Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Rise of a ‘Democratic’ Fascism (John Pilger) [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)202. And I'll answer again: Three Generations of Bush and Counting.
Senator Prescott Sheldon Bush, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and pretzeldent George Walker Bush all had their eyes on Iraq's oil. Their cronies in government service, Wall Street and academia still do their bidding to their mutual advantage.
The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War
Exclusive: Americans today know a lot more about Iraq than they did ten years ago, knowledge gained painfully from the blood of soldiers and civilians. But a crucial question remains: why did George W. Bush and his neocon advisers rush headlong into this disastrous war, a mystery Robert Parry unwinds.
By Robert Parry
ConsortiumNews, March 20, 2013
A decade after President George W. Bush ordered the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, one of the enduring mysteries has been why. There was the rationale sold to a frightened American people in 2002-2003 that Saddam Hussein was plotting to attack them with WMDs but no one in power really believed that.
There have been other more plausible explanations: George Bush the Younger wanted to avenge a perceived slight to George Bush the Elder, while also outdoing his father as a war president; Vice President Dick Cheney had his eye on Iraqs oil wealth; and the Republican Party saw an opportunity to create its permanent majority behind a glorious victory in the Middle East.
Though George W. Bushs defenders vigorously denied being motivated by such crass thinking, those rationales do seem closer to the truth. However, there was another driving force behind the desire to conquer Iraq: the neoconservative belief that the conquest would be a first step toward installing compliant pro-U.S. regimes throughout the Middle East and letting Israel dictate final peace terms to its neighbors.
That rationale has often been dressed up as democratizing the Middle East, but the idea was more a form of neocolonialism, in which American proconsuls would make sure that a favored leader, like the Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabi, would control each country and align the nations positions with the interests of the United States and Israel.
Some analysts have traced this idea back to the neocon Project for the New American Century in the late 1990s, which advocated for regime change in Iraq. But the ideas origins go back to the early 1990s and to two seminal events.
The first game-changing moment came in 1990-91 when President George H.W. Bush showed off the unprecedented advancements in U.S. military technology. Almost from the moment that Iraqs Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Iraqi dictator began signaling his willingness to withdraw after having taught the arrogant al-Sabah ruling family in Kuwait a lesson in power politics.
But the Bush-41 administration wasnt willing to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the Kuwait invasion. Instead of letting Hussein arrange an orderly withdrawal, Bush-41 began baiting him with insults and blocking any face-saving way for a retreat.
Peace feelers from Hussein and later from Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev were rebuffed as Bush-41 waited his chance to demonstrate the stunning military realities of his New World Order. Even the U.S. field commander, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, favored Gorbachevs plan for letting Iraqi forces pull back, but Bush-41 was determined to have a ground war.
So, Gorbachevs plan was bypassed and the ground war commenced with the slaughter of Iraqi troops, many of them draftees who were mowed down and incinerated as they fled back toward Iraq. After 100 hours, Bush-41 ordered a halt to the massacre. He then revealed a key part of his motivation by declaring: Weve kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all. [For details, see Robert Parrys Secrecy & Privilege.]
Neocons Celebrate
Official Washington took note of the new realities and the renewed public enthusiasm for war. In a post-war edition, Newsweek devoted a full page to up-and-down arrows in its Conventional Wisdom Watch. Bush got a big up arrow with the snappy comment: Master of all he surveys. Look at my polls, ye Democrats, and despair.
For his last-minute stab at a negotiated Iraqi withdrawal, Gorbachev got a down arrow: Give back your Nobel, Comrade Backstabber. P.S. Your tanks stink. Vietnam also got a down arrow: Wheres that? You mean there was a war there too? Who cares?
Neocon pundits, already dominating Washingtons chattering class, could barely contain their glee with the only caveat that Bush-41 had ended the Iraqi turkey shoot too soon and should have taken the carnage all the way to Baghdad.
The American people also rallied to the lopsided victory, celebrating with ticker-tape parades and cheering fireworks in honor of the conquering heroes. The victory-parade extravaganza stretched on for months, as hundreds of thousands jammed Washington for what was called the mother of all parades.
Americans bought Desert Storm T-shirts by the caseloads; kids were allowed to climb on tanks and other military hardware; the celebration concluded with what was called the mother of all fireworks displays. The next day, the Washington Post captured the mood with a headline: Love Affair on the Mall: People and War Machines.
