Powell’s Chief of Staff Mentions Role of Neocons and Israel in Iraq War

Powell’s Chief of Staff Mentions Role of Neocons and Israel in Iraq War

Sunday, May 2, 2010 7:16 AM
From: “Stephen Sniegoski”
 

Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff (2001-2005), Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson, makes taboo-statements on the role of the neocons and
Israel in bringing about the war on Iraq in the following video.
“Tyranny & Politics of Fear, Loyalty to Israel vs. US.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25335.htm
http://tinyurl.com/wilkersonneocons

Wilkerson’s statements about the neocons and Israel are largely based on his
own direct experience as a member of the Bush administration.  Wilkerson has
made similar statements before and I include some of them in my book, “The
Transparent Cabal.” 
http://tiny.cc/zNV06

For example, “A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying
members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and
find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own
country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much
that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s
interest than our own.” (T.C., p. 120)

In the video,  Wilkerson also attributes the US war on Iraq to other
factors-oil, war profiteering corporations, ultra-nationalists (Cheney and
Rumsfeld), and the American people’s fears (“the politics of fear”).  I
differ in whole or in part with some of these statements which would require
knowledge that Wilkerson could not obtain directly by his work in the Bush
administration.  In some of these cases, Wilkerson merely presents the
conventional wisdom, which greater research would show to be incorrect.

For example,  I don’t think he has a firm knowledge of the neocons’
extensive writing on the Middle East, which I document in my book, “The
Transparent Cabal.”  He thus neglects to point out that the neocons sought
to reconfigure the entire Middle East for the interest of Israel.  And that
this position paralleled the position of the Israeli Likudniks who sought to
destabilize and fragment Israel’s enemies.  Obviously, a fragmented Middle
East would enhance Israel’s security.  While this does not mean that the
neocons would not have liked a pro-Israel government in Iraq (and other
Middle Eastern countries), they were quite willing to accept the more
probable destabilization, which most Middle East experts realized would be
the result in Iraq if the US invaded.  It should be noted that even though
the occupation of Iraq did not bring about a pro-Israel government, no
neocons have said that the outcome in Iraq was a failure, and they are now
targeting Iran. 

Regarding Cheney and Rumsfeld, whom he refers to as “ultra-nationalists,”
Wilkerson is apparently unaware of their close ties to the neocons.  Cheney
had numerous  pre-2001 personal connections to the neocons.  He  was a
member of the board of advisors of the  Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs (JINSA), a member of the board of trustees of the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI), and a founding member of the neoconservative
Project for a New American Century (PNAC).  It also should be noted that
Cheney’s wife,  Lynne Cheney, has been a prestigious member of AEI.  So if
Cheney is an ultra-nationalist, he is a special kind of ultra-nationalist
who believes that neocon policies advance American goals-and that the
interests of Israel coincide with those of the United States.

The personal benefits Cheney derives from his association with the neocons
would indicate that his motives for promoting their agenda goes beyond the
ideological. And certainly the neocon outlets have enabled Cheney to stay in
the limelight since he left office.

Rumsfeld also had a connection to the neocons, being associated with PNAC.
More than this, there was a convergence of interest between Rumsfeld and the
neocons.  Rumsfeld placed  his faith in a  in a sleek, mobile, high tech
military.   The neocon Iraq policy provided him with the type of war to
demonstrate the merits of his military thinking. Moreover, Rumsfeld’s
unconventional military views and management style meant that he had few
supporters in the Defense Department outside the neocon orbit, making their
support all the more important. In a mutually beneficial symbiotic
relationship, the neocons praised and supported Rumsfeld, while Rumsfeld
enabled the neocons to play a fundamental role in shaping foreign policy.
Of course, when the violence in Iraq dramatically increased,  the neocons
blamed Rumsfeld for the problems, and advocated a larger army of occupation.
While Rumsfeld and more so Cheney played roles in implementing the neocon
agenda, it is unlikely that they would have been able to do so without the
neocons themselves in key areas of the government. 

