- James Petras is Binghamton University Professor Emeritus
of Sociology. His credentials and achievements are long and impressive
as a noted academic figure on the left. A well-respected Latin American
expert, and a longtime chronicler of the region's popular struggles.
-
- He's also a prolific author of hundreds of articles and
dozens of books, including his latest titled "Zionism, Militarism,
and the Decline of US Power" and subject of this review. It follows
from his earlier 2006 book: "The Power of Israel in the United States"
that documented the Israeli Lobby's enormous influence over US Middle
East policy and its destructive effects.
-
- Petras continues the story in his latest book. Asks is
Israel good for America, and responds by exposing and critiquing American
Zionism. Its powerfully destructive influence. Its stranglehold on US
politics, academia, the media, clergy, and over all segments of society
voicing dissent. He debunks the notion that the Israeli Lobby is like
all others and provides convincing evidence of its influence and veto
power over war and peace, trade and investment, multi-billion dollar arms
sales, and all Middle East policy issues under Democrat and Republican
administrations alike.
-
- Every Petras book is important. So is this one at a time
the most powerful Washington Lobby is assured that a new administration
will continue and expand the current "Global Wars on Terrorism."
Petras explains the dangers. The current disastrous foreign adventurism.
America's economic decline as a result, and the calamitous global fallout
overall. High-level officials won't read this book, but they should. To
realize the dangers of their destructive policies. How they threaten the
republic's survival and are heading the nation for insolvency and ruin.
-
- Part I - Zionism and US Militarism
-
- How Zionist Power Promotes US Middle East Wars
-
- Pretexts for invading and occupying Iraq went from:
-
- -- WMDs;
- -- to removing a dangerous dictator;
-
- -- to establishing democracy in the Arab world;
-
- -- to preventing a civil war;
-
- -- to needing a colonial military victory to retain our
global superpower status;
-
- -- to reassuring regional regimes they can rely on us
for protection; and
-
- -- to proving America can fight and defeat "terrorism."
-
- However, the longer the conflict continues (as well as
the Afghan one), the less credibility any argument holds. The more likely
an occupied people will grow more restive and reassertive. A similar
likelihood that popular resistance will grow throughout the Middle East,
Eurasia and elsewhere. The greater the economic and political cost. The
less able a depleted military will be able to sustain foreign wars, and
less willing the US public will put up with them. Yet they continue, and
explanations why crop up as follows:
-
- (A) A War for Oil with arguments ranging from:
-
- (1) Big Oil wanted it;
-
- (2) the White House acted reflexively on its behalf;
to
-
- (3) the urgency to secure the region's oil that Saddam
Hussein threatened.
-
- Petras responds that these explanations "fail several
empirical tests:"
-
- (1) Big Oil opposed the war and wants peace and stability
instead;
-
- (2) the oil giants tried to establish economic ties with
Iraq before the invasion; they want and are denied the same arrangement
with Iran and all other oil producing countries;
-
- (3) they prefer gaining new markets and business economically
and by building good relationships with host countries; not a single
Big Oil CEO favored war and occupation; and
-
- (4) "windfall profits" haven't materialized
as benefits accruing from occupation; lucrative contracts to develop Iraqi
oil aren't arranged; and the country is too violent to warrant serious
investments to do it, except in the Kurdish north.
-
- Still, war was declared. The occupation continues. The
political and economic costs are enormous. Big Oil has been a loser, not
a winner, and the evidence shows that the powerful Israeli Lobby trumped
any opposition the oil giants could pose to match it.
-
- Petras refers to the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPT).
Its influence over the administration and Congress. Its tentacles spanning
the country at the grassroots. Its control of the media, academia, the
clergy, and important professional elements in the population. Its "slavish
obedience to official Israeli policy" even when US interests are
harmed. Its threat to US democratic freedoms, and the fact that anyone
daring to confront Israeli policy becomes a target to be intimidated,
blackmailed, smeared, pressured, and removed from positions of authority.
-
- (B) the National Security Argument that breaks down as
easily as a war for Big Oil. At its height, Iraq was a modestly strong
regional power, but never a match for America or a nuclear-powered Israel.
Following the 1980s war with Iran; the 1991 Gulf war; 12 years of punishing
sanctions; repeated bombings in the 1990s; the patrolled no-fly zone and
protected Kurdish north; and the depleted state of Iraq's military, the
nation was in no position for conflict with any of its neighbors let alone
with the world's only superpower. "Saddam Hussein was clearly not
a threat."