The national bonding extended to the Washington press corps, which happily shed its professional burden of objectivity to join the national celebration. At the annual Gridiron Club dinner, where senior government officials and top journalists get to rub shoulders in a fun-filled evening, the men and women of the news media applauded wildly everything military.
The highlight of the evening was a special tribute to the troops, with a reading of a soldiers letter home and then a violinist playing the haunting strains of Jay Ungars Ashoken Farewell. Special lyrics honoring Desert Storm were put to the music and the journalists in the Gridiron singers joined in the chorus: Through the fog of distant war/Shines the strength of their devotion/To honor, to duty,/To sweet liberty.
Among the celebrants at the dinner was Defense Secretary Cheney, who took note of how the Washington press corps was genuflecting before a popular war. Referring to the tribute, Cheney noted in some amazement, You would not ordinarily expect that kind of unrestrained comment by the press.
A month later at the White House Correspondents Dinner, the U.S. news media and celebrity guests cheered lustily when General Schwarzkopf was introduced. It was like a Hollywood opening, commented one journalist referring to the spotlights swirling around the field commander.
Neocon pundit Charles Krauthammer lectured the few dissidents who found the press corps groveling before the President and the military unsettling. Loosen up, guys, Krauthammer wrote. Raise a glass, tip a hat, wave a pom-pom to the heroes of Desert Storm. If that makes you feel youre living in Sparta, have another glass.
American Hegemony
Like other observers, the neocons had seen how advanced U.S. technology had changed the nature of warfare. Smart bombs zeroed in on helpless targets; electronic sabotage disrupted enemy command and control; exquisitely equipped American troops outclassed the Iraqi military chugging around in Soviet-built tanks. War was made to look easy and fun with very light U.S. casualties.
The collapse of the Soviet Union later in 1991 represented the removal of the last obstacle to U.S. hegemony. The remaining question for the neocons was how to get and keep control of the levers of American power. However, those levers slipped out of their grasp with Bush-41s favoritism toward his realist foreign policy advisers and then Bill Clintons election in 1992.
But the neocons still held many cards in the early 1990s, having gained credentials from their work in the Reagan administration and having built alliances with other hard-liners such as Bush-41s Defense Secretary Cheney. The neocons also had grabbed important space on the opinion pages of key newspapers, like the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, and influential chairs inside major foreign-policy think tanks.
The second game-changing event took place amid the neocon infatuation with Israels Likud leaders. In the mid-1990s, prominent American neocons, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, went to work for the campaign of Benjamin Netanyahu and tossed aside old ideas about a negotiated peace settlement with Israels Arab neighbors.
Rather than suffer the frustrations of negotiating a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem or dealing with the annoyance of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the neocons on Netanyahus team decided it was time for a bold new direction, which they outlined in a 1996 strategy paper, called A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.
The paper advanced the idea that only regime change in hostile Muslim countries could achieve the necessary clean break from the diplomatic standoffs that had followed inconclusive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Under this clean break, Israel would no longer seek peace through compromise, but rather through confrontation, including the violent removal of leaders such as Saddam Hussein who were supportive of Israels close-in enemies.
The plan called Husseins ouster an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right, but also one that would destabilize the Assad dynasty in Syria and thus topple the power dominoes into Lebanon, where Hezbollah might soon find itself without its key Syrian ally. Iran also could find itself in the cross-hairs of regime change.
American Assistance
But what the clean break needed was the military might of the United States, since some of the targets like Iraq were too far away and too powerful to be defeated even by Israels highly efficient military. The cost in Israeli lives and to Israels economy from such overreach would have been staggering.
In 1998, the U.S. neocon brain trust pushed the clean break plan another step forward with the creation of the Project for the New American Century, which lobbied President Clinton to undertake the violent overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
However, Clinton would only go so far, maintaining a harsh embargo on Iraq and enforcing a no-fly zone which involved U.S. aircraft conducting periodic bombing raids. Still, with Clinton or his heir apparent, Al Gore, in the White House, a full-scale invasion of Iraq appeared out of the question.
The first key political obstacle was removed when the neocons helped engineer George W. Bushs ascension to the presidency in Election 2000. However, the path was not fully cleared until al-Qaeda terrorists attacked New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, leaving behind a political climate across America favoring war and revenge.
Of course, Bush-43 had to first attack Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda maintained its principal base, but he then quickly pivoted to the neocons desired target, Iraq. Besides being home to the already demonized Saddam Hussein, Iraq had other strategic advantages. It was not as heavily populated as some of its neighbors yet it was positioned squarely between Iran and Syria, two other top targets.
