Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي

Why do the Americans liberate Iraqis and occ


Recommended Posts

Guest The Israel Lobby

 

The Israel Lobby

 

 

The Israel Lobby

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

 

 

There is a ray of hope, however. Although the Lobby remains a powerful force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to hide. Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some time, but reality cannot be ignored for ever. What is needed is a candid discussion of the Lobby’s influence and a more open debate about US interests in this vital region. Israel’s well-being is one of those interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and its broader regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel’s long-term interests as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Guest

ان غدا لناظره قريب

 

انا [أميل الى ان هذا المقال يضع يده على الجرح، ماهو رأي القارئ

 

 

 

 

التفسير الراجح للحرب على العراق: أميركا في خدمة الأجندة الصهيونية

 

زين العابدين الركابي

 

 

ما هذا النحس الشامل المركب؟

صعدت المديونية الأميركية الى تسعة ترليون دولار.. وهبطت شعبية الرئيس الأميركي جورج بوش الى 36% (هوت شعبية نائبه ديك تشيني إلى18 %).. والوضع العسكري والسياسي الأميركي في العراق خانق بل قاتل.. وهذا الوضع المظلم هو الذي اضطر الإدارة الأميركية إلى التباحث والتفاهم مع إيران بهدف إيجاد مخرج ينقذ الإدارة مما هي فيه من كرب.. ومما لا ريب فيه ان ايران تدرك حاجة الإدارة الأميركية اليها ولذلك ستملي شروطها أو ترفع سقف مطالب أجندتها: وسوف تعلمون.

 

وفي حين كانت هذه الإدارة تمارس مغامراتها ومقامراتها: رغبة في (المجد) السياسي والحضاري والتاريخي، فإنها عوقبت بـ (الحرمان) مما ترغب فيه وتهواه وتسخر الإمكانات الأميركية الكبرى من اجل بلوغه والتمتع به.

 

فصورة هذه الإدارة قد شاهت، ولم تفلح ألوف الأطنان من المساحيق في تجميلها.. مثلا: أليس من المجد الذي سعت إليه هذه الادارة: ان تكون (نموذجا) اجتماعيا وسياسيا وحضاريا للشعب العراقي (كمقدمة لتعميم النموذج في المنطقة)؟.. بلى.. انها سعت الى ذلك: سرا وعلانية. بيد ان هذا النموذج قد انطفأ وشاه منذ البدء، وفي أعين الأجيال العراقية البازغة القادمة التي استهدف النموذج وعيها وأحلامها.. هل أتاكم ـ مثلا ـ نبأ ـ الغلام العراقي أسامة نبيل (10 سنوات)؟.. انه يفكر في ترك المدرسة وهجر التعليم!!.. لماذا؟.. لأن ملامحه العامة تشبه ملامح جورج بوش الابن.. وبمقتضى هذا التشابه: أخذ أقران أسامة في المدرسة يطلقون عليه اسم بوش، فامتلأ الغلام غيظا من إطلاق اسم بوش عليه. وفكر في هجر المدرسة والتعليم وقال: «ما زال أبي يحاول إقناعي بالبقاء في المدرسة، لكن إصرار زملائي في المدرسة على إطلاق اسم بوش عليّ جعلني أشعر بالحزن ففضلت العزلة، وأفكر في ترك المدرسة لأن هذا الاسم أصبح ملتصقا بي وأتمنى الخلاص منه بأية وسيلة كانت»!!

 

هذه صورة مصغرة من الفشل في (تحقيق المجد) من خلال الاعجاب بالنموذج، وبالقيادة التي تصنعه.

 

وبتكبير الصورة وتوسيعها: يكبر حجم النحس، ويتسع مداه: بشهادات أميركيين حزانى (منهم محافظون جدد):

 

