General Zinni, what a Ninny

Discussing the Iraq war with the Washington Post last week, former General Anthony Zinni took the path chosen by so many anti-Semites: he blamed it on the Jews.

Neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney—nor for that matter Zinni’s old friend, Secretary of State Colin Powell—was to blame. It was the Jews. They “captured” both Bush and Cheney, and Powell was merely being a “good soldier.”

Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn’t say “Jews.” He instead used a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: “neoconservatives.” As the name implies, “neoconservative” was originally meant to denote someone who is a newcomer to the right. In the 90’s, many people self-identified themselves as “neocons,” but today that term has become synonymous with “Jews.”

And if anybody should know better, it’s Gen. Zinni. It is well-known that those who are labeled “neocons” within the administration—whether the number-two official at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, or undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith—are almost always Jews.

Sadly typical is a Business Week article this May that identified Wolfowitz, Feith, Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official Ken Adelman and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol—all Jews—as “neocons,” yet Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—neither one Jewish—as simply “key allies.” Policy beliefs and worldviews were not different between these two groups; only religion distinguishes them.

Given that the “neocons” do not control the Departments of State or Defense nor the National Security Council—gentiles all head those agencies—and given that the White House is clearly run by non-Jews, how is it that Zinni claims that the “neocons” were responsible for the U.S. liberating Iraq? As he explains to the Post, “Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president.”

And the Post piece uses dramatic language when discussing Zinni’s views on the “neocons”:

“The more he listened to Wolfowitz and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist ‘neoconservative’ ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn’t understand.”

Zinni’s comments are eerily similar to those made by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit this October. In a speech that drew a standing ovation from the leaders of Muslim nations in attendance, Mahathir remarked, “Today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.”

Since Jews make up roughly 2% of the American population and less than a fraction of one percent of the world’s—yet attract disproportionately more of the world’s bigoted venom—the only way to perpetuate the hatred of Jews that has existed for centuries is to blame them for controlling vital industries, “ruling the world by proxy,” or by “capturing” the leader of the free world and his likewise freely elected vice-president.

Let’s suppose for a moment that Zinni, who could not be reached for comment, had no idea that “neocon” has become code for “Jew.” At best, his statements were simply ludicrous. Both Cheney and Bush had full knowledge of the unabated evil of Saddam Hussein—the former even having helped lead the Gulf War as the Secretary of Defense—and neither needed to be “captured” by anyone to understand the need to rid the world of Saddam’s tyranny.

But now let’s suppose Zinni has at least minimal common sense and at least passively follows Washington politics. In that instance, Zinni’s comments are not much different than Mahathir’s—and just as inaccurate. As anyone with even a passing knowledge of the administration can tell you, the president and the vice-president were probably the two biggest advocates for liberating Iraq. Even at the staff level, the majority of the leading “hawks” were gentiles such as National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and White House chief of staff Andrew Card.

It’s a shame that someone who so honorably served his nation for three decades would tarnish his legacy with such idiotic remarks. If he didn’t mean to use “neocon” as a code word for “Jew,” he should say so. But if he meant to, then he should just shut up.

John Qunicy Adams, in the Monsters to Destroy speech, effectively endorses all previous US foreign policy. Maybe this was just being politic. However, if sincere, he was endorsing the Tripolian Wars, in which we combatted piracy by going after, with our military, the North African state sponsors of this criminality.

I agree, Washington would have endorsed the action as well, but the infant nation lacked the wherewithall to do much about the pirates under his adminstration. "Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence." (August 15, 1786 correspondence with Marquis de LaFayette)

Jefferson's administration was in a position to pursue a strong policy to protect our free access to the sea lanes, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."

But it is important to realize that our current conflict did not arise from a vacuum. For the 50 years (since coming down harshly on England and France for their interventions in the region) we have ignored Washington's most important advice and embroiled ourselves in the conflicts of the Middle East:

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?"

"In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim."

"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."

"As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter."

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

Aside from Jimmy Carter's Nobel prize, what have the billions of tax dollars we've expended, and thousands of American lives we've lost, bought us in the Middle East? Intervention, irrespective of the nobility one might attach to the specific instance (in 1991 it was to return a King to his throne, not exactly what one considers will be their duty when they join our military and swear and oath to defend the Constitution) there are unintended consequences, and further calls for further intervention. No one anticipated that a decision in 1990 to help return this King (placed on a throne created by the British from previous interventions) and defend another would compel a religious fanatic and his adherents to declare war on the U.S. No one anticipated it would result in nearly 3,000 dead in New York city and a smoking ruin in downtown. No one anticipated it would compel the invasion and occupation of at least two more nations. I hope we're not mourning a worse disaster 10 years from today that begets further intervention, and unintended consequence.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.