-
- Neither is Iran the way Israel, its Lobby, the administration,
and most members of Congress portray it in an effort to push America
into another disastrous war that will only benefit Israel in the short
term. Its interests were key in influencing the Iraq war. Economic sanctions
and the Gulf war preceding it. For the purpose of removing a regional
rival. Eliminating the Palestinians' major source of support, and solidifying
the Jewish state as the Middle East's leading power. Iran remains the
main obstacle. Followed by Syria, Hezbollah in South Lebanon and the Hamas
government in Gaza.
-
- Israel and its Lobby want sequential wars to enhance
its power by eliminating them all. Thus far, Congress and the administration
have gone along. Saddam's Ba'athist regime is no longer a threat, but
Iraq remains embroiled in turmoil with no end of conflict in sight. Many
hundreds of billions have been spent containing it with little to show
for the effort and expense, yet Israeli supporters want war with Iran
and ignore the unimaginable fallout if it comes.
-
- Nonetheless, most of official Washington and plenty of
media disinformation back one. Starting off with tighter sanctions. A
possible partial or full blockade. The idea being to harm the Islamic
Republic. Then attack it in a weakened state. That's the plan. Will it
happen? Perhaps if ZPC power prevails. But not if high-level Pentagon
and others in Washington win out. They know the risks of inflaming the
entire Muslim world. The unlikely possibility of regime change by war.
The immense disruption to the region through retaliation, blocked oil
shipments and skyrocketing prices, and how these factors will affect a
world economy already reeling from the strains of a financial crisis.
-
- Nonetheless, ZPC influence is considerable and can't
be underestimated. It's "exercised directly on political, academic,
and cultural decision makers to make sure their policies back pro- Israel,
pro-Zionist interests." High-level administration officials represent
it. People like Eliot Abrams, special National Security Council Middle
East/North Africa "Global Democracy Strategy" advisor and DHS
director Michael Chertoff.
-
- Indirect ZPC power is exerted by:
-
- -- "parlaying influence over a small group of Congressmen
into a large majority;" also winning over the leadership of both
parties and having them publicly pledge allegiance to Israel;
-
- -- enhancing power by focusing on single issues - like
denouncing prominent Israeli critics and assuring their views won't prevail
or even be heard; removing them from Congress and other posts; figures
like Cynthia McKinney twice from the House and Norman Finkelstein from
the DePaul University faculty;
-
- -- publicizing the successful punishing of critics to
deter others;
-
- -- employing mutually re-enforcing public and private
sphere multiple resources like large-scale electoral financing and influencing
donors not to contribute to Israeli critics; and
-
- -- using powerful, effective, one-sided propaganda to
demonize Arabs, especially Palestinians and critics; instead portray Israel
as a "democratic fortress surrounded by hostile authoritarian governments;"
also having the media on board reinforcing these views.
-
- What precisely is the ZPC or Israeli Lobby? It's unlike
any other in power. The breadth of its base, and the only one with no
opposition. Representing less than 1% of the population (elites only),
it consists of "a multiplicity of highly organized, well- financed
and centrally-directed structures throughout the US." It includes
scores of political action committees. A dozen or more think tanks, and
the "52 major American Jewish organizations grouped under the umbrella
listing 'Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
(CPMAJO).' " AIPAC, the Anti- Defamation League (ADL), and the American
Jewish Committee (AJC) are among them at the "national Executive-Congressional
lobbying levels."
-
- As or more important are local Jewish community federations
and organizations throughout the country. In them are activist professionals
- doctors, lawyers, accountants, small business leaders, academics, the
clergy and many others who promote Israeli interests, denounce critics,
and work to assure their voices aren't heard or are dimmed. On-campus
pro-Israeli student organizations are also enlisted to spy on professors.
Smear critical ones, and work to pressure universities to fire them.
-
- The ZPC "octopus" reaches everywhere - "far
beyond the traditional centers of big city power and national politics....into
remote towns and cultural spheres" across the country. With powerful
mass media backing, its influence is enormous, and only the brave dare
opposes it. Yet they do, and their numbers are growing in spite of the
risks.
