It would appear that the "bomb Iran" school, as represented by the Gingrich-Woolsey-Kristol-Ledeen wing of the CFR, is primarily serving as a foil to make the planned "international" approach, as represented by the Kipper-Kissinger-Brzezinski-Shultz wing of the CFR, look more reasonable. All of the "experts" quoted above — both the "bomb Hamas,
Hezbollah, Iran, Syria" and the "talk to Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria" schools
of thought — are longtime members of the elite private establishment that has
been deciding and running U.S. foreign policy for the past several decades: the
Council on Foreign
Relations.
---
Escalating War
by William F. Jasper August 21, 2006 The dilemma
of false alternatives — and why Americans must not let our government entangle
us further in the current Mideast mess.
"We are in the early stages of what I would describe as the
third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren't responding fast enough,"
Newt Gingrich declared. "We don't have the right attitude about this.... This
is, in fact, World War III." That alarming statement, laden with overtones of
approaching Armageddon, came on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert on
Sunday, July 16, as Gingrich put the current Lebanon crisis in context by
running through a list of terror attacks worldwide. Mr. Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives
and neo-conservative guru, subsequently took up the same theme on CNN's Larry
King Live, Fox's Hannity and Colmes, and other programs. But he
wasn't merely expressing his opinion that events on the ground have already,
de facto, put us squarely in the opening throes of WWIII. No, he was
arguing for kicking the process up another notch, pressing for Israel — with
U.S. backing — to attack Syria and Iran, the state sponsors of the Hezbollah and
Hamas terrorists who have been attacking Israel. Agitating for the
Apocalypse Gingrich is not the only influential policy wonk to be casting
the Lebanon flare-up in apocalyptic terms and rattling the sabers. James
Woolsey, a former under secretary of the Navy and President Clinton's CIA
director from 1993 to 1995, is even more hawkish, advocating that the United
States itself bomb Syria, rather than wait for Israel to do so. "I think we
ought to execute some airstrikes against Syria," Woolsey said on Fox News
Channel's The Big Story with John Gibson. If we're going to go after
Syria, why not also "hit something in Iran?" Gibson asked. Woolsey is not averse
to that course of action, but acknowledges that we may be too overextended
militarily, at present, to take on another war. "One has to take things to some
degree by steps," Woolsey replied, noting that with our troops already committed
in one major war in Iraq, a full-tilt war against the Tehran regime may not be
practical "at this moment." Other war hawks, apparently, are unburdened by these concerns.
William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a leading cheerleader
for a global war against Islam, is calling for a U.S. military effort to bring
about "regime change in Syria and Iran." In a July 24 editorial entitled, "It's
Our War," Kristol advocates that we launch "a military strike against Iranian
nuclear facilities." Now! "Why wait?" he asks. Likewise, neo-con propagandist Michael Ledeen, another leading
voice in perennial pro-war punditry, sees the Lebanon situation as a mandate for
a U.S. military attack on Syria and Iran. In a July 13 National Review
Online piece entitled "The Same War," for instance, Ledeen argues: "In this
war, there is no meaningful distinction between Iran and Syria, they work in
tandem." He insists, "The only way we are going to win this war is to bring down
those regimes in Tehran and Damascus." And, he continues, "Only the United
States can accomplish it." Defiance Facade Opposed to (or rather, seemingly opposed to) these and
other voices of the war chorus are the accommodationists, all of whom seem to be
pretty much in general agreement that the solution to the
Israel-Lebanon-Hamas-Hezbollah-Syria-Iran crisis must be an international
one, involving a parley among all of the above-mentioned parties plus the United
States, the UN, the EU, Russia, and China. These advocates propose an
international peace force for the Israel-Palestine-Lebanon region — most likely
under the United Nations and/or NATO auspices — along with generous largesse
(from guess who) for humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, rebuilding of
infrastructure destroyed in the recent conflict, etc. This is the school of thought expounded by, for example, Judith
Kipper, adviser for Middle East Programs at the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR), who urges the Bush administration to "do some meaningful diplomacy" with
the terrorists and their state sponsors. In a July 22 New York Times
op-ed entitled, "Don't Just Talk to States," Kipper happily reports that "Hamas
and Hezbollah, supported by Iran and Syria, have opened a new diplomatic front
for the United States." President Bush, she says, "should undertake a robust
diplomatic initiative that, directly or through third parties, engages not only
states, including even Iran and Syria, but also non-state parties to the
conflict, especially Hezbollah and Hamas." Why negotiate with these murderous thugs? Because, Kipper avers,
"both are political parties and social welfare organizations." But she admits
that both Hamas and Hezbollah have "lethal military wings" that must be
disbanded. However, she is hopeful that this can be accomplished if we agree to
"rebuild Lebanon physically and politically" and to "revive the detailed peace