1 ـ فرانسيس فوكوياما هو أحد أعمدة (المحافظين الجدد) وقد أسهم بحظ وافر في كتابة استراتيجية (القرن الأميركي الجديد)، أي القرن الحادي والعشرين.. هذا الرجل: أعلن براءته من المحافظين الجدد، ومن عقم أفكارهم وخطورة أفعالهم على حاضر الولايات المتحدة ومستقبلها.. يقول فوكوياما: «ان جورج بوش جعل الحرب الاستباقية أساس سياسته الخارجية، ولم يقدر تقديرا صحيحا ردود الفعل العالمية لغزو العراق، بل توقع ترحيبا عالميا بسياسة الهيمنة.. ومواقف بوش متناقضة. ففي حين تركز ادارته على دور الحكومات في اجراء تغييرات في الشرق الاوسط، يدعو ـ في الوقت نفسه ـ الى التقليل من دور الحكومة في المجتمع الأميركي.. ان الادارة الأميركية بغزوها للعراق خلقت وضعا متوحلا هو الآن قد حل محل أفغانستان كمركز جذب وأرض مثالية للتدريب، وقاعدة واسعة لعمليات المسلحين في ظل وفرة من الأهداف الأميركية التي يمكن تصويب النيران عليها.. وفي كل الاحوال يجب ان يستقيل وزير الدفاع دونالد رامسفيلد».

 

2 ـ هل تذكرون (أمير الظلام): المنظر الأكبر للحرب على العراق؟.. انه ريتشارد بيرل الذي قال: لا مستقبل للولايات المتحدة اذا هي تراجعت، ولم تشن الحرب على العراق.. مسعر الحرب ومجرمها الكبير هذا، قال ـ في الذكرى الثالثة لهذه الحرب ـ: «ان الحملة العسكرية على العراق وتداعياتها السياسية والأمنية لم تتم مناقشتها بطريقة سليمة داخل الادارة الأميركية، ولذلك لم نفلح في ادارة الحرب، ولا في ضبط تداعياتها».

 

3 ـ وليام بكلي اعلامي محافظ ـ بل متطرف في محافظته ـ وهو من اركان المحافظين الجدد في مجال الاعلام السياسي.. ماذا قال هذا الرجل بعد مرور ثلاث سنوات على الحرب على العراق.. وقد كان من النافخين في موقدها..؟.. قال: «لا يساورني أدنى شك في فشل الغرض من الحرب على العراق. لقد اثبتت هذه الحرب عدم قدرة جيش مؤلف من 130 الف جندي أميركي في احتواء الاعمال العدائية في العراق. ويتعين الآن الاقرار الواضح بالهزيمة».

 

4 ـ يقول الناقد الأميركي اليميني اللامع: اندرو سوليفان: «لقد تعلم العالم درسا قاسيا إلا انه، كان أشد قسوة على عشرات آلاف القتلى من العراقيين الأبرياء، بالاضافة الى مثقفين تعرضوا للاذلال.. ان الاستجابة الصحيحة لعبرة هذه المأساة الدامية ليست في المزيد من اللف والدوران، بل في الاحساس بالحزن والعار والاعلان عن ذلك. فحالة الفوضى التي يعيشها العراق حاليا تؤكد سوء التقدير الأميركي المبني على مزيج من الغرور والسذاجة».

 

5 ـ ولئن كانت تلك افكار وآراء (فردية، وهذا لا يقلل من قيمتها حيث ان اصحابها من قاع البئر التي يقبع فيها المحافظون الجدد)، فإن الدراسة الجماعية العلمية السياسية الاستراتيجية الموسعة الشاملة التي انجزتها مجموعة من الباحثين المتخصصين الكبار في جامعتي: هارفارد وشيكاغو.. هذه الدراسة تثبت ـ بالأدلة والقرائن والوقائع ـ (عمق الكارثة القومية) التي دفعت اليها الولايات المتحدة من خلال الحرب على العراق، وعبر سياسات أخرى مماثلة.. وهذه نقط من تلك الدراسة:

 

أ ـ «ان أميركيين موالين لاسرائيل ورطوا أميركا في مستنقع الحرب على العراق».. ومن قبل قال المبشر المسيحي الأميركي ديفيد بكيل: «ان اليهود يسيطرون اليوم على الولايات المتحدة بسبب ضعف الادارة، ومن خلال ذلك يسيطرون على العالم. وحرب العراق خير نموذج لذلك، فبول وولفويتز هو الذي أقنع جورج بوش بالذهاب الى الحرب بعد ان أغراه بأنه سيزيد الارباح الأميركية في مدة سنة واحدة بما يتراوح بين 50 الى 100 مليار دولار».

