|
Edited on Thu Aug-12-04 08:49 AM by GoreN4
Many commentators have suggested the 9/11 attacks were a necessary precondition to create generalized societal fear, and as such the tragedy was exploited by the Executive Branch to pursue the invasion of Iraq. In order to appreciate the governing principles of the neoconservatives, it is helpful to analyze the individual often described as the original advocate of modern neoconservative thinking, Dr. Leo Strauss.
Leo Strauss (1899-1973):
Philosophical Father of the Neoconservatives
“Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed…Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united- and they can only be united against other people."
“those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior…The people are told what they need to know and no more."
- Dr. Leo Strauss
"…for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue – weapons of mass destruction – because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
- Paul Wolfowitz, May 29, 2003
"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
- Richard Perle, November 19, 2003
It is widely acknowledged the Bush administration was not particularly honest about the reasons it gave to the public for the invasion of Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz, former deputy secretary of defense, acknowledged the evidence used to justify the war was always “murky” and now says that the main rationale for the Iraq war, “disarming” Saddam of a WMD program, was more of a “bureaucratic” reason than a national security reason. His neoconservative colleague, Richard Perle also admitted the war was in violation of International Law, but nonetheless it was the “right thing” to do. Many Americans have difficulty believing the Bush administration purposely engaged in a campaign of diversion and deception to convince the public that an invasion of Iraq was urgent and necessary. While these facts are disconcerting, they are not surprising given the self-proclaimed philosophical underpinning of neoconservative ideology.
In 1938 German political philosopher Leo Strauss arrived in the U.S., an ethnic Jew and refugee from Nazi Germany. He became a professor at the University of Chicago, where he specialized in philosophical analysis of the classic Greek tradition. He explored basic philosophical questions including of the structure of society and whether or not it can be founded on rational principles. Paul Wolfowitz was introduced to “Struassian” ideology while earning his PhD under Dr. Strauss at the University of Chicago.
Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, has written extensive analysis of “Struassian” ideology. Her two in-depth books on this subject are entitled; 'The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss' (1988) and 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (1997). She deftly argues that the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flows directly from the doctrines espoused by Leo Strauss. These teachings include the philosophy that deception is the normal process in politics.
Therefore secrecy is a paramount goal of government, especially with issues regarding foreign policies. Strauss also believed that society was comprised of three distinct groups of citizens, in which only the “wise” elite understood that “perpetual deception” is required between the rulers and those to be ruled over. According to Drury, Strauss believed that society was composed of three classes of people:
“There are indeed three types of men: the wise, the gentlemen, and the vulgar. The wise are the lovers of the harsh, unadulterated truth. They are capable of looking into the abyss without fear and trembling. They recognise neither God nor moral imperatives. They are devoted above all else to their own pursuit of the “higher” pleasures...”
The second type, the gentlemen, are lovers of honour and glory. They are the most ingratiating towards the conventions of their society – that is, the illusions of the cave. They are true believers in God, honour, and moral imperatives. They are ready and willing to embark on acts of great courage and self-sacrifice at a moment’s notice.
The third type, the vulgar many, are lovers of wealth and pleasure. They are selfish, slothful, and indolent. They can be inspired to rise above their brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe.”
It is important to realize that Dr. Strauss was openly contemptuous of secular democracy. In his framework; "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right- the right of the superior to rule over the inferior." Struassian theory thus requires the "The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not be exposed to the truth or they would fall into nihilism or anarchy.
Perhaps this governing philosophy of blanket secrecy provides a parallel to the neoconservatives strategy regarding Iraq and an inability to be truthful with the American people about the reasons for the war, which have continual been shifted when no viable WMD stockpiles or WMD programs were found in Iraq.
Moreover, an equally interesting aspect of Struassian teaching is that religion is absolutely essential for imposing moral law on the masses (or vulgar many). At the same time, Strauss stressed that religion is to be reserved for the masses alone, as the ruling elite need not be bound by it. In fact, he argued it would illogical for the rulers to be bound by religion since the truths proclaimed by religion are in his words "a pious fraud." Hence, secular society is the least desirable situation because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism. While these are the traits the Founding Fathers viewed as most desirable, in the Straussian ideology it is these same traits that promote dissent, which could weaken society's ability to 'cope with external threats.' Strauss was ambivalent as what religion was needed to facilitate social control of the masses, only that a religion was required in his analysis.