-
- The Israeli Lobby "is at or near the peak of its
political power" - at all levels of government and through the mass
media. Yet it's vulnerable nonetheless - because of the extent of its
crimes. The defrauding of the American public. For forcing the country
into two disastrous wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Their enormous
cost in dollars, lost lives, vast destruction, and mass human misery,
and their showing US (and Israeli) democracy to be sheer fantasy.
-
- High Pentagon officials are also angered for being led
into "an unprecedented state of disgrace and demoralization, with
thousands of officers tendering their early retirement, thousands of troops
going AWOL, and an increasing number of retired senior officers expressing
outrage" and wanting an end to clearly failed policies.
-
- Nonetheless, the task facing critics is daunting, and
consider the public record documentation of the relentless campaign for
war against Iraq. In its run-up, "leading pro-Israel Jewish organizations
produced approximately 8800 pieces of pro-Iraq war propaganda and circulated
them to all its member organizations, every Congressperson, and every
leading member of the executive branch, with follow-ups by local activists
and an army of Washington lobbyists (150 from AIPAC alone) plus several
hundred full-time activists from local and regional offices."
-
- A 2002 - 2007 Financial Times survey (the leading Anglo-American
business publication) of 1872 op-eds, editorials and letters contained
"not a single (item) by any spokesperson or representative of a major
(or minor) oil company calling for the invasion and occupation of Iraq
or the bombing of Iran."
-
- In contrast, the one-sided Daily Alert digest of pro-Israeli
and Middle East propaganda (from 2004 through September 2007) published
960 issues with on average six daily articles calling for an immediate
or near-term preemptive US and/or Israeli attack on Iran. Tightened economic
sanctions also plus divestment and boycotts of Iranian products.
-
- During the same period, the Financial Times (in 1053
issues) published no Big Oil op-eds, commentaries or letters advocating
war or harsh measures against Iran. Quite the opposite. Large and smaller
oil companies want peace and stability everywhere and the right to negotiate
deals with all oil-producing states, including Iran. They also fear conflict
will disrupt business. Damage or destroy their installations, and undermine
transport routes and shipping lanes from wellheads to market destinations.
-
- Yet conflict continues. More may be ahead under the current
or next administration, and nothing is being done to address the core
Middle East issue - resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict equitably.
Short of that, no regional peace is possible nor can Israeli survive even
nominally democratic. Yet Israeli Lobby influence thwarts every peace
initiative, and consider three recent ones:
-
- -- the bipartisan dismissal of a statement sent George
Bush and Secretary Rice from former top political officials calling for
Israel to abide by UN Resolutions 242, 338 and other conflict- resolving
initiatives;
-
- -- Tony Blair's "Quartet Peace-Making Mission"
has been a total flop due to Israeli intransigence; and
-
- -- the November Annapolis, MD peace conference proved
just as fruitless because Israel wants conflict, not resolution.
-
- Key for Israeli officials is total Palestinian subjugation.
Weakening, isolating and destroying Iran. Emerging as the region's unchallengeable
power, and tolerating no opposition to its aims. They represent "a
clear and present danger to" America's freedoms, already seriously
eroded and heading south unless reversed.
-
- Yet there's hope in the form of "rising anger and
hostility in America against the ZPC, against its arrogant authoritarian
communal attacks on our democratic values, to say nothing about our national
interests" - grievously harmed by supporting Israel's. An eventual
backlash is coming because things that can't go on forever, won't.
-
- The political and economic costs are enormous and ahead
will come down to Chalmers Johnson's conclusion in his two most recent
books. That America is plagued with the same dynamic that doomed past
empires unwilling to change: "isolation, overstretch, the uniting
of local and global forces opposed to imperialism, and in the end bankruptcy"
combined with authoritarian rule and the loss of personal freedom. Supporting
a tiny Middle East state with interests harming our own is hastening that
outcome. It's high time this stops, but so far it's just wishful thinking.
-
- War On Iran - The American Military v. the Israel Firsters
-
- Israeli interests and its supportive Lobby have pitted
Congress and administration officials against some top Pentagon commanders
- irate over Iraq and opposed to more conflict against Iran. Which side
will prevail isn't sure, but civilian militarists neutralized their critics.
Marginalized, silenced or removed mid and high- ranking officers. Men like
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Peter Pace. Army Chief of Staff
General Eric Shinseki. CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon. General
John Abizaid for opposing the Bush administration's "surge."
