Neo-Conned! Again

by D Liam O'Huallachain

  Saddam is not like the Saudi Princes who spend the bulk of their lives outside of their country, and who fritter away the Kingdom's oil profits on prostitutes and bottles of champagne in Paris. No, Saddam is building railways! Creating electrical networks! Highways and other important elements of a serious State infrastructure! After eight years of war against the Iranian regime of Khomeini, he desperately needs to demobilize his Republican Guard, which incorporates so many of his technical elite, in order to rebuild the war-devastated country. These people are his technicians, his engineers. If they are put to work in the way Saddam wishes, they will rapidly make Iraq the most advanced power in the region, and we cannot allow this to happen.

  It was an incredible statement, a statement of pure power politics, and for the first time in my life I came up against the notion that the United States was not what it proclaimed itself to be. It had always told the world that it saw itself as on a mission to combat poverty and illiteracy, injustice and tyranny; and now here was a high-ranking American official stating as bluntly as language allowed him that America not only did not want to see Iraq develop, but that it actually sought to undo what development it had already achieved. For many in Latin America, none of this would be real news given the turbulent and violent intervention – largely covert – of the United States in the countries of this continent, which Washington power-brokers like to consider as their “backyard.” But for many in Europe it was a blinding revelation, an angel of light suddenly being transformed into something demonic!

  Yet some time spent in historical reflection brought to the foreground the fact that the United States had always shown its hostility to the development of modern and efficient states and societies in the Middle East – with one exception, of course, Israel. In the fifties, many dictators and strongmen – mainly drawn from the Arab and Muslim armed forces of the region – came to power, men who were not of an Islamic fundamentalist disposition, but were rather men who sought to open up their societies to the benefits of modern technology and organization. They were men who believed in great national development, and who were, for the most part, also pro-American. Gamal Abdul Nasser in Egypt, a figure of huge importance in Arab history, intended to transform Egypt and thereafter the Arab world, and at the beginning he sought to involve the Americans in this process. The Shah of Iran, too, was a modernizer and was staunchly pro-American. Even Col. Muammar Qathafi of Libya was originally open to the West. These men and their visions were distinct and often contradictory, but they shared certain common features. They sought to use modern means to transform the lives of their respective peoples; they sought to bring this change about in conjunction with the Western powers, especially America; and they had little or no time for Islamic fundamentalism as distinct from Islam as a system of religious beliefs. Thus, for example, Qathafi insisted that young girls be sent to school – a very un-Islamist idea.

  But one by one they fell foul of the United States, with the Americans overthrowing some of these regimes, and pushing the rest into the arms of the Soviet Union. The result was that Arabs like Nasser and Qathafi became characterized as “Commies” by a hostile Western media. Furthermore it was the United States which did everything to bring Ayatollah Khomeini to power in Iran; and which preferred the crude Pakistani-instructed “Koranic students” of the Taliban to take control of Afghanistan, rather than Ahmad Shah Masood who was a potential unifier and modernizer of the country. First he opposed the Soviets, then he opposed the Taliban, and in the process became something of a popular myth. He was a bold man with a good sense of strategy whose popularity went beyond the ethnic groups of the country, even extending to the majority Pashtuns. Needless to say this forward-looking man was assassinated probably on the orders of our old CIA-created friend, Osama bin Laden. And who has been the prop and master of the tyrannical, oppressive and corrupt Wahhabite monarchy in Saudi Arabia? The Americans.

  As I reflected on this history – which is crystal clear and yet largely unknown it seems – down the years since, I happened upon a recent statement made by Anupama Rao Singh, who was UNICEF's representative in Iraq, made to the journalist, John Pilger, in an interview. He said: “In 1989, the literacy rate in Iraq was 95%; and 93% of the population had free access to modern health facilities. Iraq had reached a stage where the basic indicators we use to measure the overall well-being of human beings, including children, were some of the best in the world. Now it is among the bottom 20%. In 10 years, child mortality has gone from one of the lowest in the world, to the highest.” In other words, Iraq was on its way to joining the First World, on its way to becoming a beacon and model for the rest of the Middle East – a source of endless problems for those determined to ensure that corruption, oppression and dependency remained the dominant atmosphere in the region through the careful maintenance and manipulation of so-called “pro-Western governments.”

  But why should the powers-that-be have such a policy towards the Arabs? One possible, and very obvious, answer is oil. The oil cartels have a preference in dealing with ignorant clerics and corrupt hypocrites because neither the one nor the other has any conception, any vision, of dragging their societies and their peoples out of the mire of backwardness. Faced by intelligent Arab leaders, such oil men have to go nose to nose with those who understand the strategic and commercial importance of oil within the framework of the global economy, and thus have to pay up more in prices per barrel and in royalties. Since “money makes the world go around” for the oil barons, it is far better and cheaper to deal with those who lack knowledge, or with those whose peccadilloes really don't cost very much.