Dr. Strauss also believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united- and they can only be united against other people."
Drury makes the observation that a ‘perpetual war’ is a requirement in the Straussian political framework, and an “external threat’ must exist, even if is manufactured. She concludes with this foreboding analysis of how Struassian philosophy permeates the underlying neoconservative political strategy.
“In short, they all thought that man’s humanity depended on his willingness to rush naked into battle and headlong to his death. Only perpetual war can overturn the modern project, with its emphasis on self-preservation and “creature comforts.”
“…This terrifying vision fits perfectly well with the desire for honour and glory that the neo-conservative gentlemen covet. It also fits very well with the religious sensibilities of gentlemen. The combination of religion and nationalism is the elixir that Strauss advocates as the way to turn natural, relaxed, hedonistic men into devout nationalists willing to fight and die for their God and country.
"...I never imagined when I wrote my first book on Strauss that the unscrupulous elite that he elevates would ever come so close to political power, nor that the ominous tyranny of the wise would ever come so close to being realized in the political life of a great nation like the United States. But fear is the greatest ally of tyranny.”
Struassian ideology toward foreign policy is plainly Machiavellian in orientation. During the 1990s the neoconservative thesis was expanded and formally articulated by neoconservative groups such PNAC and American Enterprise Institute (AEI). In fact, Karl Rove, President Bush’s political advisor, boosts that he reads Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ every year.
If one believes that political order is stable only if the people are united by an external threat, then if no external threat exists, one has to be manufactured. In many crucial aspects, this philosophy of government closely mirrors the actions of the U.S government with respect to the “war on terror.” After the September 11th tragedy, these polices of a world order dominated by US military power were being implemented under the never ending external threat of “terrorism.”
Preparing the public for the Iraq war was quite simple. As required in Straussian political theory, an “external threat” was created during the autumn of 2002. This campaign was designed to create the requisite societal fear necessary so that the “wise” rulers could pursue a strategy to be kept secret from the masses. As prescribed, the role of religion was often evoked as a divine force guiding our political leaders in a battle of “good versus evil.” The mantra of “united we stand” created the necessary hyper-nationalism to drown out critical analysis of the facts surrounding the war. Under the threat of “mushroom clouds,” our prime nemesis, Bin Laden, was skillfully transformed by the Bush administration into our old yet new public enemy number one, Saddam Hussein.
“God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.”
-President George W. Bush, June 2003, as reported by former Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas
“You can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."
-President George W. Bush, 2002
"Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum...We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation."
"I'm the commander--see, I don't need to explain--I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
- President George W Bush, 2002
“One of the reasons I left was my sense that they were using the intelligence from the CIA and other agencies only when it fit their agenda. They didn’t like the intelligence they were getting, and so they brought in people to write the stuff. They were so crazed and so far out and so difficult to reason with—to the point of being bizarre. Dogmatic, as if they were on a mission from God. If it doesn’t fit their theory, they don’t want to accept it.”
- Former CIA official interviewed by Seymour Hersh, for The New Yorker magazine, May 2003
“…I’d love to be the historian who writes the story of how this small group of eight or nine people made the case and won.”
- W. Patrick Lang, former chief of Middle East intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
Many American people are slowly realizing the degree to which they were misled about the Iraq war. Many history books will to be written regarding the events that unfolded before and after the Iraq war, but perhaps a crucial issue to understand is the theoretical underpinning of the neoconservative movement. The following is an analysis of how the Iraq war was pursued by advocates of the Struassian philosophy. The first he ground breaking story on the OSP and the neoconservative operatives with this unit was provided by Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker, along with a former Pentagon employee who worked under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.
These two individuals exposed how a small clique of neoconservative ideologues along with an Iraqi exile group conspired to provide most of the fraudulent “intelligence data” that was publicized by the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. This disinformation in relation to Iraq was readily apparent before the war, but now it is simply irrefutable. According to investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, proponents of Straussian ideology were placed in key positions within the ad hoc “intelligence units” that prepared information for the President and prepared the public for war.
Evidently during 2001-2002 the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were not giving Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld intelligence information that would justify a US invasion of Iraq. In fact, it was well known to our intelligence agencies that Iraq’s WMD was dormant, and as early as 1998 it was understood that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda.
