Neo-Jacobins Push For World War IV (Paul Craig Roberts Alert)

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." If neoconservatives have their way, Americans will soon be repeating this refrain.

The identical lies used to deceive Americans about Iraq are now being recycled to justify invading Syria and Iran.

Before exploring this fact, first understand that there is nothing conservative about neoconservatives. Neocons hide behind "conservative" but they are in fact Jacobins.

Jacobins were the 18th century French revolutionaries whose intention to remake Europe in revolutionary France’s image launched the Napoleonic Wars.

In an outstanding article, "The Ideology of American Empire," in the current issue of Orbis, Professor Claes Ryn conclusively shows that neocons are, in truth, neo-Jacobins. More dangerous an enemy of the US and its traditional values than Muslims, neo-Jacobins have seized control of the Bush presidency and US foreign policy. They will stop at nothing to achieve their goal of World War IV in the Middle East.

It is now absolutely certain that the American public and President Bush were bamboozled into invading Iraq by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, an unsavory assortment of lesser neo-Jacobin notables who inhabit the higher reaches of the Bush administration, and their neo-Jacobin allies in the Likud Party controlled media in New York City and Washington DC.

On September 17 President Bush confessed his folly: "We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11." Yet according to polls, a majority of Americans still believe that Iraq was responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. Whose propaganda led Americans to this utterly mistaken belief?

An extensive search in Iraq has failed to turn up any evidence of any weapons of mass destruction, much less nuclear weapons. The image of "mushroom clouds going up over American cities," which was used to panic Congress into accepting an invasion of Iraq, has turned out to be – as every expert knew at the time – nothing but propaganda worthy of Heinrich Himmler and Paul Joseph Goebbles. The fabrications about Iraq’s intentions toward the US rival Hitler’s declaration that Poland had attacked Germany.

Consider the implications if Saddam Hussein really had possessed WMD – especially ones that could be deployed in 45 minutes as asserted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair: the entire US-British invasion force, concentrated in a tiny area of Kuwait, could have been destroyed by one or two weapons. If Bush really believed Iraq had WMD, he was criminally negligent for making sitting ducks out of our troops.

Senator Ted Kennedy is correct when he said on September 18 that the case against Iraq was "a fraud" made up to give Republicans a political boost. As much as I hate to admit it, the evidence is on Senator Kennedy’s side.

However, being caught red-handed in fraud does not deter neo-Jacobins with an agenda. Clutching firmly to their propaganda that Iraqis are desperate to shower US troops with flowers and kisses but are prevented by dead-enders among the Saddam Hussein remnants, neo-Jacobins now agitate for invading Syria and Iran.

On September 16, Undersecretary of State John Bolton in testimony before Congress declared Syria to be a "rogue state" armed with weapons of mass destruction and called for "regime change."

On September 17, Assistant Secretary of State Paula DeSutter testified to Congress that Iran has the ability to launch missiles with biological warheads and that Iran’s nuclear program is a genuine threat both to the Middle East and the US.

On September 19, Paul Bremer, head of the US occupation government in Iraq, suggested in an interview with The Telegraph (UK) that Iran was involved in the bombings and killings of occupational forces in Iraq, echoing neo-Jacobin Michael Ladeen’s assertion that the US cannot win in Iraq unless it overthrows Iran.

It is now widely known that we have insufficient forces to pacify Iraq. The US government has been forced to dishonor its contract with the reserves and National Guard by forcing these weekend soldiers to stand in for regular army troops.

Not even billions of dollars have sufficed to bribe other governments to send their soldiers to Iraq. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the US commander of our occupation army in Iraq, said on September 18 that in order to protect his troops, he would consider pulling his forces out of major Iraqi cities the moment Iraqi security forces were prepared to take control.

Yet, President Bush’s anti-Arab policymakers want to greatly multiply the attacks on our troops by inserting them into Syria and Iran!

Are the neo-Jacobins in charge of the US government totally delusional? Are they totally disconnected from reality? Or is this more fraud to start two more wars before the American public wakes up to the neo-Jacobin agenda?

The neo-Jacobins are rushing to get America involved in a general Middle Eastern war before Americans have time to think. The terrorist scare which worked the first time is being employed again. Once we have attacked other sovereign Islamic countries, we will have to bring back the draft in order to raise the necessary armies or resort to nuclear weapons.

If the American public falls for the second round of neo-Jacobin propaganda, neither do they deserve, nor will they have, liberty and democracy.

The only weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East are Israel’s 200 nuclear warheads. Israel has the real thing, not a mere desire for a program that might produce a weapon in the future.

It is Israel – not Iran – who has refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It is Israel that occupies by force of arms parts of Syria and Palestine. Arabs do not occupy Israeli territory.

It is Israel that treats Palestinians the way National Socialists treated Jews by bottling them up in ghettos and assassinating them at will.

On September 18 President Bush declared: "Arafat has failed as a leader." What Bush means is that Arafat, unlike Bush, has failed to carry out Israel’s orders. Arafat’s support in Palestine far exceeds Bush’s support in the US or Sharon’s support in Israel.

Every day the Israelis bite off another piece of Palestine. Arafat is a "failed leader" because he has not led Palestinians off into the wilderness for 40 years, the better to deliver Palestine up to Israel.

The root of the Middle Eastern problem is Israel’s uncanny ability to manipulate American public opinion and US foreign policy. This unique power means Israel doesn’t have to compromise. Instead, the Israelis escalate and involve us ever more deeply and one-sidedly in their disputes with Arabs.

The inability of the US to impose an evenhanded settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the breeding ground of terrorists.

Bush’s neo-Jacobins will not be content until they have 600 million enraged Muslims at our throats.

Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

George Washington's Farewell Address:

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...

"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."

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..."

"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. "

The decision by American politicians to forgo the peace and neutrality our forebears left us is costly. Our efforts to buy peace between Israel and Egypt leave American taxpayers funding a military that, through no fault of our own, engenders enmity against Americans. The consequence of this policy has resulted in thousands of American dead and billions of American tax dollars expended. What have we gained for this price we have paid?

Op-ed by a Chicago professor in today's NYT:

The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any religion for that matter. In fact, the leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion (they have have committed 75 of the 188 incidents).

Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel liberal democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective.

I don't know whether to trust this. It could simply be that the author has tailored his conclusions to fit what he already believes. The article does suggest that those who argue that we are already in WWIV against tens or hundreds of millions of Muslims are wrong. His recommendations are certainly questionable and would amount to giving terrorists a victory, but his view shouldn't simply be discounted.

but israel is such a small country hated by the arabs and europe is not fond of her either. if america abondon israel, she will not survive.

I guess I have more faith in their ability to whip the arabs than you. Regardless, it is their war, not ours. I'm as apathetic toward them as I am the Liberians, etc.

if we stop giving them billions and supporting them, they might be crushed by nations that are envious/hateful towards them, i'm afraid. you actually want israel to fight the world alone!!?? c'mon!!

They're not fighting the world. No need for hyperbole. At least an argument could be made for countering Soviet efforts at hegemony in the region, but there is no Soviet Union anymore. The Israelis have dozens of nukes, they're not going anywhere.

Maybe they need a Cowboy vs. Indian solution to their problems. I don't know, I know that we don't have the answer, but we are getting the blame and the black eye. No one has told me yet what our thousands of American lives and billions of tax dollars have bought us for renouncing Washington's advice and getting in the midst of this centuries old conflict.

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.