  Another possible, if less obvious to the man-in the-street, answer is Israel and its “need” for security. If Saddam's regime had been left untouched, and if the President had continued the plans for development that he had implemented in the Seventies and early Eighties, it is pretty plain that within a decade or two he would have been in a position to confront Israel on militarily credible terms. This is not speculation on my part, but something that was declared quite candidly by a transitional member of Dubya's first term team, Philip Zelikow. A former Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board before being nominated to the Commission of Inquiry for the September 11 attack, he told a panel of foreign policy experts at the University of Virginia on September 19, 2002, that an attack against Iraq was imminent – note the date and note, too, that it shows that no matter what Saddam and his government did things would not change! – and that it was therefore imperative that the world be persuaded that Saddam possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction ready to be used against America. To this select group, he declared truthfully: “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat is, and actually has been since 1990 – it is the threat to Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans do not care deeply about that threat, I tell you frankly. And the American government does not want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”

  It is almost certainly the case that the Europeans do not care very much about the threat to Israel, but is it because we are “anti-Semites”? No, it is probably because we are well informed of the fact that Israel has built a nuclear arsenal of several hundred weapons capable of being delivered across a wide area of the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East. In simple terms, we Europeans are in the frontline of the Israeli threat to our civilization whatever the hype involved in “our shared values and history.” And is it not peculiar that the only state in the entire region which does possess weapons of mass destruction, and which is public knowledge, receives no criticism of any sort however mild? Israel is a racist, fundamentalist state at war in practical terms with all its neighbors – be it hot or cold war, or even commercial and psychological war – it is armed to the teeth in a way that wholly overshadows all of its neighbors put together, and still it does not feel secure enough. Be it remembered
that it was Israel which began this terrible regional arms race, and now it is having to come to terms with its created nightmare – the possibility of neighboring states seeking parity. Thus we have a potent, well-armed neighbor in Israel; and is it any real surprise that countries like France and Italy have little “sympathy” for Israel's security when they could so easily be affected by radioactive fall-out should Israel ever strike out against its nightmares? Zelikow is right: Israel is not “a popular sell” in Europe. Obstinately, we Europeans happen to believe that Israel would feel far safer in every sense if it were to try and come to terms with her Arab neighbors on the basis of justice and honesty, beginning with a just peace for the scandalously treated and abandoned Palestinian people.

  We see, then, that the unilateral war of aggression launched by America against a sovereign state is due to the converging interests of the Israeli and Oil Lobbies. To these two must be added the American military-industrial complex for whom all war is good business in terms of sales, profits and publicity. Of course it does not follow that the interests of these Americans necessarily coincide with the interests of the American people. “Homeland” is a very nebulous idea to corporate dealers who see the goal of life as being determined by money. And it is precisely because they are so fixated on the biblical “root of all evil” that many Europeans have grave doubts about the sincerity of American businessmen-turned-statesmen, who proclaim that their intention is to bring “stability and democracy to Iraq.” It is no secret that the Bush administrations have been choc-a-bloc with “former” businessmen, and that these men have profited immensely from the Iraq war; and no doubt they intend to do so in the other wars that are bound to come their way as the neoconservatives live out their folly at the expense of the rest of the world. As long as Israel feels “secure” – at least for the moment – and as long as companies like Halliburton continue to rake in monstrous profits, what difference does it make to the businessmen-statesmen that Iraq is plunging into what could be a semi-permanent chaos, and the sons and daughters of working class Americans will continue to come home in body bags?

  The fact remains, of course, that the Americans were out to get Saddam come what may; and they wanted him out of the way for many reasons, but perhaps one of them has not been as clearly articulated as it should have been. In the autumn of 2000, Saddam Hussein took an action that can only be viewed as a declaration of war on American mega-business when he announced that he would be pricing Iraqi oil in euros not dollars. To an outsider it would have seemed a decision of little consequence, but to a serious player it had tremendous implications. On November 6, 2000, Radio Free Europe – the CIA funded operation – giggled that Saddam's move would result in bad business for Saddam given the then weakness of the euro. Yet Saddam was to wipe the grin of their faces as the euro gained strength and rose some 35% in valuation against the dollar. Needless to say, other oil-producing countries began to show an interest. Mr. Javad Yariani, Chairman of the Department of Market Analysis for OPEC said in August 2002, whilst visiting Spain, that “Since the Nineties, more than 80% of the monetary exchanges, and half of global exports, has been denominated in dollars, and the American currency makes up about 60% of all currency reserves. This forces all countries to keep large amounts of dollars in their reserves, amounts which are disproportionate in comparison with the “weight” of the United States in the global economy.” He went on: “The commercial links between OPEC countries and Europe are stronger than those between the USA and OPEC. Almost 45% of our imports come from Europe, and OPEC is the primary exporter of oil to the European Union. In future, it could well become possible to price oil in euros … and this could attract bigger and much-needed investment into the Middle East …. Perhaps time is on our [EU and OPEC] side.” One has only to consider this for a moment to realize why Bush kept repeating that “time is running out,” and although Saddam has been removed from the scene the threat to the dollar has not. In late October 2004, Vladimir Putin, wondering out loud no doubt, suggested to the EU that if other things could be arranged between Russia and the EU to their mutual benefit, it might indeed be a very positive thing to price oil in euros. If that idea ever begins to take shape, perhaps we will live to see the day that the countries of Europe, including Russia, will be designated “rogue states” and become a candidate to be bombed back to the Stone Age.