Undeterred, in the summer of 2002 Donald Rumsfeld set up his own unofficial, and autonomous intelligence unit referred to simply as the “cell,” or the “Iraqi intelligence cell.” It has been reported that Douglas Feith, the third highest ranking civilian in the Department of Defense, and staunch neoconservative, operated this unit in an effort to circumvent the CIA and secretively brief the White House on dubious reports of a “relationship” between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This “cell” collaborated with another “rogue” intelligence unit called the Office of Special Plans (OSP).
The purpose of these “intelligence units” was to bypass the CIA and DIA, and provide “faith-based intelligence” to Vice President Cheney and President Bush. According to former Pentagon employees who observed the OSP unit; it appears that its sole purpose was to promote the Iraq war. The head of this was unit, Bill Luti, who earend his PhD under the late Dr. Strauss, and not surprisingly, Dr. Luti is an acknowledged disciple of Straussian theory.
The Straussian philosophy of governance requires the people to be united under fear and hatred. In order to achieve such goals a propaganda campaign to instill fear would need to be launched. The goal of course was to create a broad “external” threat – even if one did not exist. Mr. Luti and members of the OSP vigorously pursued this challenge during the autumn of 2002, and succeeded brilliantly. It a twist of self-mockery, members of the OSP referred to themselves the “cabal.”
Straussian Necessity of an External Threat: Mushroom Clouds to Inspire the Vulgar Masses
In essence, the justification for invading of Iraq was a coordinated and transparent pack of fabrications and deceptions - designed to create the requisite societal fear as discussed in Straussian theory, thereby convincing the “vulgar masses” of the need for a preemptive invasion of Iraq. To reiterate, Straussian theory of governance requires an existential threat as the masses could only “be inspired to rise above their brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe.”
In view of the Straussian philosophy of governance, the operations of the OSP and Douglas Feith’s unnamed intelligence was not an “intelligence failure,” but a remarkable success in uniting the “vulgar masses” with “fear of impending death or catastrophe.”
Despite inherit logical contradictions of an unprovoked WMD attack by the Iraqi government, in August 2002 Vice President Cheney first introduced the notion that Saddam Hussein would acquire nuclear weapons “fairly soon.” Not coincidentally, on the one-year anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Condozeela Rice famously remarked the first “smoking gun” could be a “mushroom cloud.”
Introducing the terrifying image of a mushroom cloud to the America citizens when their emotions were heightened by the first year anniversary of 9/11 was a highly effective method for instilling generalized fear. Indeed, a month later President Bush reiterated that the “final proof” of Saddam’s nuclear program could be a “mushroom cloud.”
The coup de grace to reinforce to the American people that an imminent “external threat” existed from a nuclear armed Saddam was provided General Tommy Franks. In November 2002 he warned that inaction might produce the “first mushroom cloud on one of the major population centers on this planet.” The extraordinary, fear-inspiring “mushroom cloud” propaganda campaign vividly illustrates the power welded by a few government officials who can easily bring the people “to the bidding of the leaders.” The following quotes are provided in chronological order.
"Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon we cannot gauge."
-Vice President Cheney, August 26, 2002
“The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons, but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice,
September 8, 2002
“Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof...the smoking gun.... that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
- President George W. Bush, October 7, 2002
An Iraqi nuclear weapon might bring "the sight of the first mushroom cloud on one of the major population centers on this planet."
- General Tommy Franks, November 12, 2002
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
- President George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28, 2003
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
-Vice President Cheney, March 16, 2003
"Yeah, I did misspeak .... We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.."
-Vice President Cheney, September 14, 2004
The last quote is quite an understatement give that Vice President Cheney was the instrumental government official to first suggest that Saddam was acquiring nuclear weapons. The seven month period between August of 2002 to just three days before the war was a remarkably era in which senior members of the Executive Brach and one of the top U.S. military commanders appeared to have engaged in a coordinated attempt to promulgate massive societal fear.
The repeatedly references to “reconstituted nuclear weapons” and visions of “mushroom clouds” was a very effective fear tactic in inspire the masses and fill the imagination of Americans with “fear of impending death or catastrophe.” However, it one can overcome the thought-paralyzing effects of this type of propaganda, and critically examine the facts, it was highly doubtful that Saddam could reconstitute a nuclear weapons program, nor was he likely to give any such weapons to a radical terrorists group. After all, Saddam was a survivor, not a martyr.