General Ricardo Sanchez for calling Iraq "a nightmare with no end
in sight," and many others throughout an officer corp racked by half
their numbers not re- enlisting. Career officers fed up, wanting out and
leaving. Further depleting an already weakened military.
-
- Nonetheless, the Lobby remains dominant even after losing
key pro- Israel administration officials through forced or voluntary departures.
Like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Larry Franklin, Lewis
"Scooter" Libby, Abram Shulsky, David Wurmser, many lesser or
unknown figures, and even Colin Powell who in February 2001 said: Saddam
"has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons
of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against
his neighbors" and thus poses no threat.
-
- On February 5, 2003, he then disgraced himself before
the UN Security Council by lying about Iraqi WMDs and "involvement
in terrorism" and having CIA chief George Tenet and UN Ambassador
(at the time) John Negroponte as visible props behind him for credibility.
An episode he'll never live down nor should anyone let him.
-
- Setbacks notwithstanding and the Bush administration's
tenure nearly over, the Lobby remains supremely confident and empowered.
It steamrolls opposition and neutralized the peace movement as well.
Now diffused, misdirected, and supporting pro-war Democrats instead of
taking to the streets, demanding an end to the Iraq occupation, no confrontation
with Iran, and a dramatic change in course in Washington they want but
won't fight for.
-
- Even connecting with anti-war Pentagon officials would
help as well as key fundamental issues between them and the Lobby:
-
- -- the extent of the Iranian threat: none according to
the IAEA; and evidence shows Iran is complying with NPT provisions unlike
Israel that's a nuclear outlaw;
-
- -- Iran's uranium enrichment program: it's lawful and
poses no "existential threat" as Israel claims; intelligence
and US military estimates are that at the earliest Iran might be able
to produce a low-yield weapon by 2010 - 2015 if it wishes to; hardly a
threat to Israel's nuclear arsenal and sophisticated delivery systems
able to devastate any country in the region; none pose a threat to Israel
or will in the foreseeable future;
-
- -- Iran supplying arms to the Iraqi resistance: the Pentagon
and CENTCOM repeatedly deny it; nonetheless, Israel and its Lobby claim
it and the dominant media go along; and
-
- -- consequences of attacking Iran: retaliation is certain;
Israel will be harmed; so will US Iraqi forces; the Strait of Hormuz may
be blocked through which up to one-third of Middle East oil passes and
20% of world production of 88 million barrels; and Iranian "sleeper
cells" may be activated around the world for "big impact"
terror missions.
-
- None of this deters Israel, its Lobby and their policy
of "no dialog, no diplomacy, and a blockade, weakened economy, ripe
for Anglo-French-American bombing." They ignore a frequent criticism
about having no "exit strategy" because they want the US to
invade, occupy, colonize, build permanent bases, and wage unending "Global
Wars on Terrorism" for total victory and dominance - of the region
and beyond. So far, the Pentagon is their only effective opposition along
with scattered former Washington officials like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy
Carter, Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker and the president's father. Figures
rarely given air time or op-ed space to voice these views. Short of that
and mass grassroots activism, the possibility of an unthinkable Iran attack
can't be discounted.
-
- Burying the National Intelligence Estimate
-
- In December 2007, the US National Intelligence Estimate
(NIE) reported that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 (with
no evidence one ever existed) and has none of these weapons in its arsenal.
The Bush administration, Israel, and its Lobby dismissed the report calling
it an Iranian ploy to buy time. The White House knew its findings months
in advance. No doubt shared them with Israel, and effectively diffused
them to remove an obstacle to new aggression. AIPAC, in fact, twisted
NIE's findings by arguing they bolster the case for confrontation because
the absence of a nuclearized Iran should support the case for greater
pressure on the country.
-
- With plenty of media support, the Lobby effectively buried
the NIE report and refocused attention on "Iran's nuclear program
still (being) a threat," and who can counteract it when no opposition
voices get air time or op-ed space in key mainstream broadsheets. Nonetheless,
the inteligence report has credibility and "made liars of the White
House and Congressional Democrats and the Presidents of the Major American
Jewish Organizations who 'knew' Iran had a nuclear weapons program"
no one can find a trace of.
-
- It shows that the nuclear issue is a ruse. Israel wants
unchallengeable regional dominance, and Iran is its major rival. Remove
it and lesser ones remain with no worry about the Islamic Republic intervening
against further Palestinian oppression, displacement and isolation, and
Israel's other imperial aims. With billions from Washington, worldwide
backing or indifference, and the power of their Lobby to win support and
intimidate opposition.
