Right Web

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

The General Goes to Washington; William Schneider Jr.; Daniel Gouré, and More

FEATURED ARTICLE

The Surge Scam: Getting Rid of the Goat
Commentary By Leon Hadar

A vague commitment to end the surge in Iraq, coupled with the supposed credibility of General Petraeus, could buy President Bush more time to pursue his military offensive in Iraq and leave the mess there to his successor in the White House. But anti-war critics question Petraeus’ credibility, arguing that he is not only identified with the failed U.S. strategy in Iraq but also that he has become a political ally of Bush and of Republicans. Democrats have failed to mount a serious challenge to Petraeus, allowing him, and by extension the Bush administration, to set the terms of the current debate on Iraq. Read full story.

FEATURED PROFILES

Daniel Gouré
The conservative vice president of the Lexington Institute maintains close ties with defense contractors while pushing controversial weapons programs in the media.

Richard Pipes
An important early neoconservative and Team B player who pushed flimsy evidence of supposed Soviet threats, Pipes remains a proponent of hardline foreign policies.

William Schneider Jr.
A corporate executive and longtime government insider who has served in a number of advisory posts during the Bush presidency, Schneider has supported the work of the Center for Security policy and other hardline advocacy groups.

John Foster Jr.
A key proponent of new nuclear weapons development within the Bush administration, Foster doubles as a defense contractor exec and advocate of hardline defense policies.

ALSO NEW ON RIGHT WEB

Pushing the Surge
By Eli Clifton

Against a backdrop of dwindling domestic and international support for the ongoing U.S. presence in Iraq, neocons are vociferously touting Gen. David Petraeus’ final report to Congress. Read full story.

Surge Expansion?
By Khody Akhavi

The same day that General Petraeus gave Congress his Iraq surge report, neoconservatives took aim at what they hope will be the next military target: Iran. Read full story.

A Different Tack
By Gareth Porter

Israel thought Iran was the better target for the United States, according to one administration official. Read full story.

LETTERS

IRC encourages feedback and comments. Send letters to rightweb@irc-online.org. IRC reserves the right to edit comments for clarity and brevity. Be sure to include your full name. Thank you.

If you would like to see our variety of free ezines and listservs, please go to: http://www.irc-online.org/lists/.
To be removed from this list, please email rightweb@irc-online.org with “unsubscribe Right Web.”

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

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.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

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.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share