The following information was never discussed by the U.S. government or our subservient media conglomerates as it would have exposed the fallacy of the prime rationale for the Iraq war. First, we all hope the U.S. government will never have to conduct a forensic analysis of radioactive isotopes that would remain in the aftermath of a rogue nuclear explosion. However, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and associated U.S. military laboratories have the capability to analyze the unique radiation signatures to determine the origin of major sources of plutonium or uranium that could be used in a nuclear weapon.
For example, if a nuclear warhead were stolen and detonated, the U.S. could determine whether the fissile material came from Britain, China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia or the United States. Furthermore, if Al Qaeda were to seek a nuclear weapon, they would most likely go to where they are most plentiful and least secure – the former states of the Soviet Union. Numerous reports to Congress by the U.S. intelligence agencies have repeated stated the real risk for a rogue group acquiring an unsecured nuclear weapon is in Russia. A destabilized Pakistan is the second most likely risk.
This is well understood; as a publicly available report to Congress during 2002 clearly illustrates the U.S. government deems a potential detonation of a rogue nuclear device within the U.S. would “likely” come from Russia. Furthermore, it appears that if such an event were to occur, it would first be assumed that the bomb material was stolen from Russia, and secondly, this it is unlikely Russia would have conducted such an attack.
Although a highly disconcerting subject, it is slightly reassuring to know that professionals within the U.S. government are operating under the assumption that a rogue nuclear explosion would likely be a terrorist attack, and not a state-sponsored attack from Russia, even if forensic analysis showed the bomb material originated from Russia. A report to Congress in 2002 regarding a ‘Terrorist Nuclear Attack’ illustrates our forensic capability itself “could help to deter other nations from giving nuclear material to a terrorist group.”
“The United States can often identify the origin of nuclear material used in a bomb. This forensic capability strengthens the value of controlling Russian nuclear weapons and materials: finding that material for a bomb detonated in the United States came from Russia, a likely source, would in all probability lead to the conclusion that the material was stolen rather than that Russia conducted the attack. At the same time, augmenting already-excellent forensic capability through technology and intelligence could help deter other nations from giving nuclear materials to a terrorist group."
Source: CRS Report for Congress, Received through the CRS Web: Order Code RS21293
‘Terrorist Nuclear Attacks on Seaports: Threat and Response,’ August 23, 2002
Jonathan Medalia, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Although a brutal and despicable individual, Saddam Hussein was and is similar to other dictators who enjoy their power and position. He was not interested in provoking the U.S. to attack Iraq, and as a secular dictator, nor was he interested in associating with fundamentalist terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Saddam ruled over the most secular state in the Middle East, and loathed religious zealots like Osama bin Laden, who in turn despised Saddam an a "bad Muslim" alogn with his "socialist"/secular/Ba'athist government.
Saddam was shrewd enough to realize that launching a WMD attack back in 1991 against the U.N. coalition forces would have ended his regime. Likewise, he was likely smart enough to realize that providing any Iraqi-based WMD material to fanatics like Al Qeada would likely be used, and then quickly traced back his regime, thereby quite possibly resulting in his death from “overwhelming” U.S. military force.
To wit, when Saddam was captured by U.S. forces in December 2003, he did not resist. He was armed with a pistol, but had no interest in dying like his sons who were both killed in a gun battle with U.S. troops. At age 65, Saddam apparently wanted to live a little longer. Ironically, even in hiding Saddam warned other Iraqis not to associate with 'foreign fighters,' a reference to Al Qaeda.
With their mission accomplished, Donald Rumsfeld disbanded the OSP in September 2003. Despite the so-called Congressional investigation into “intelligence failures” regarding Iraq, there is “strong resistance” by the Republicans to investigate the OSP and related activities. It is highly doubtful Congress will expose the truth in the near future. Regardless of whether or not these individuals are held accountable, it is now obvious the main justifications for the war were based on a mixture of deceptive premises, fraudulent information, and promoted via a philisophical form of goverance as advocated by Leo Strauss and his disciples, the Neoconservatives.
(for the rest of the story, you'll have to wait for my upcoming book...)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(999 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