The American people’s fears were certainly essential in bringing about the
war.  As I maintain in “The Transparent Cabal,” if it had not been for 9/11,
the neocons would not have been able to implement their war policy.
However, the neocons certainly stoked this fear by their WMD and terrorist
propaganda, which had the stamp of the US government.

Wilkerson also points out that certain corporations benefitted from the war.
He did not show how any people associated with corporations were intimately
involved in pushing for war but, of course, all  American wars have had war
profiteers.  Since someone always financially benefits from war in any
government that allows private ownership of the means of production,  the
war profiteering argument could be used for all US wars-which means it does
not really explain particular motives since it does not  indicate why a
particular war is chosen. 

Finally, we have the oil argument.  Wilkerson states the obvious in pointing
out that Iraq has oil reserves.  He does not show how particular individuals
involved in the oil business lobbied for war.  As I point out in Chapter
18 of my book, the oil companies, instead of pushing for war, sought to
eliminate sanctions on Iraq in 2001.  Moreover, they have not shown much
interest in acquiring leases that the current Iraq government has auctioned
off, which have almost completely gone to non-American oil companies.
American oil companies, American business in general, and the US government
is certainly concerned about Middle Eastern oil, but that does not mean that
they advocate US wars in this region. Actually, the oil factor is often a
reason that peace and stability are sought. 
I provide additional information on the oil argument at
http://surelysomemistake.blogspot.com/2010/02/book-review-transparent-cabal-by.html
http://tinyurl.com/wilkinsonTC
See my comments at the end of Tim Wilkinson’s (Tim Wilkinson is no relation
to Larry Wilkerson)  review of “The Transparent Cabal.”

Again, Larry Wilkerson had close, personal knowledge of the activities of
the neocons within the administration.  His knowledge of the other groups he
cited, however, was either second hand and significant, specific details are
lacking. For example, he did not cite names of members of other groups-oil
or war profiteers-pushing for war.  As I pointed out, war profiteers would
have supported  all America’s wars, so there would be nothing special about
their support.  He is certainly correct about the importance of Cheney and
Rumsfeld, but he seems unaware of their close connection to the neocons.
And certainly popular fears were essential for the war on Iraq, but is also
the case that the neocon propaganda, most of it coming from the neocons in
the Bush administration, heightened those fears.

It should also be emphasized that the neocons are also pushing for war on
Iran.  The overall Israel lobby and the government of Israel had been
supportive of the war on Iraq, but stayed largely in the background.  Both
these groups are much more openly supporting a war on Iran.  That both wars
have been pushed by supporters of Israel and have the support of the
government of Israel should indicate that these factors are the most
important motivation war in the Middle East. It is hard to see how bombing
Iran, which is likely to greatly impede the transport of oil, would help the
US to control oil in the region.  Bombing Iran would not involve US
occupation, so it is hard to believe how bombing a country would make its
government or its inhabitants more favorable to American oil interests.

It should also be mentioned that a US war on Iran was part of the overall
neocon Middle East war agenda (war on Iraq simply being the first step),
which was discussed prior to the 2003 attack on Iraq.    The strong push for
war on Iran currently does not depend on either Cheney or Rumsfeld (or Bush
the Younger), so it is hard to claim that these two figures are essential
for this policy.  This is not to say that if a opponent of war controlled
the office of the presidency the US would go to war because of outside
pressure.  However, there were many individuals who identify with the
neocons besides Cheney-John McCain being a leading figure.  If McCain and
his neocon advisers filled the executive branch, it is almost a sure thing
that they would have pursued the neocon agenda, probably to a greater extent
than the Bush II administration, almost certainly more so than Obama.

Even with the aforementioned caveats, Wilkerson’s statements are both daring
and revealing, since he was actively involved in the Bush I administration.
There is no evidence that he has made an in depth study of the groups that
he mentioned, so his statements regarding groups with whom he was not
closely  involved could very easily be incorrect.  Moreover, it is certainly
safer for him to include groups besides the neocons and motives other than
Israel.  If he only mentioned the neocons and Israel, he would be branded an
anti-Semite and probably kept out of all mainstream, and many
non-mainstream, media outlets.