-
- The drumbeat for war continues. Yet it's quieted somewhat
following the August Caucasus crisis with Russia now a reinvented evil
empire opponent in a new Cold War and Great Game confrontation for control
of Eurasia's vast resources, including those in the Middle East.
-
- Iran, however, hasn't gone away, and with General David
Petraeus now CENTCOM chief, the Bush administration, Israel, and the Lobby
have their man in charge of going in whatever direction they send him.
Obediently and willingly to further his own political ambitions that got
him this far despite his less than stellar record. More on the general
below.
-
- Provocations as Pretexts for Imperial Wars - From Pearl
Harbor to 9/11
-
- Despots need no pretexts for war. Imperialist democracies
have to invent them to convince the public to go along. In 1916, Woodrow
Wilson was reelected on a promise that "He Kept Us Out of War."
WW I, that is, that began in 1914.
-
- Unknown to the public, Wilson had imperialist designs.
He needed the war to advance them, and established the Committee on Public
Information under George Creel. A government propaganda initiative that
in six months turned a pacifist nation into raving German haters and got
Congress (overwhelmingly) to declare war on Germany on April 17.
-
- The effort also showed corporations how effective propaganda
can be. It launched the public relations industry. All the mind manipulating
methods that followed, and it taught business how to market their products,
denigrate unions, and today keep people glued to TV screens, influenced
by hyper-commercialism and bread and circuses to want all the things they
don't need and think less about essentials like clean air and water, safe
food, and government providing everyone with vital services like health
care and education.
-
- Wilson's war led to America's unchallengeable ascendency
after WW II. The war Roosevelt wanted and got as did his successors to
the present time and to be continued under the next administration. Petras
explains that "US presidents have routinely created circumstances,
fabricated incidents and acted in complicity with their enemies"
to convince the public to be "receptive to war."
-
- WW I and the major imperial wars to the present needed
"a provocation, a pretext, and systematic, high-intensity mass media
propaganda to mobilize the masses for war." Manipulated to accept
it by "an army of academics, journalists, mass media pundits and
experts." Well rewarded for their complicity.
-
- Japan's rulers didn't want war with America. FDR goaded
them into attacking through multi-step harassment and embargo provocations.
Acts of war leading up to December 7, 1941. An effort to foment an attack
by selling arms to Tokyo's enemies. Denying Japan strategic resources
and port access, and imposing a damaging embargo on the country.
-
- It worked. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. US cable documentation
showed Washington knew it was coming. They tracked the fleet across the
Pacific, but officials gave no warning to Admiral HE Kimmel in charge
of Pearl Harbor's defense. Crucial intelligence reports were withheld
to let the attack proceed unimpeded to mobilize public anger and give
FDR his war. Think of the similarity between then and 2001.
-
- At its conclusion, America was triumphant, but its conquest
of Asia incomplete. Truman's dilemma - "how to consolidate US imperial
supremacy in the Pacific at a time of growing nationalist and communist
upheavals" in spite of a war-weary public wanting peace, demobilization,
and normalcy.
-
- Again, a provocation worked. Mass propaganda followed.
The great "red" menace was fabricated. Hawkish collaborators
took over unions and civic organizations. McCarthyism emerged. Peace and
anti-war organizations were targeted. Many thousands lost jobs. Hundreds
jailed, and hundreds more blacklisted. All under Harry Truman now reinvented
as one of our great past presidents. Point of fact - he was a war criminal.
-
- He chose the Korean peninsula. Lawlessly intervened in
the country's civil war because the wrong side was winning, and that
outcome couldn't be tolerated. The war destroyed the North. Killed millions
of Koreans. Shattered millions of more lives on both sides. Left the country
divided, and gave Washington a permanent foothold in the South with bases
it retains to this day. The empire was on a roll. It was just the beginning.
-
- Vietnam was next, and things began early in 1954. Bare
months after the July 27, 1953 Korean armistice. Washington backed their
corrupt puppet in the South. Ngo Dinh Diem, imported from New Jersey for
the job. Most Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi and his national
liberation and anti-imperialist government. An intolerable situation for
Washington that had to be stopped.
