Who's Driving this War?

by emptywheel

Glenn Greenwald thinks this administration, still run by Neocons, is driving this war.

Neoconservatism is what brought us into Iraq, and there is no persuasive evidence that its influence in the administration has diminished.

Now, I agree that the Neocons are working hand in hand with Israel to conduct the war. But I think saying the administration's actions are in line with the Neocons is too simple. As Juan Cole points out, Bush is working with a radically different understanding of what is going on than Rummy and Dick.

That this war was pre-planned was obvious to me from the moment it began. The Israeli military proceeded methodically and systematically to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure, and clearly had been casing targets for some time. The vast majority of these targets were unrelated to Hizbullah. But since the northern Sunni port of Tripoli could theoretically be used by Syria or Iran to offload replacement rockets that could be transported by truck down south to Hizbullah, the Israelis hit it. And then they hit some trucks to let truck drivers know to stay home for a while.

That is why I was so shaken by George W. Bush's overheard conversation with Tony Blair about the war. He clearly thought that it broke out because Syria used Hizbullah to create a provocation. The President of the United States did not know that this war was a long-planned Israeli war of choice.

[snip]

What is scarey is that Cheney and Rumsfeld don't appear to have let W. in on the whole thing. They told him that Bashar al-Asad of Syria stirred up a little trouble because he was afraid that Iraq the Model and the Lebanese Cedar Revolution might be such huge successes that they would topple him by example (just as, after Poland and the Czech Velvet Revolution, other Eastern European strongmen fell).

Bush, at least (and I suspect Condi too) has not been brought into the true scope of this project. Bush believes this is about disempowering Hezbollah, not extending a presence across the Middle East.

There are two real points that support this view. First, consider what this Israeli attack has pre-empted. Ten days ago, it looked likely that Condi would negotiate a grand bargain at the UN, trading concessions in North Korea for a tough stance against Iran.

Events are happening in the US/China/Russia negotiations on Iran and N. Korea faster than analysts can keep up...but clearly there is something which may amount to a “grand bargain” now in play. Whether either the Iranians or N. Koreans are IN on the play remains to be seen, of course...and immediate US, and Japanese reaction to the N. Korea part of the ploy is mixed.

First, on Iran, with the G-8 in Russia starting soon, Russia and China seem to have concluded that Tehran’s leadership is dangerous, and that strong action at the UN, as urged by the US and EU, is warranted. Russia and China seem to have agreed to start a process at the UN which could lead to sanctions...if not military action...and so to an absolute reversal of their prior positions, and a clear threat to their previously expressed economic and strategic interests.

[snip]

It may be that Iran is being traded for N. Korea, in the mind of China, at least, if not also Russia. Simultaneously with the stunning announcement in Paris on Iran, Chinese and Russian diplomats in New York, at the UN, announced what on the surface is another major compromise from their past positions...that they now will support a UNSC resolution on N. Korea.

Throw in WTO membership for Russia, and you've got a remarkably creative diplomatic solution, one which would have precluded Israel's aggressive plans. And that solution had to have been shepherded by someone within the administration--by all accounts, Condi. Thus, just ten days ago, the Neocons were about to lose all their plans.

Also, I think Glenn misses the point his own argument makes. The Neocon project has dropped its noble lie.

The boldness of their objective, its sheer audacity, is requiring neoconservatives to throw all caution to the wind, to really put all of their rhetorical cards on the table and be open about what they really think and want, unburdened by all of the lofty pretenses about the virtues of spreading democracy and winning hearts and minds. The real underlying premises and impulses of neoconservatism are being laid bare for all to see. And what they really want is more war and destruction -- lots and lots and lots of it -- to rain down mercilessly on their enemies and anyone nearby.

Yet Bush's actions--even the deeply disturbing reports that he sees this attack on Lebanon as an "opportunity"--still support the old noble lie, this notion that "democracy" is the best solution for terrorism.

As the president's position is described by White House officials, Bush associates and outside Middle East experts, Bush believes that the status quo -- the presence in a sovereign country of a militant group with missiles capable of hitting a U.S. ally -- is unacceptable.

The U.S. position also reflects Bush's deepening belief that Israel is central to the broader campaign against terrorists and represents a shift away from a more traditional view that the United States plays an "honest broker's" role in the Middle East.

In the administration's view, the new conflict is not just a crisis to be managed. It is also an opportunity to seriously degrade a big threat in the region, just as Bush believes he is doing in Iraq. Israel's crippling of Hezbollah, officials also hope, would complete the work of building a functioning democracy in Lebanon and send a strong message to the Syrian and Iranian backers of Hezbollah.

This is a view that--Glenn is right--the Neocons have put aside. The Neocons aren't even pretending their program is about anything but naked aggression. But Bush's actions are still motivated--as his open mike comments make clear--by a naive belief that this violence will somehow result in democracy.

