Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

A Mideast Feast

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) may have effectively closed up shop two years ago, and its key neoconservative allies in the...

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) may have effectively closed up shop two years ago, and its key neoconservative allies in the administration, such as Scooter Libby and Douglas Feith, may be long gone, but the group’s five-year-old Middle East strategy remains very much alive.

This is not the “Wilsonian” strategy of transforming Iraq into a model of democracy and pluralism that would supposedly spread domino-like across the entire benighted region of autocrats, monarchs, and theocrats whose oppression and backwardness have, according to the neoconservative narrative, been the main cause of anti-U.S. Islamic extremism.

On the contrary, that “idealist” vision has largely disappeared from the administration’s discourse, particularly over the past year as Iraq slipped steadily into sectarian civil war, despite having been enthusiastically embraced by President George W. Bush and his neoconservative supporters after their early justifications for war in Iraq-Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ties to al-Qaida-proved unfounded.

It is, rather, the hard-edged strategy first enunciated in PNAC’s letter to Bush published just nine days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. That document called for the administration to focus its “war on terrorism” on what it considered the main regional threats to the security of Israel, “America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism.”

Indeed, the September 20, 2001 letter, signed by some three dozen prominent, mostly neoconservative, hawks, suggested that Afghanistan and al-Qaida should be treated as mere hors d’oeuvres in a six-course meal in which Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was to be only the main course.

The Palestinian Authority, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria were also featured as part of the feast, a series of dishes that, with the notable replacement of the Palestinian Authority by Hamas as a result of last year’s democratic elections, now appears to be, more than at any time since Washington’s conquest of Iraq in 2003, back on the menu.

In its September 20 letter, PNAC mentioned briefly its support for military action in Afghanistan to “capture or kill” Osama bin Laden and “to destroy his network of associates.” The letter then warned that the failure to remove Saddam would “constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism” and declared that “any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah.”

In words that sound remarkably familiar today, the letter continued: “We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.”

Finally, the letter called on Bush to cut aid to the Palestinian Authority until it ends terrorism against Israel, a recommendation that was followed up about six months later with a second PNAC letter demanding that Washington break all ties with then-leader Yasser Arafat. “No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy,” the April 3, 2002 letter asserted, opining that both countries were targets of the “Axis of Evil” and that “Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight.”

Since its letters, PNAC has accomplished much of its agenda-albeit with results that it almost entirely failed to anticipate.

After chasing the Taliban and al-Qaida out of Afghanistan, Washington did indeed break off ties with the Palestinian Authority in June 2002. After Arafat’s death and replacement by Mahmoud Abbas Washington began rekindling ties, only to effectively break them off once again after Hamas defeated Fatah in U.S.-supported elections one year ago.

The United States invaded Iraq in March 2003 and, nearly four years later, finds itself waging an extremely costly counterinsurgency campaign that neither the administration nor its neocon cheerleaders anticipated.

While most regional and military experts believe that Washington is fighting a losing battle, political observers are virtually unanimous that public disaffection with the war was the single most important cause of the Democrats’ sweep of the midterm congressional elections last November, not to mention the growing Republican revolt against Bush’s latest plans to send some 21,500 more U.S. troops to add to the 132,000 already in Iraq.

Finally, Hezbollah and Israel fought a month-long war last summer that was widely seen as a major political, if not military, victory not just for the Lebanese Shia movement, but also for its two main backers, Iran and Syria, whom Washington now accuses of trying to destabilize Iraq.

The summer 2006 Hezbollah-Israel conflict, combined with Iran’s nuclear program and the fact that Tehran has emerged as the biggest winner of Washington’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, appears responsible for the White House’s renewed embrace of PNAC’s original targets (which are now being referred to by some neocons as “HISH”: Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and Hamas).

Just as ousting the Taliban and capturing or killing bin Laden and his associates were depicted by the neocons five years ago as a mere prelude to the main business of decisively defeating Israel’s regional foes, so the administration appears to have once again relegated both Afghanistan and al-Qaida to the margins in its war on terrorism, despite the Taliban’s unexpected resurgence of the past year.

Thus, even as National Intelligence Director John Negroponte was warning that al-Qaida still poses the gravest threat to U.S. security, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice omitted any mention of the group in congressional testimony last week when she explained that Washington now faces what she called “a new alignment of forces” in the region.

“On one side are reformers and responsible leaders,” a group that Rice said included “Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas, and in Iraq.” On the other side, however, “are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, and Hamas,” who Rice said “use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments, and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.”

Of course, this is anything but “a new alignment of forces.” However, it does recall not only PNAC’s exhortations of five years ago, but also the strategy that prevailed in the early 1980s as the Reagan administration-and its neoconservative allies-supplied “moderate” Sunni Arab states, including Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, with weapons, training, and other support to ward off the threat posed by a revolutionary Shia Iran and its allies in Lebanon and Syria. In so doing, of course, Washington helped lay the groundwork for the emergence of a radical Sunni Islamist movement that eventually blossomed into al-Qaida.

A quarter-century later, we are faced with an Iran emboldened by Bush’s and the neocons’ colossal mistakes of the past five years. And Washington finds itself desperately trying to rope the same Sunni authoritarian states (relabeled “responsible” and “mainstream”) it and its neocon allies so recently depicted as the main source of al-Qaida’s recruitment into a new anti-HISH alliance.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and contributor to Right Web (rightweb.irc-online.org).

 

Citations

Jim Lobe, "A Mideast Feast," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, January 24, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share