-
- War was for two strategic reasons:
-
- -- to establish client regimes and military bases in
East and South Asia to encircle China - in Japan, Korea, Indochina, the
Philippines, and elsewhere; and
-
- -- to destroy opposition Southeast Asian governments
and movements - in N. Vietnam, all Indochina, Indonesia, and elsewhere
if they arose.
-
- In all, to solidify America's hold in East Asia. Install
or consolidate client regimes. Build more military bases. Establish opportunities
for US business. Privatize raw material sectors, and as much else as possible.
-
- Doing it meant removing opposition regimes. Ho in Hanoi.
Sukarno in Indonesia, and hundreds of thousands of anti-imperialist movements,
trade unionists, communists, peasants and others seen as threats to US
ambitions. Covert attacks against N. Vietnam began in 1961. Then the fabricated
Gulf of Tonkin Incident led to full-scale war. The country decimated.
Millions of deaths in the region for a war America lost, but Southeast
Asians and 58,000 US service men and their families paid for.
-
- Ronald Reagan pursued proxy wars in Central America and
elsewhere until GHW Bush attacked Panama. Deposed Manuel Noriega. Tricked
Saddam into invading Kuwait. Won a quick victory and declared: "By
God, we've licked the Vietnam Syndrome" - meaning: restraints are
removed and America is free to invent pretexts to attack anyone.
-
- September 11, 2001 gave Bush administration militarists
their opportunity to pursue new Middle East/Central Asian conquests. In
spite of no credible threat in either region. Solution - invent one.
"...some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor"
the way Project for a New American Century planners envisioned it their
2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses document.
-
- Afghanistan was first in October 2001. It was planned
many months in advance. Long before 9/11. Iraq followed in March 2003.
Also planned well in advance and awaiting a pretext to launch - 9/11,
non-existant WMDs, and a made-to-order despot like Saddam made it easy.
Especially because Israel wanted war. Pushed hard for it, and Bush administration
hard-liners obliged.
-
- When the opportunity arose, Israel and its Lobby mobilized
a phalanx of ideologues, academics, Christian Right clergy and spokespeople,
writers, journalists, pundits, and the entire mass media for one common
purpose. Round-the-clock propaganda to convince the public about a dangerous
enemy. Scare them enough to want him removed. Turn them into "irrational,
chauvinist militarists," and get them to sacrifice their freedoms
for a "Global War on Terrorism" that, according to Dick Cheney,
"won't end in our lifetime." The nation has been at war ever
since. No end is in sight. The next president promises no change. Perhaps
new wars on new fronts. And the country and public continue to pay dearly
for their leaders' crimes and deceit.
-
- Israel's and its Lobby's as well. A small group of extremists.
Behind closed doors. Deceiving the public. Creating a cauldron and scorched
earth in Iraq and Afghanistan. Erasing two countries. Giving Israel free
reign to attack South Lebanon. Syria on the pretext of a non-existant
nuclear site. The endless oppression, occupation, displacement, and isolation
of Palestinians while the world looks on dismissively. Plus the stoking
of tensions for more wars so Israel and America can solidify their positions
as unchallengeable imperial powers. Israel in the Middle East. America
everywhere.
-
- Part II - Embracing the Israeli Modus Operandi of Endless
War
-
- The Palestinian Sewage Disaster: The Political Ecology
of the US/ Israeli Responsibility in Microcosm
-
- In the broader scheme of things, what happened on March
26, 2007 in Northern Gaza was one incident. Barely noticed outside the
region, among so many others attracting more attention. It was when a
river of raw sewage and debris escaped from a collapsed earthen embankment.
Flooded a refugee camp. Drove 3000 Palestinians from their homes. Killed
five, injured 25 and destroyed scores of houses.
-
- Israeli propagandists blamed Palestinians for what Israel
caused. Years of neglect. A policy of undermining public maintenance
projects, including sewage treatment plants and cesspools. Massively bombing
Gaza in summer 2006. Destroying roads, bridges, sewage treatment facilities,
water purification ones, and the
- Territory's only electrical power plant.
-
- Israel bombs, kills, marauds, invades, occupies, destroys,
and Palestinians are blamed. Rogues are rewarded. Victims demonized. A
raw sewage flood one day. Aerial bombardment the next. Mass arrests,
incarcerations, torture as official policy, and an agenda of conflict
over peace to assure Israel is the dominant regional state. No challengers
exist, and world support lets this policy go on unimpeded.