To some degree it doesn't matter. If Dick can get Bush to go along with the attacks, even if he has to lie to do so, so be it. That still means that Dick, and his now openly-bloodthirsty Neocons, are driving the decisions of the administration.

But the distinction is important, I think, because it explains why the Neocons have revealed their true motivations. The Neocons recognize that the Iraq failure absolutely discredits them. They know they will increasingly be blamed for incompetence and outed as the radicals they are. They very nearly saw Condi pre-empt through diplomacy all their carefully laid plans.

The Neocon warmongering now comes not from a position of strength, a confidence that their influence in both the administration and the nation will remain strong. No. It's the desperate act of a compulsive gambler, who after losing big, puts all his remaining chips on the table.

Comments

[John Casper]

emptywheel, with no teevee till American football, I thought you'd like to know Timmeh just started of MTP calling Lebanon a "humanitarian crisis," which must have pissed off DeadEye and Rummy so end.
He's also going to interview the WaPo's Thomas Ricks author of FIASCO about Iraq. Hope springs eternal with us Packer fans, thanks for all you do.

[emptywheel]

Thanks for the update, John. I am glad to hear that.

I'm not betting against the Neocons yet--the press has caught onto their game. But it might be easy to woo them back into stupidity with a few accusations of anti-Semitism.

But let's hope the Timmehs of this world hold their ground.

[mamayaga]

It's the desperate act of a compulsive gambler, who after losing big, puts all his remaining chips on the table.

This is the "flight forward" that Billmon predicted ( here and here) a few weeks ago. He was expecting an attack on Iran, not a proxy war like the one we're seeing, but the rationale is the same.

The left blogosphere has been nervously saying for some time that we're in great danger from these cornered neo-con animals, and it's true. To mix metaphors, they're willing to ride the warhead down to ground zero and quite happy to take us all with them. I never thought in all my lefty peacenik life I'd be hoping for the armed services to face down their civilian bosses, but here we are. I think the rational parts of our military may be the only parties with the power to put the brakes on -- they probably already did, seeing that this turned out to be (so far) a proxy war instead of the direct attack we'd all expected.

[emptywheel]

see, that's part of my point. If the Neocons had been ascendent, we might well have taken our bunker busters to Teheran. But instead, they're going to try to draw us into their regional war by appealing to American identification with Israel. It might work, too. They'll have the Christian Dominionists on board. The question is how well will AIPAC be able to sway the rest of the country?

And frankly, I think the Big-C Convseratives may be on our side in this fight too. Not that I'm comfortable aligning with William Buckley. But he's helpful to have in the short term.

[Dell Phillips]

Isreal responded with the 'fact' that the forces who opposed Sharon and his third party had planned the invasion for over a year.

Now, it's a proxy war. Isreal is saying it wants to be taken care of and will invade other countries to do this. It wants the UN help, but is not a member. It wants NATO help, but is not a member.
The real answer is it wants help for free.

The threat has always been that the US is on the ground in Iraq. Sharon is out and the powers that opposed his third party believe we have been in Iraq too long and will not hesitate to invade, etc. to get the US involved bombing Iran or Syria. This should be seen as a goal.

Condi has said that Lebanon, Syria, and Iran must accept 'the new middle east.' This is the wrong thing to say after the invasion of Lebanon.

[mamayaga]

Have Americans ever before been asked to line up behind Israeli overreach at a time of such great war-weariness in this country? I think the vast majority of Americans are neither AIPAC fellow-travellers nor Christian Dominionists and are in most cases going along with our tight alignment with Israel because they are assured by elites that it's in our long-term interest (and it won't cost much). The fact that the Buckleys of the world are peeling away shows how shallow that commitment is for many Americans. Perhaps this is an opportunity to reexamine just to what extent America's interests do or do not exactly line up with Israel's. Sure, the AIPAC faction will, and already have, played the anti-Semite card, but that won't be a very powerful play if Americans come to believe that being so close to Israel is both costly and dangerous to us.

[emptywheel]

I agree, in general, mamayaga.

But already, the majority of the country soundly opposes the Iraq war. Yet that's not pushing Congress to do anything to resolve it.

The vast majority of the country doesn't support this. But the vast majority of Congress, with a little pushing from the Christian right and AIPAC? I don't know...

[bugsy]

Impotently & idiotically, I've been e-mailing
the prez, my senators, my congresswoman every
day, harping on the same subject. I'm sure
they sick of it already.
Here's today's:

Mr President, Senators, Congresswoman,

UK Foreign Office minister, Kim Howells, said referring to Israel: 'The destruction of the infrastructure, the death of so many children and so many people: these have not been surgical strikes. If they are chasing Hizbollah, then go for Hizbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation.' The minister added referring to the US Government: 'I very much hope that the Americans understand what's happening to Lebanon.'
Secretary Rice is more than a week late and
a dollar short, I'm ashamed to say. And
will arrive no doubt, on the wrong side
of the moral divide, to use a favorite
phrase. Iraq, Katrina, and now Lebanon.
Clueless, feckless, shameless.
My government makes me so proud, every
day, I could just die. Thank you.