Best,
Steve Sniegoski

Transparent Cabal Website:
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/

Amazon listing of The Transparent Cabal:
http://tiny.cc/zNV06

19 Responses to “Powell’s Chief of Staff Mentions Role of Neocons and Israel in Iraq War”

  • Patriot says:

    Chomsky’s ‘war for oil’ smoke screen discussed (see comments by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski posted in comments section near bottom of following URL):

    http://pulsemedia.org/2010/05/01/electronic-intifada-and-the-mudkicker/

    Press TV interview with Dr. Stephen Sniegoski about his ‘The Transparent Cabal’ book and similar:

    http://tinyurl.com/thetransparentcabal

    http://america-hijacked.com/2010/01/07/press-tv-interview-with-dr-stephen-sniegoski-author-of-the-transparent-cabal/

    It is not looking good with the following either (as we appear to be heading for another war in the Middle East):

    Congressman Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran is an Act of War

    http://tinyurl.com/iransanctionsactofwar

    A Timetable for War

    http://america-hijacked.com/2010/05/06/a-timetable-for-war/

  • MarkSpizer says:

    great post as usual!

  • Jeanne says:

    The mass media has NEVER examined the forces that pushed for the invasion of Iraq. Now, the same situation exists with Iran. Israel, the neocons, AIPAC and the Israel Lobby are all pushing for war with Iran. But if anyone should examine this situation and call them out, they would be branded anti-Semitic. Is it any wonder that the vast Americans do not understand what is occuring in their own country.

  • Patriot says:

    Exactly right Jeanne.. Take a look at how the ‘anti-Semitism trick’ is used (via the video linked at the following URL from http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM) according to the former Israeli minister who was being interviewed by Amy Goodman for her ‘Democracy Now’ program:

    See the video linked via the following URL:

    The Trick:

    http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-trick.html

  • peacelilly says:

    The video about the “anti-Semitism” trick should help many to understand the use of that coined phrase. Name calling is bad enoughbut there are coined phrases deliberately used to shut people up. But it’s a free country with freedom of speech, especially about any war Americans have fought and died in, WW11 in particular. It’s been 60 yearssince that war, but you’d think it was yesterday and that only Jews died in it. But millions of “others” as
    they are referred to, also died, mostly of starvation and disease of war or bombings that kept food deliveries
    from arriving by the International Red Cross (verified) and also caused deaths of Jews like the Frank girl who
    died of Typhus along with millions of others. The A/S term is misused to begin with because a Semite involves many other ethnic groups, or races such as Arabs. Jews are not a race, but Judaism, a religion. Period. Like other religions they come in all colors. Syrians, Iraqis, Jordanians, Palestinians, Egyptians and others are all Semites. There have been many anti-Semitic crimes, one recently being the genocidal attacks verified by the Goldstone Report, that were anti-Semitic attacks against the locked in people of Gaza. In his book written a few years ago – “Why did not the heavens darken,” Jewish professor/Dr. Arno Mayer, said that between 1.2 and 1.6 million Jews died in WW11, most of starvation and disease of war that killed millions of others. That’s a lot of people! Was he an anti-Semite? No. Time to concentrate on what is happening today in the M.E., and strive for peace and security of the world and an end to nuclear weapons, starting with Israel that childishly pretends not to have them while threatening to bomb any other country that even thinks of having them for defense.

  • James J. David says:

    One of my favorit writers, Israel Shamir, in his article “The Rise and Rise of Neocons,” had this to say about them: “Who are they? Neocons are mainly Jewish turncoats, who parted ways with the Left and became right-wing pro-Israel zealots because they felt that the Left was ‘bad for the Jews’. He goes on to say “It would be an error to think that the Neocons are just doing Israel’s asking. They are keen on war and strife everywhere. They admitted it cheerfully: ‘we are a warlike people and we love war. . . . What we hate is not casualties, but losing.’ Naturally, the ‘warlike people’ in question are not Americans in general, but the Neocons’ own community, American Jews. Provided they and their sons hardly ever serve in the army, they may love war and disregard casualties with cavalier disdain.”