  This essay began with a shocking quotation from Dr. Edward Luttwak. It might be objected, of course, that in the Second Gulf War he took a position “against” the Bush Jr. administration, and thus, in a sense, his comments in 1991 are rather out of date or irrelevant today. That would be true if Luttwak were against the war, but a study of his comments does not bear this out. What he says is that he doubts that this is the right way of achieving the declared aims of the American government. He worries about the effect of unilateral action on allies, on friends, on international relations. But this is not the same thing as worrying about the end. It is not that he opposed the attack on Iraq because it is illegal and unjust, but because the methods used may be waking up vast numbers of people to the threat that the United States poses to the rest of the world. It is an argument about means not end; it is an argument about style not substance.

  Other people in the American establishment have been playing the same tune, both on television and in the op-ed columns of influential dailies. We might mention Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski and R. James Woolsey in this connection. The media present their musings as “opposition” to Bush Jr., but it is nothing of the sort. It is all a question of approach. Nor should we be surprised that this crowd are mouthing the same things, for they are all part and parcel of the little-publicized, not-for-profit Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) based in Washington and set up in the 1960s. It is made up of “luminaries” from the Republican and Democratic Parties (including one Senator John Kerry!), ex-government officials, ex-CIA directors, military men, and high-level bureaucrats, and is funded according to the CSIS by corporations and foundations to the tune of $25 million! Thus, while Luttwak is presenting his highly nuanced view of the Iraq war, we find his fellow CSIS adviser, Arnaud de Borchgrave, editing the fervently prowar Washington Times, a journal owned by the CIA-funded and created by Moonies whose connections with dirty money and Israel are long and deep. Nor is this a simple coincidence, for Luttwak sits alongside Michael “creative destruction” Ledeen on Dr. Joseph Churba's International Security Council which is stacked with neoconservative warmongers. At the end of the day every conceivable view – other than the resolutely anti-Iraq war view – is catered for in the American media, from the manic, blood-lust ravings of a Ledeen through to the “thoughtful” – “this is a hard case, to be sure” – dribblings of a Luttwak, and which combine to give the impression that Rambo and Mother Teresa have teamed up to “get Saddam and the other bad guys.” Believe it if you will. Believe it if you can.

  CHAPTER

  3

  postscript

  ………

  On Luttwak's Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook

  Maurizio Blondet

  IT IS NOT a recent book. Published by Harvard University Press in 1968, it is entitled Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook. Its author is Edward Luttwak, the well-known military expert who was an adviser on National Security to Ronald Reagan. He is Jewish, an ultra-conservative, and a militarist with known links to the CIA, to friends in the Pentagon, to the military-industrial complex, and, naturally, to JINSA.

  We will seek to present crucial passages from this old book, limiting ourselves to italicizing and commenting upon the ideas which could have been in the minds of those – if our hypothesis is correct – who orchestrated the tragedy of September 11.

  Chapter 1: What is a Coup d'État?

  A coup d'état is not necessarily assisted by either the intervention of the masses, or, to any significant degree, by military-type force. The assistance of these forms of direct force would no do
ubt make it easier to seize power, but it would be unrealistic to think that they would be available to the organizers of a coup.

  If a coup does not make use of the masses, or of warfare, what instrument of power will enable it to seize control of the State? The short answer is that the power will come from the State itself.

  A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the State apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder [JINSA infiltrated the Pentagon in precisely this manner].

  Chapter 2: When is a Coup d'État Possible?

  First of all, Luttwak lists the necessary “preconditions”:

  1. The social and economic conditions of the target country must be such as to confine political participation to a small fraction of the population [this is the case in America where non-voters are the majority].

  2. The target State must be substantially independent and the influence of foreign powers in its internal political life must be relatively limited [the United States is the only State remaining that enjoys these conditions].

  3. The target State must have a political centre. If there are several centres these must be identifiable and they must be politically, rather than ethnically, structured. If the State is controlled by a non-politically organized unit [like the CFR, the representative of business] the coup can only be carried out with its consent or neutrality.

  Already in the Preface, Luttwak underlined as essential the fact that the perpetrators of a coup must be able to count upon “the absence of a politicised community,” upon the apathy of the public. “The dialogue between the rulers and the ruled [upon which democratic legitimacy is founded] can only take place if there is a large enough section of society which is sufficiently literate, well fed and secure to 'talk back.'” But “without a politicised population, the State is nothing other than a machine. Then the coup d'état becomes feasible because, like every machine, one can take control of everything by grasping the essential levers.” Now Luttwak identifies this “machine” in the Bureaucracy.