[mamayaga]

EW--

There's been a lot of conjecture in the blogosphere about why the DC elites appear to be so panicked over Lieberman's coming loss in the primary. One thing I haven't seen discussed is the possibility that it could signal the end of AIPAC's kingmaking role in politics. As you say, Congress has been completely feckless not only on the highly unpopular Iraq war, but also totally unwilling to cross the Likudiks of AIPAC, fearing their wrath at election time. Joe is their darling, and he's going down. Could it be they are not invincible after all?

[emptywheel]

I've thought of that myself, mamayaga. Though it's a threat to a much larger economy of influence (think of the Pharma interests, who are Joe's real constituents--I'm sure they're wondering why they've invested so much in buying themselves a Senator if he can just be thrown out by the rabble).

But Joe is critical for AIPAC for another reason, because he's the chief Democratic Neocon. If the Neocon movement loses its bipartisan face, it will be less effective (and easier, I suspect, for others to buck AIPAC.

[Mimikatz]

The neoons are concentrated in the East (and a few places in CA) and the Christian Dominionists in the South. The Midwest and West are more historically isolationist by nature, or, in the case of the West Coast, increasingly engaged farther west, to Asia, or south, to Latin America.

Your analysis makes sense, as usual. This truly may be the twilight of the neocons, and I think that we will see war-weariness and wariness manifest themselves in November.

[John Casper]

mamayaga, I want to piggyback on your 11:51. The latest polls showing Lamont leading are unbelieveable. He had name recognition in the single digits when he announded in January?. Even after his debate, and "Plan B," I will only support the winner of the primary if it is me, Whinerman still strongarmed all these high profile endoresements from labor, NARAL, PP, other Dems and STILL he is sinking faster than the Titanic.
IMHO, that may be what has Vichy Dems and Goopers so scared. This is evidence that the machine style policical techniques that they have used in the past are not working any more. Evidence, however, is not proof. People still have to vote in the CT primary on August 8.

[JohnLopresti]

There are six decades of history in the Middle East trying to modernize while the GDPs in the West climb.
With respect to the other Near East, Rice probably appreciates that dynamic better. Proxy diplomatic elbowing imparts the sensation of safety for both Russia and China. Iran has one of the ponderous economies in the region. Russia has accomplished a lot based on collateral profits in oil. China has one of the preponderant economies in the world this year, as well.
I thought ew might have found this peculiar translation of a proto-neocon letter; here is the link; it is some of the very short sighted right wing intellectual bordering on fascism racism of eight decades ago, with excellent commentary by the translator including a political assessment of NYT's recent coverage of a related topic.
Someday I hope in heaven WFBuckley is assigned to debate D Brower, tho who knows what they might have in common sufficiently to take opposite views, at least for declamation's own sake. A gentleman from Yale, indeed; I would opt for a few others rather than having to listen to either.
These past two weeks in the Lieberman campaign, one of the iconographic representations has reminded me of that also far gone time known as the Dobry(nin)-Kiss(inger). Must be the summer heat; in our part of the world the mercury has surpassed 110 for many days recently.
J

[Semanticleo]

The frightening similarities between the Loons in Tehran and the Blue Meanies in WingNut Nation, rests with their shared notion of their archtypal role in facilitating the "Emd Times" foretold by prophets under different book cover, but sharing the same ultimate ideology.

Islam (Ishmael) arose from Abraham through his surrogate lover,
and was cast out,when Abraham's wife Sara, conceived a son needed to fulfill the promise of a bloodline through Abraham which led to Jesus Christ. The Jews rejected Christ, and Ishmael's descendents floundered until the prophet Mohammed appeared to lead them out of their own wilderness.

Christianity, the Jews and Islam share many of the same prophets (Moses etc) and thereby have a shared history. Like Cain and Abel, fratricide is the legacy of this religious triumvirate. Scary are the parallels of today and the determination of key players to act our their perceived roles to their conclusion.

[Mimikatz]

Another point lending credence to your abnalysis: In "The One Percent Doctrine" Suskind describes how Bush did the opening to Libya with Tenet and Cheney. He wanted to keep both Powell and Rumsfeld cut out of the picture. Cheney was the big skeptic because "we don't reward bad behavior." (Kappes was the one who conducted the negotiations. He doesn't really say where Rice was.)

I can see Cheney and Rummy deciding after that not to let it happen again.

[catastrophile]

I don't know how much I can agree with the assessment that this reflects any sort of change in neocon tactics.