  • Patriot says:

    You might be interested in taking a look at the following article as well (the “democracy” line was simply used to mask the war for Israel agenda in Iraq as discussed in Dr. Stephen Sniegoski”s “The Transparent Cabal” book as well):

    Thinking about Neoconservatism:

    http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/030918_neoconservatism.htm

    Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement:

    http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/04/06/neoconservatism-as-a-jewish-movement.php

    And as if Iraq wasn’t enough for former PNAC chairman Bill Kristol as he is calling for yet another war for his beloved Israel yet again of course!:

    Kristol: ‘Better’ For US to Attack Iran Than if Israel Did

    http://america-hijacked.com/2010/04/06/kristol-%e2%80%98better%e2%80%99-for-us-to-attack-iran-for-israel-than-if-israel-did/

    http://tinyurl.com/betterforUStoattackIranforZion

    Keep in mind that Kristol’s father (Irving Kristol who is a founder of the Neoconservatism movement) had an Israeli flag draped over his coffin during a recent funeral service (see the ‘Newsweek’ article linked via the following URL which mentions such):

    http://tinyurl.com/returnoftheneocons

  • rexw says:

    I think that time will show that perhaps the worst American in history was and still is, Cheney.
    Generally regarded as the Bush puppeteer, no better position existed for someone like Cheney to do his dirty deeds than his own little non-accountable empire in the Vice President’s office. There will be seen in the years to come that not one evil deed was planned and executed without the imprimatur of the devil himself and his own private cabal of neocons like Wolfowitz, Feith and Co.
    A simple task for the parents of US soldiers who paid the full price in this contrived war is to be able to sheet home the blame for the thousands of deaths to this group of people, orchestrated in grand style by Rumsfeldt

    Sadly the climate has not returned to normal when scholars can investigate the doings of Cheney, Feith, Perle, Rumsfeldt,Wolfowitz and others in various roles such as Otto Weiss and Elliot Abrams, who spread their evil wings in other geographies.
    When it does, certainly not in my lifetime, they will find Cheney sitting there having controlled all his minions in every act for the advancement of Israel, to the disadvantage of the country which they were supposed to be serving but never did.

  • Patriot says:

    AIPAC (and the Jewish neocons) had pushed for the attack on Iraq in 1998 as well. Take a look at what General Zinni said about the Israel factor in the following CBS News ‘Sixty Minutes’ interview (we know what common denominator was/is for Feith, Perle, Abrams, and Libby!):

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

    Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as “the neo-conservatives” who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

    Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.

    ———————————————————————

    See the following article by Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski for how the Israeli generals used to visit JINSA associated Douglas Feith at his office at the Pentagon as he was associated with the infamous Office of Special Plans (OSP) which cooked/manipulated and cherry picked the ‘intel’ used to get US into the Iraq quagmire for Israel (look up ‘Office of Special Plans’ in James Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War’ book as well):

    Open Door Policy

    A strange thing happened on the way to the war.

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/jan/19/00027/

    The following ‘Whose War?’ article (also for the ‘American Conservative’) by Patrick Buchanan is a must read as well:

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/

    ————————————————————————

    See what Elliot Abrams has to say about having the US attack Iran next (for Israel of course!) via the following URL:

    Schumer: I’m on a Mission From God (to Be Israel’s Guardian in Senate)

    http://america-hijacked.com/2010/05/04/schumer-im-on-a-mission-from-god-to-be-israels-guardian-in-senate/

    http://tinyurl.com/Israelsguardianinthesenate

    Even Colin Powell had basically conveyed (for Washington Post editor/correspondent Karen DeYoung’s biographical book about him) that the ‘JINSA crowd’ was in control of the Pentagon (via JINSA/PNAC/AEI associated Dick Cheney of course!):