In those heady days of 2002-2003, a neocon joke posed the question of what to do after ousting Saddam Hussein in Iraq whether to next go east to Iran or west to Syria. The punch-line was: Real men go to Tehran.
But first Iraq had to be vanquished, and this other agenda restructuring the Middle East to make it safe for U.S. and Israeli interests had to be played down, partly because average Americans might be skeptical and because expert Americans might have warned about the dangers from U.S. imperial overreach.
So, Bush-43, Vice President Cheney and their neocon advisers pushed the hot button of the American people, still frightened by the horrors of 9/11. The bogus case was made that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMD that he was ready to give to al-Qaeda so the terrorists could inflict even greater devastation on the U.S. homeland.
Stampeding America
The neocons, some of whom grew up in families of left-wing Trotskyites, viewed themselves as a kind of a vanguard party using agit-prop to maneuver the American proletariat. The WMD scare was seen as the best way to stampede the American herd. Then, the neocon thinking went, the military victory in Iraq would consolidate war support and permit implementation of the next phases toward regime change in Iran and Syria.
The plan seemed to be working early, as the U.S. military overwhelmed the beleaguered Iraqi army and captured Baghdad in three weeks. Bush-43 celebrated by landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a flight suit and delivering a speech beneath a banner reading Mission Accomplished.
However, the plan began to go awry when neocon pro-consul Paul Bremer in pursuit of a neocon model regime got rid of Iraqs governing infrastructure, dismantled much of the social safety net and disbanded the army. Then, the neocon-favored leader, exile Ahmed Chalabi, turned out to be a non-starter with the Iraqi people.
An armed resistance emerged, using low-tech weapons such as improvised explosive devices. Soon, not only were thousands of American soldiers dying but ancient sectarian rivalries between Shiites and Sunnis began tearing Iraq apart. The scenes of chaotic violence were horrific.
Rather than gaining in popularity with the American people, the war began to lose support, leading to Democratic gains in 2006. The neocons salvaged some of their status in 2007 by pushing the fiction of the successful surge, which supposedly had turned impending defeat into victory, but the truth was that the surge only delayed the inevitable failure of the U.S. enterprise.
With George W. Bushs departure in 2009 and the arrival of Barack Obama, the neocons retreated, too. Neocon influence waned within the Executive Branch, though neocons still maintained strongholds at Washington think tanks and on editorial pages of national news outlets like the Washington Post.
New developments in the region also created new neocon hopes for their old agenda. The Arab Spring of 2011 led to civil unrest in Syria where the Assad dynasty based in non-Sunni religious sects was challenged by a Sunni-led insurgency which included some democratic reformers as well as radical jihadists.
Meanwhile, in Iran, international opposition to its nuclear program prompted harsh economic sanctions. Though President Obama viewed the sanctions as leverage to compel Iran to accept limits on its nuclear program, some neocons were salivating over how to hijack the sanctions on behalf of regime change.
However, in November 2012, Obamas defeat of neocon favorite Mitt Romney and the departure of neocon ally, CIA Director David Petraeus, were sharp blows to the neocon plans of reclaiming the reins of U.S. foreign policy. Now, the neocons must see how they can leverage their continued influence over Washingtons opinion circles and hope for advantageous developments abroad to steer Obama toward more confrontational approaches with Iran and Syria.
For the neocons, it also remains crucial that average Americans dont think too much about the why behind the disastrous Iraq War, a tenth anniversary that cant pass quickly enough as far as the neocons are concerned.
SOURCE: https://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/20/the-mysterious-why-of-the-iraq-war/
Those are the facts. Wish I could say, "Sorry they make you angry" when I bring them up, NuclearDem.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
333 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
As opposed to Corporate McPravda that helped lie America into illegal wars of aggression?
Octafish
Mar 2015
#65
Pilger claims President Obama spent $5 billion in 2014 to finance a coup in Ukraine.
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#78
Where in the OP is that stated? I'm scrolling through until my eyes cross and I'm not finding it
Autumn
Mar 2015
#81
Explain the 'democracy building' we are doing in Ukraine for all that money. We did the same thing
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#141
The bottom line here is that Pilger lied regarding the $5 billion figure, and you can't escape that.