-
- General Petraeus - From Surge to Purge to Dirge
-
- Last April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates nominated
General David Petraeus to replace Admiral William Fallon as CENTCOM commander.
The reason - Fallon disagreed sharply with the administration's Middle
East policy. Why Petraeus? He's fully on board to further his own military
and political ambitions. On September 16, he took over putting him in
charge of US military operations in 27 Eurasian countries (up to Russian/Chinese
borders), including the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and vital
waterways like the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean.
-
- Why Petraeus? A man Admiral Fallon openly criticized
for shamelessly supporting Israel in northern Iraq and the Bush "Know
Nothings" in charge of Iraq and engaging Iran. Fallon went further
as well about a man he clearly dislikes whose main skill is "brown-
nosing." As for his theory and strategy in defeating the Iraqi resistance,
he was "a disastrous failure," but that was predictable given
his "phony success in Northern (Kurdish) Iraq."
-
- The region's relative stability "has nothing to
do with (his) counterinsurgency theories" and more because of Kurdish
"independence" and "separatism." He bought off local
militias and accomplished there what can't be duplicated in the rest of
the country. The "surge" was a ruse and achieved nothing but
headlines about its effectiveness. Phony and untrue. The reduction in
violence is mainly because some elements were bought off and that Muqtada
al Sadr agreed to a ceasefire that may prove only temporary.
-
- Then there's the matter of a competent Iraqi army in
a country where most volunteers want a pay check but have little appetite
to fight. With rampant unemployment, hunger, deprivation, and the country
destroyed, what choice do they have. Nonetheless, many desert after enlisting.
Refuse to attack fellow Iraqis, and in some cases join them against a
brutal occupation promising no end.
-
- The "Petraeus Manual" prioritizes "security
and task sharing as a means of empowering civilians and prompting national
reconciliation." Neither is achievable with thousands of Iraqis
still dying. Attacks against US troops continuing, and all that can be
said for Petraeus' Multi-National Force - Iraq tenure is that "empowered
people (the locals) have protected and supported insurgents and oppose
the US occupation and its puppet regime." His goal of "national
reconciliation" was a total failure and won't change until the occupation
ends.
-
- He also followed the same failed Vietnamese strategy
producing widespread civilian casualties. Bombing densely populated areas.
Mass-arresting suspected local leaders. Targeted assassinations. Wncircling
entire neighborhoods. Punishing suffering Iraqis and engendering deep
hostility, and destroying the country to save it the way it was tried
in Vietnam and failed.
-
- Even Petraeus understands that and said "There is
no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency."
So prioritizing military victory is only explainable by his desire to
please the administration and further his own military and political
ambitions.
-
- He's a master of "double speak" and last April
lied to Congress and the public in fabricating accounts of progress. He
claimed the war was being won. Progress being made. Iraq being stabilized.
Peace around the corner, and then on to more war against Iran. He was
the first general to claim Iranian weapons were blowing up US armored
carriers and Iranian agents training the Iraqi resistance.
-
- He clearly played up to Bush administration neocons and
the Israel Lobby in supporting an attack against Iran. They "found
their stooge" in the general, and he took full advantage at the same
time the puppet Iraqi government was praising Tehran for helping to stabilize
the country and invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Baghdad to sign
trade agreements. Petraeus now commands all of Eurasia at a time Russia
may now be targeted, and if so, the stakes are far greater and so are
the risks.
-
- Part III - Militarism and the Decline of US Power
-
- Military-Driven Over Market-Driven Empire Building (1950
- 2008)
-
- From the middle of the 19th century to especially post-WW
II, Petras distinguishes between two forms of empire building: by military
conquests or through "large-scale, long-term economic penetration
via a combination of investments, loans, credits and trade in which market
power and superiority (greater productivity) in the means of production
led to....a virtual empire."
-
- European militarism declined after WW II. America's was
just beginning as it followed a military-based empire building approach
over the alternative. Based on foreign wars, proxy ones, encircling the
world with bases, and establishing a military-industrial complex to advance
it. Today exceeding $1 trillion annually with all spending categories
included. Plus multi-billions more in secret off-the-books budgets. Overall,
a reckless agenda for shorter term gains at the expense of long-term decline,
bankruptcy, despotism and ruin.
-
- As the US expanded its war-making capacity, Western Europe,
Japan, and more recently China and Russia chose to develop their economic
potential both at the public and private levels. The results were predictable.