plan" known as the Oslo Accords and its follow-up agreements over the past
decade and a half. (Ka-ching, ka-ching. No dollar amount is being mentioned now,
but rest assured, it would be in the tens of billions, paid mostly by ... guess
who?) Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to
President Carter, was proposing a similar approach to Iran several months before
the latest ignition of the Israel-Lebanon border wars. Back in April, Brzezinski
penned a piece for the Los Angeles Times opining that the "United States
should join Britain, France and Germany, as well as perhaps Russia and China
(both veto-casting U.N. Security Council members), in direct negotiations with
Iran, using the model of the concurrent multilateral talks with North Korea. As
it does with North Korea, the U.S. also should simultaneously engage in
bilateral talks with Iran about security and financial issues of mutual
concern." On July 18, former national security adviser and Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger appeared with "Zbig" (as he chummily refers to Brzezinski)
on Jim Lehrer's PBS News Hour to jointly pitch the notion of the need for
"international involvement" and serious U.S. dialogue with Iran, Syria,
Hezbollah, and Hamas. Many other voices are hymning the same tune. Such as
former Secretary of State George Shultz, for instance, mentor to current
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said recently in Time about his
"Plan for Peace": "If you want to create stability, then you have to carry
through on U.N. [Security Council] Resolution 1559." This will require, he
notes, "an international force." All of the "experts" quoted above — both the "bomb Hamas,
Hezbollah, Iran, Syria" and the "talk to Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria" schools
of thought — are longtime members of the elite private establishment that has
been deciding and running U.S. foreign policy for the past several decades: the
Council on Foreign Relations. It would appear that the "bomb Iran" school, as represented by
the Gingrich-Woolsey-Kristol-Ledeen wing of the CFR, is primarily serving as a
foil to make the planned "international" approach, as represented by the
Kipper-Kissinger-Brzezinski-Shultz wing of the CFR, look more reasonable. Public
support for an endless Iraq-Afghanistan war has been crumbling for months;
support for expanding this open-ended, undefined, and unfocused "war on terror"
to include Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and Iran is about nil. So, a multinational
force that does not require (for now) putting U.S. sons and daughters into that
perennially boiling pot may seem much more palatable to American
voters. Incredibly, many of these supposed experts, whose collective
wisdom is now being peddled to the American public for the solution to the
Lebanon crisis, are the very ones who have, by their previous official actions,
put us in the current pickle. But are those the only alternatives open to us:
global war or partnering with terrorists (under a UN-led regional mandate that
lavishes untold billions on all the parties concerned)? Is there no other way? Is minding one's own business not an
option? George Washington, in his farewell address in 1796, articulated the
moral and constitutional foundation for just such a foreign policy. "Why quit
our own to stand upon foreign ground?" he asked. "The great rule of conduct for
us in regard to foreign nations," he said, "is in extending our commercial
relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." John
Quincy Adams, our sixth president, endorsed this sensible policy thusly:
"America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the
well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and
vindicator only of her own." When it comes to Lebanon and the surrounding vicinity, Americans
have a right (nay, a duty) to ask just how many times we are going to allow this
same crew of CFR "wise men" (yes, that's actually how they refer to themselves)
to drag us into this monster hunt. Over the past five decades, one CFR-dominated administration
after another (Republican and Democrat) has intervened in Lebanese affairs —
always with disastrous results for America, Israel, Lebanon, and the entire
Middle East. The age-old tribal, ethnic, political, ideological, and
religious enmities that have been the source of so much strife and bloodshed in
the region have been exacerbated over the past several decades by Moscow and
Beijing, which have been working the Arab and Islamic "street" ever since the
founding of Israel in 1948. That has not changed since the apparent demise of
the Soviet Union; Russia continues to support the terror states, as does China.
If Iran and Syria are the real powers behind Hezbollah and Hamas (and they are),
then Russia and China just as certainly are the powers behind Iran and Syria.
But the CFR policy cartel would have us believe that Presidents Vladimir Putin
and Hu Jintao are our indispensable allies in the region, who will help
us make nice with Iran, Syria, and their terror surrogates. For America to step into the Lebanon-Israel inferno would be
utter folly, in even the most favorable circumstances. To do so with our Iraq
and Afghanistan occupations already draining our military and economic
resources, with our borders unprotected, with the knowledge that Hezbollah will
respond by launching terror attacks against (and within) the U.S., and with the
"solution" being crafted by those with a track record for stirring up the
flames, is utter madness. http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4122.shtml
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
__,_._,___ |