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#149
What happened to the Orange Revolution and all that democracy building and how much did we
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#185
Pilger didn't need to 'want me' to believe anything. We poured money into Iraq, into Ukraine
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#310
Telling me to shut up makes you sound like some kind of nutty authority, uhnope.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#68
That's your opinion. Pilger has enormous credibility around the world. Maybe that is why
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#146
Why smear me? Nothing to say about Fascism in the USA? I'd add, 'Huh?' but, you know.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#10
Pilger's against the fascists that he wants to be against. But he's okay with the other fascists.
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#27
Just keep telling the truth Octafish. A lot of people hate freedom of the press.
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#38
Seeing as how your OP and one of your replies in this thread contain pictures
NuclearDem
Mar 2015
#136
Yugoslavia was a model for the future world. Nothing commie about putting people over war profits.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#6
I've noticed that also. And wonder why anyone here would be upset about the truth
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#40
The reason goes back asking Poppy Bush: why he was in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963?
Octafish
Mar 2015
#73
Why didn't he report that earlier? That's a good question. I can think of a few reasons why
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#101
So, you can't find where I lied. That's different, isn't it? That's called a smear.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#20
If they're documentable lies, then by all means DOCUMENT THEM with some links.
Maedhros
Mar 2015
#35
I've asked the same question. But still have not received the documentation that supposedly exists.
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#47
So Virginia Nuland was the one lying then, and Pilger was merely giving her credit for telling the
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#55
Regardless of what "Virginia" Nuland said, the issue has been researched and Pilger's lying.
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#58
So neocon, Virginia Nuland lied? Someone is lying, that's for sure, and generally speaking when a
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#61
As far as I know, "Virginia" Nuland appears to be correct in her assertion. Pilger is lying.
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#63
Virginia Nuland is a neocon, married to a neocon. I despise Neocons. They lie, they lied us into a
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#67
Why are you talking about "Virginia" Nuland? We're talking about John Pilger lying. Read his quote.
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#70
It is precisely the point. You argue relentlessly that Pilger is a liar, Tommy_Carcetti.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#79
Are you admitting that Pilger lied when he claimed Obama spent $5 billion on a "coup" in Ukraine?
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#84
We don't know, do we? It's classified Top Secret. Along with a lot more information we should know.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#89
Yes, and neocons are suddenly popular here, AND 'truthful'! She was caught planning the coup
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#100
You don't want us to talk about the neocons who were over there plotting for AFTER the Coup
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#96
From 2011: Goldman Sachs Is So Desperate To Get Into Ukraine It's Advising The Government For FREE
Octafish
Mar 2015
#105
I posted FACTS. Not lies. Facts you claim are TRUE. That neocon Victoria Nuland boasted that the US
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#139
Pilger claimed President Obama spent $5 billion in 2014 to overthrow the Ukrainian government.
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#154
If anyone ever needed this whole argument summed up in a nutshell, there it is.
NuclearDem
Mar 2015
#186
I agree with that. Virginia, yes there is a Santa Claus, Nuland's involvement in the pre-coup is
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#209
Considering you again have refused to at least acknowledge the facts I just stated, you
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#212
And coincidentally, she got what she wanted. And even considered what to do about the Neo Nazis
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#260
I'm glad you brought that up.. 'Things May Have Gotten Worse in Ukraine for the LGBT Community'
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#258
And you're getting this impression that LGBT allies don't care about the Ukrainian LGBT community...
NuclearDem
Mar 2015
#263
Stop it! I did not try to use this issue, I responded to Zappaman's attempt to use it. Do NOT
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#269
Do you support the US funding Ukraine, where 80% of the population opposes Gay Rights?
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#285
You are defending the use of Gay Rights as a political football? Ignoring Ukraine's 80% opposition
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#280
Now you are simply rambling. You support the US funding of Ukraine. You jumped in on the
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#286
You supported someone who used the despicable tactic of using the rights of persecuted minorities
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#288
Do you support the funding of an almost totally anti-Gay rights Ukraine by the US?
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#291
You support Ukraine, a nation where 80% of the population opposes Gay Rights.
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#292
Criticizing a professional debunker is not homophobic. Amazing Randi is undemocratic.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#235
Science and reality aren't democratic. You don't get to vote on what's true or not.