    A War for Israel? Colin Powell seems to think so:

    http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/10/08/a-war-for-israel-colin-powell-seems-to-think-so.php

    Additional via http://tinyurl.com/mearsheimer

  • Patriot says:

    Sharon had set up a parallel Office of Special Plans in Israel as well (see the following article when you can) to work with Feith’s ‘Office of Special Plans’ as I would assume that might explain why the Israeli generals were visiting Feith’s office at the Pentagon:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa

    Take a look at the article by Robert Fisk as well (which addressed the ‘JINSA crowd’ which Colin Powell had conveyed was in control of the Pentagon via JINSA/PNAC/AEI associated Dick Cheney of course!):

    http://america-hijacked.com/2010/04/16/jinsa-flag-general-officers-ad/

    Read about the ‘A Clean Break’ agenda either (access the ‘A Clean Break’ link at the upper right side of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM when you can and look at the comments section at the bottom of the following URL as well if interested further:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/18/fragmentation-of-iraq-was-israels-strategy/

    Did you read pages 242-243 of the Mearsheimer/Walt (‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’) book which conveys that AIPAC pushed for the Iraq invasion as well.

  • Mick says:

    It is all part of Judaism’s plan to rule the whole world with an iron rod. They do their best to call anyone critical of Israel an ‘anti-Semite’ to isolate themselves from criticism, but it’s not working, so they become evermore virulent and aggressive as their whole effort is sinking becuase it is simply unsustainable.

    The Old Testament Prophets were the anti-Semites of the day, and spoke out loudly and clearly against what the Jewish Priesthood and the Jewish people both were doing.

    For some reason, so many have forgotten the Prophetic warnings of Micah that, “Building Zion through bloodshed guarantees it’s destruction.

    Zion is to only be built through kindness and compassion for all. Not just Jews. This world is large enough, and fruitful enough to sustain us all, but if we do not turn to one another in kindness, we may all be removed from this earth.

  • Jeanne says:

    Always remember that General Zinni and General Hoar, both retired Commanders of CENTCOM, testified before the Senate or House Armed Services Committee that the US had Saddam contained and that he was NOT a threat to the US. But Bush/Cheney were not listening to the Generals with experience in the Middle East — they were listening to the neocons who wanted to invade Iraq for Israel.

  • Debbie Menon says:

    For a very concise overview of how America was induced to go to war in Iraq, see Maidhc Ó Cathail’s “Who’s to blame for the Iraq war?”
    http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/03/13/whos-to-blame-for-the-iraq-war/

  • HHM says:

    This is the position of Mearsheimer and Walt – the war wouldn’t have happened without “the Lobby,” but it didn’t happen just because of “the Lobby.” It wasn’t the only factor, but it was a major factor.

    Reported in the New York Sun, Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s executive director, bragged of AIPAC’s success in quietly lobbying Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq.

    The broad anti-war movement refused to address the Zionist component. How can anyone fix a problem they refuse to look at? The Zionist Power Configuration was never confronted.

    Much easier and more fun to just shout, “no war for oil…” and witch-hunt against anti-Semitism, real or imagined.

    Iran is different. The IDN (Israel Defense Network) connections are blatantly obvious with Iran.

  • Oregon Jack says:

    Some comments relevant to the oil vs. Israel debate from 2 CENTCOM commanders:

    From May 21, 2004 interview with former CENTCOM commander, Gen. Anthony Zinni:

    Zinni says he blames the Pentagon for what happened. “I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it – certain elements in there certainly – even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility,” he says.

    “But regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed up. And at this level and at this stage, it should be evident to everybody that they’ve screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this? That’s what bothers me most.”

    Adds Zinni: “If you charge me with the responsibility of taking this nation to war, if you charge me with implementing that policy with creating the strategy which convinces me to go to war, and I fail you, then I ought to go.”

    Who specifically is he talking about?

    “Well, it starts with at the top. If you’re the secretary of defense and you’re responsible for that. If you’re responsible for that planning and that execution on the ground. If you’ve assumed responsibility for the other elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and everything else, then you bear responsibility,” says Zinni. “Certainly those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly they ought to be gone and replaced.”

    Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as “the neo-conservatives” who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel . They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

    [MY NOTE: THESE WERE THE VIRULENT ISRAEL-FIRST NEOCONS WHO FORMED THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS FOR 9 MONTHS WITHIN THE PENTAGON, WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE MOSSAD AND ISRAELI MILITARY, TO SELL THE IRAQ WAR TO THE U.S. PUBLIC BY FALSIFYING INTELLIGENCE DATA AND BEATING THE WAR DRUMS (WELL-DOCUMENTED BY INSIDER LT. COL. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI). LIBBY PROVIDED A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN THE OSP AND CHENEY. DAVID WURMSER (NOT MENTIONED) PROVIDED THEIR LINK TO THE STATE DEPT. ALL HAVE CLOSE TIES TO ISRAEL INCLUDING BUSINESS INTERESTS, CLOSE ASSOCIATION WITH INFLUENTIAL ISRAEL LOBBY GROUPS SUCH AS JINSA AND WINEP, AND ALL WERE PNAC MEMBERS. PERLE AND FEITH CO-AUTHORED THE “CLEAN BREAK” DOCUMENT FOR THE INCOMING 1996 NETANYAHU ADMINISTRATION IN ISRAEL THAT ADVOCATED REMOVING SADDAM FROM POWER. PERLE WAS ONCE EXPELLED FROM SEN. JACKSON’S STAFF FOR PASSING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO ISRAEL AND HAS BEEN SUSPECTED OF BEING AN ISRAELI AGENT.]

    Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq .

    “I think it’s the worst kept secret in Washington . That everybody – everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.

    “And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that’s the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn’t criticize who they were. I certainly don’t know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I’m not interested.”

    Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don’t believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn’t know where it came from.”

    Zinni said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and bring it into the 21st century.

    From March 7, 2010 interview with Gen. David Petraeus by Fareed Zakaria

    ZAKARIA: Would it be legitimate for the American taxpayer to look at what’s happening in Iraq , particularly economically and say what was in it for us? Because you watch Iraq signing oil deals, and the Chinese are doing pretty well, the Brits are doing pretty well. We’re doing all right, but there’s no –

    You know, for all those who thought this was a conspiracy for oil, you notice that the United States does not seem to have any privileged position in terms of its access. What did — did we — do we have any influence economically in Iraq ?

    PETRAEUS: Well, I think we are literally having to compete along with everyone else. There are occasionally some degrees of access that might be provided. But, by and large, this is — it’s capitalism at work.

    And, in fact, we used to offer to our Iraqi counterparts who occasionally would toss around the conspiracy theory, that this is all about sewing up Iraq’s oil for the next few decades and say that, gosh, for what we spent in a single year in Iraq, we could have bought all of your oil for the next decade without having to invade you.

    [MY NOTE: IF THE IRAQ STRATEGY WAS TO MONOPOLIZE IRAQI OIL FOR OURSELVES OR TO CONTROL ACCESS BY EUROPE AND ASIA, THE OIL CONTRACTS LET SO FAR CERTAINLY DO NOT SUPPORT THESE PRESUMED AIMS. BUT A HEGEMONIC RIVAL TO ISRAEL HAS BEEN DESTROYED WITHOUT COSTING THEM A SINGLE LIFE OR A SINGLE SHECKEL.]

    Jack Dresser, Ph.D.
    Eugene, Oregon
    Behavioral Research Scientist
    Political & Prevention Psychology
    Veterans for Peace
    Co-director, The Al-Nakba Awareness Project
    http://www.al-nakba-history.com

  • Jeanne says:

    General Zinni is an American hero as he was one of the first to speak out on a problem that many were aware of — but no one would dare say it — that

    the neocons in the Bush/Cheney administration were pushing war to make Israel more secure

    These neocons slicksters convinced a naive President Bush that “taking out” Saddam and making Iraq democratic would transform the Middle East and make him one of the great men of history.

Leave a Reply