal."
And certainly popular fears were essential for the war on Iraq, but is also the case that the neocon propaganda, most of it coming from the neocons in the Bush administration, heightened those fears.
It should also be emphasized that the neocons are also pushing for war on Iran. The overall Israel lobby and the government of Israel had been supportive of the war on Iraq, but stayed largely in the background. Both these groups are much more openly supporting a war on Iran. That both wars have been pushed by supporters of Israel and have the support of the government of Israel should indicate that these factors are the most important motivation war in the Middle East. It is hard to see how bombing Iran, which is likely to greatly impede the transport of oil, would help the US to control oil in the region. Bombing Iran would not involve US occupation, so it is hard to believe how bombing a country would make its government or its inhabitants more favorable to American oil interests.
It should also be mentioned that a US war on Iran was part of the overall neocon Middle East war agenda (war on Iraq simply being the first step), which was discussed prior to the 2003 attack on Iraq. The strong push for war on Iran currently does not depend on either Cheney or Rumsfeld (or Bush
the Younger), so it is hard to claim that these two figures are essential for this policy. This is not to say that if a opponent of war controlled the office of the presidency the US would go to war because of outside pressure. However, there were many individuals who identify with the neocons besides Cheney-John McCain being a leading figure. If McCain and his neocon advisers filled the executive branch, it is almost a sure thing that they would have pursued the neocon agenda, probably to a greater extent than the Bush II administration, almost certainly more so than Obama.
Even with the aforementioned caveats, Wilkerson's statements are both daring and revealing, since he was actively involved in the Bush I administration. There is no evidence that he has made an in depth study of the groups that he mentioned, so his statements regarding groups with whom he was not
closely involved could very easily be incorrect. Moreover, it is certainly safer for him to include groups besides the neocons and motives other than Israel. If he only mentioned the neocons and Israel, he would be branded an anti-Semite and probably kept out of all mainstream, and many non-mainstream, media outlets.
Posts