Just like with Iraq, the attack is being billed as a response to terrorist threats. Just like with Iraq, facts are being twisted and misrepresented to justify the attack. Just like with Iraq, the international community is being called upon to abandon any even-handedness and support the aggressor. And, just like with Iraq, the end product will be a US military presence ostensibly providing security.

All of this is transparent to administration skeptics, but Reep partisans and Israeli expansionists (and Audience Member One, the President himself) swallow the official narrative hook, line, and sinker. Just like with Iraq. The desired course of action is presented as the only rational choice by means of a false dichotomy -- "either we invade Iraq, or we allow Saddam to continue to threaten the world" or "either we give Israel a free hand in Lebanon, or we allow Hezbollah to continue terrorizing civilians" -- and "the Decider" is handed the job of making that choice. The growing tendency of the radical right to rationalize war crimes by seeing Muslims as subhuman combine to make Israel's present course of action the only possible solution. And the fact of open conflict serves to embolden those radicals, bringing their doctrine of naked aggression back to the light. Just like with Iraq.

As far as the argument that the timing and specifics were calculated to forestall any diplomatic solution in the region, it's certainly possible. Of course, if the administration knew that a plan like this was in the works, it would be easy to let Condi negotiate potential diplomatic solutions, since once shooting broke out and changed everything they'd be "forced" to chuck all that out the window. Sort of like going through the UN process to attempt to disarm Iraq before Saddam's refusal to cooperate "forced" them to take matters into their own hands.

Events now unfolding seem totally in line with what has always been the stated purpose, to "transform" the region into something more in line with "American" "values". Lebanon could not be allowed to find its own democracy, any more than Iraq or Iran or Syria can. We don't want to wind up once again with a region full of nationalist democratic governments accountable to their own people. Got to get in there and help them along. This is what it's always been about -- thinly-veiled neocolonialism.

[ab initio]

"That still means that Dick, and his now openly-bloodthirsty Neocons, are driving the decisions of the administration."

This has not changed one iota. The Cheneyites have always run this administration and will continue to do so. They have all the levers of power.

If they can now make this about ensuring Israel's security then they have the Dems boxed in. The Dems including Hillary and Feingold have come out in support of Israel. They have 4 months to change the equations for the Nov election. The more mayhem in the ME, the more they can shift the debate to terrorists aka Hezbollah, Hamas, et al and the security of our "democratic" ally Israel, the more it helps Rove and the Chenyites in Nov. And boy, if they can get an OBL video even better.

Israel splits the liberal blogosphere. Witness the discourse on dKos regarding the Lebanon fiasco. We have come to the point were reasoned discourse about policy when it comes to Israel and the ME is not possible in the US. And after the shellacking that Howard Dean received for stating that the US policy should be even-handed no Dem will risk that again. So the ME will continue to burn and who knows what the blowback will look like in the years to come.

[knut wicksell]

Facts on the ground will determine the outcome, as they have in Iraq. Hezbollah seems at present to be well dug-in, and well-disciplined, unlike the adversaries Israel has faced to this point. If they can hold out for six weeks and continue to impose significant casualties on the IDF (the military kill-ratio is hard to judge, but it doesn't seem lop-sided), they will have won the match; any Israeli victory will have been pyrhhic.

The kicker in all this is that Cheney now needs the Saudi's more than they need him. The Saudi's can cut a deal with Iran when the time comes, and the US will not be able to do anything about it. Propaganda aside, Iran is not a threat to Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States; it is a threat to American interests in that region. They cut a deal with Iran and what the Neocons said would come to pass will have come to pass: a region transformed, though not as they envisaged it.

As to the Arabs bailing out Condi and Olmert by sanctioning a cease-fire by contributing troops; think again. That is lose-lose for them.

Checkmate.

[emptywheel]

knut

Ah geez, I hadn't thought about that. Ahmadinejad was chatting up the Saudis already.

[tryggth]

Off topic, but Hoekstra related. Hmmm...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009153.php

Maybe now we know who was funding those Al Qaeda moles in the CIA. :-)

[teshoo]

My feelings for Our Dear Leader are very similar to my feelings about... well, PORN! It looks sort of good at first... but, well... there's no thought of winning there, nothing is real there, given a choice I'd really prefer to know much less about the varied actors than I already do. Where do I go to wash?

[ab initio]

Knut

This may bolster your opinion on the Saudi's dealing with Iran

[freepatriot]

Yo Kurt:

so Iran could shut down the Saudi tap without bombing the Saudi oil docks ???

if Iran can't stop Saudi exports any other way, the oil docks are well within range, and the Strait of Hormuz is only 17 miles wide (or so)

[John Casper]

Wrt the Strait of Hormuz, at it's narrowest, navigable point it is two (2) channles, each one (1) mile wide. In addition at that point, it's also very shallow. If a supertanker sinks there, it's possible it could block one or the the other channel.