America prospered through the 1960s before competitors grew more formidable.
Since then, "European and Japanese (and now Chinese and Russian)
market-based empire building moved with greater dynamism from domestic
to export-led growth and began to challenge US predominance in a multiplicity
of productive sectors." The trend continues with EU and BRIC countries
(Brazil, Russia, India and China) emerging as formidable competitors as
US supremacy declines.
-
- Why so? The off-shoring of US manufacturing. Growing
a predominantly service economy. Substituting low wages for higher ones.
Reducing social benefits. Becoming heavily dependent on speculative finance.
Financialization or Frankenstein finance. Letting Wall Street and big
banks decide what's best for the country and failing badly. Diverting
wealth to the rich and super- rich at the expense of 80% or more of the
public. Destroying unions and high-paying jobs. Running up massive trade
and current account deficits. Unrepayable national debt as well, and now
reeling under a financial crisis. Not getting a grasp on it, and not knowing
when or how it will end or what condition the country will be in when
it does. Or if it will.
-
- Readying the nation for martial law if things get bad
enough and a popular revolt erupts. Practicing for it in real time in
Denver, St. Paul and New Orleans. Readying for more foreign wars under
a new administration and even one or more before the current one ends.
Trying to disprove the notion that things that can't go on forever, won't.
Having to learn the hard way that they're dead wrong after eight failed
years under George Bush taught both parties nothing. Hoping the public
will decide that change must percolate up. Never does it flow the other
way.
-
- Petras reviews market v. military empire building approaches
post- WW II. Its early years. Then in the 1980s under Reagan. The 1990s
Clinton years, and after 2000 under George Bush. The 2002 - 2008 40%
decline of the dollar alone provides strong evidence of America's competitive
decline that may accelerate under the current economic crisis or in its
wake. In contrast, China, India, Russia, European, Asian and Latin American
states are developing their economies. Expanding business relationships
around the world at the expense of America. Likely this trend will continue
as the US grows more militaristic and declines under the weight of maintaining
it.
-
- Partnering with Israel makes it worse. Advancing the
Jewish state's agenda at the expense of our own. Allowing pro-Israeli
extremists to run foreign policy. Seeing no difference under Democrats
or Republicans. Promising more of the same in 2009. Advancing or prolonging
current conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. Planning new ones
in Eurasia. Proxy ones in Latin America or wherever US and Israeli interests
are at stake.
-
- Ignoring the historical record that "imperial wars
destroy the productive forces and social networks of targeted countries."
Eat the homeland's seed corn as well. Let market-driven empires gain
advantage through productive alliances. Advantage them to grow strategic
industries. Arrange favorable trade and monetary agreements. Plus policies
of building productive forces, not destroying them or their nations' social
fabric. That lesson is lost on US militarists or the broader defense establishment
that profits hugely at the expense of the remaining economy and the public.
-
- Petras goes even further saying that "Militarist
imperialism has weakened the entire economic fabric of the US empire without
any compensatory gains on the military side." Since WW II, GHW Bush
waged the only two successful conflicts. Both against weak opponents,
and they were quick and cheap. In contrast, Korea and Vietnam were quagmires.
So are Iraq and Afghanistan today. Hopeless and lost, yet doomed to continue
for years with unconscionable further loss of lives. Continued destruction,
and hundreds more wasted billions so badly needed at home for productive
investment and desperately needed social services being cut not increased.
-
- The result, especially under George Bush: Militarism
writ large. Costly military adventurism. "Catastrophic economic costs."
Pushing the nation toward insolvency. Declining economically as competitors
advance. Having no one around with enough foresight so see the folly.
So addicted to wars it doesn't matter if some do. Like a junkie too far
gone to change. Knowing a bad ending awaits, yet heading full steam toward
it. Leaving Petras to foresee two possible outcomes - "a new rabidly
nationalist authoritarian regime, or the re-birth of a republic based
on the reconstruction of a productive economy centered on the domestic
market and social priorities...." Based on the current state and
bipartisan campaign rhetoric, there's faint hope for the latter.
-
- US Militarism and the Expanding Israeli Agenda
-
- With key allies in high places in both parties, the Israeli
Lobby consistently "steamroll(s) domestic opposition in securing
unconditional US backing for Israel's position in the Middle East."
Exhibit A - Iraq.
-
|