NuclearDem
Mar 2015
#236
Amazing Randi smeared Rupert Sheldrake. Amazing Randi broke US immigration law.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#238
I literally have no idea where you are going with this or how it's relevant to our discussion. nt
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#281
Would you like links to all the homophobes and anti-Semites you promote on DU?
zappaman
Mar 2015
#268
Why smear me over what Mearsheimer wrote? Take it out on him. That's the Fascist thing to do.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#277
What lies did Pilger tell? Could you link to them with documentation? You did say they
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#41
If you paste together a narrative of lies, such as the one I've pointed out on the Pilger piece...
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#124
Except you don't show he's any of that. So, all you got is a smear, zappaman.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#137
Its not an insult to point out how you like posting articles from anti-Semites and homophobes.
zappaman
Mar 2015
#170
You know, at this point I'm thinking you are some Andy Kauffman-esqe caricature....
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#166
Do I have to spell it out for you? The people who tried to overthrow FDR in 1933 had kids.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#183
"Mearsheimer is an expert in the field of international relations." And an anti-Semite.
zappaman
Mar 2015
#172
If they are waking up, we can expect a lot more flagwaving and scary bogeymen to appear
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2015
#18
I read this article last year and was wondering what it was about, thanks for the info.
Rex
Mar 2015
#16
Yes now they are on their 5th president in Ukraine. Another RWing crook it appears.
Rex
Mar 2015
#28
So you are okay with the 5th president being a RWing criminal, thanks that was what i wanted to know
Rex
Mar 2015
#36
It is amusing, just to defend their pony people here will defend RWing leaders in other countries.
Rex
Mar 2015
#32
There really is no way to deny the neo-Nazi elements in the Ukraine government. So the default
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#44
Would you like to see the photos of all the world leaders who were posing with and making deals with
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#57
Oh it wasn't WE who 'white-washed all these Dictators, it was our LEADERS. So go talk to THEM.
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#99
Who liked Gadaffi? Bishop Tutu for one, and Mandela. Both referred to him as a 'brother' for the
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#143
Good and Evil....Its often in the eye of the beholder and people are complicated....
KoKo
Mar 2015
#244
Which of course totally justifies turning Libya into a shithole full of squabbling warlords n/t
eridani
Mar 2015
#225
Thanks. I will check that out. The most under-referenced liberal intellectual of my lifetime
Doctor_J
Mar 2015
#131
He's entitled to his opinion. Do you think the United States is entitled to kill innocent people?
Octafish
Mar 2015
#109
I'm sorry, Prescott Bush has something to do with Putin's war of aggression...how?
NuclearDem
Mar 2015
#193
Prescott's ancestors are still on the Bridge of the Ship of State, making Big Bucks off War.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#197
His son, George Herbert Walker Bush, and grandson, George Walker Bush, both lied America into war.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#199
So, of course then President Obama paid $5 billlion in 2014 for a "coup" in Ukraine!
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#200
Because secret government is secret? Ask PNAC Robert Kagan's wife, Victoria Nuland.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#273
Why do you spread disinformation, Tommy_Carcetti? Is it some sort of sick game for you?
Octafish
Mar 2015
#298
Someone clearly hasn't been reading all the responses to his own posts here. nt
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#299
What I can hang on you, Octafish, is that you posted a piece with blatant misinformation.
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2015
#301
What disinformation did I post? Where I said you posted her name wrong when you didn't?
Octafish
Mar 2015
#303
Thanks for posting Octafish. Pleased to see the number of 'recs' your OP is receiving.
Purveyor
Mar 2015
#128
Remember who Uncle Sam hired for the secret government: the Mafia and the NAZIs.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#222
I think all the U.S. government / Obama apologists here prove that America is indeed a fascist state
AZ Progressive
Mar 2015
#145
Democrats believe in Democracy for everyone. It's genetic. Same for Fascism. You can just tell.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#204
Which makes him out to be PNAC chums with Robert Kagan, husband, coincidentally, of Victoria Nuland.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#243
PNAC is attempting to force US into arming Ukraine in a hoped-for war with Russia.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#247
PNAC ''Chums'' is a bad word on my part. Sorry. PNAC "Co-conspirators" would be more accurate.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#252
No, I'm hoping you'd maybe realize how hurtful and derogatory a word like r******* is.
NuclearDem
Mar 2015
#330
CIA manual Urged Rebels to Assassinate Their Own In Order to Create “Martyrs”
Ichingcarpenter
Mar 2015
#284
Russia's actions in Ukraine conflict an 'invasion', says US official Victoria Nuland
Octafish
Mar 2015
#314