 

ب ـ «ان سياسات الولايات المتحدة في منطقة الشرق الاوسط تخدم اسرائيل ولا تخدم المصالح الأميركية الا على المدى القريب ولا على المدى البعيد».. ومن قبل قال زبغنيو بريجنسكي المفكر الأميركي الاستراتيجي الشهير: «ربطت الصحافة الأوروبية بشكل يتفوق على الصحافة الأميركية بين سياسات الإدارة الأميركية الحالية المتعلقة بمنطقة الشرق الأوسط وبين المقترحات التي قدمها العديد من أصدقاء حزب الليكود الإسرائيلي عام 1996 لرئيس الوزراء الاسرائيلي حينئذ بنيامين نتنياهو، وأصدقاء الليكود هؤلاء يشغلون الآن مواقع مؤثرة في الإدارة الحالية، وهم أنفسهم السبب في الاصرار على شن حرب على العراق».. ومن قبل قال ـ أيضا ـ الدبلوماسي الأميركي البارز ريتشارد هولبروك: «بعض أعضاء الإدارة الحالية يتصرفون بقصر نظر. فهل من العقل والضمير والأمن الدولي: أن يصبح العالم كله ضحية لحفنة «!!!» من الناس لا يكترثون باستقرار العالم، ولا تهمهم مصلحة الولايات المتحدة نفسها»؟.

 

ولقد نُصحت الإدارة الأميركية بالكف عن هذه الحرب العقيم من الناحيتين: التخطيطية والتنفيذية.. وهذه منظومة من النصائح الواضحة الجادة العقلانية التي كان باعثها: الحرص على مصالح أميركا وصورتها وسلامتها:

 

1 ـ تقدم ثلاثة عشر ألف أستاذ جامعي أميركي بمذكرة مفتوحة إلى الرئيس الأميركي جورج بوش يدعونه فيها إلى «الامتناع عن شن حرب على العراق، والى التبصر في العواقب والمآسي والتداعيات الخطرة التي تترتب على شن الحرب».

 

2 ـ اصدرت مجموعة من صميم عصب الحزب الجمهوري هم رجال أعمال وأصحاب شركات كبرى، بياناً قويا معارضا للحرب قالوا فيه: «أيها الرئيس. لقد ايدنا حرب الخليج، والتدخل العسكري في أفغانستان، ولكن حربك ضد العراق ليست عادلة. وحين كنت مرشحا في انتخابات عام 2000 دعمناك لأنك وعدتنا بأنك ستكون أكثر تواضعا في التعامل مع العالم. لقد منحناك أصواتنا وتبرعات شركاتنا المالية. ولكن نشعر أنك خدعتنا، ولذلك نطالبك بأن تعيد أموالنا إلينا، وان تعيد بلادنا المختطفة.. لماذا تقودنا الى وضع حتمي الفشل»؟.

 

3 ـ «إن الولايات المتحدة ستخسر حلفاءها في الحرب ضد الارهاب اذا شنت حربا على العراق»: برنت سكو كروفت مستشار الأمن القومي للرئيس الأميركي الأسبق جورج بوش الأب.

 

4 ـ شاركنا في نصح الإدارة الأميركية في هذه القضية: بدافع كراهية الحروب، وبباعث محبة الخير والسلام لنا وللأميركيين وللعالم كله. فبتاريخ 16/11/2002 كتبنا في هذا المكان نفسه.. «ان اجتناب الحرب مكسب وراحة وخير للمنطقة كلها. فالعراق جزء منها يؤذيها ما يؤذيه. ثم بسبب الحروب والقلاقل والصراعات: تعطلت التنمية، وتعثر النهوض، ومما لا ريب فيه أن حربا جديدة ستزيد البلاء، بل ستدخل المنطقة في مناخ كريه من الاضطراب والفوضى.. نعم لا مصلحة لأحد في هذه الحرب: لا مصلحة للعراق.. ولا مصلحة للعرب.. ولا مصلحة لأميركا.. ولا مصلحة للعالم.. صاحب الهوى الوحيد في هذه الحرب هو المؤسسة الصهيونية: في فلسطين والعالم».

 

لقد سقطت حجج (الحرب) كافة: بشهادات أميركيين وطنيين أحرار، لا يقلون وطنية عن وطنية الطبقة الحاكمة: ان لم يتفوقوا عليهم فيها.

 

وبسقوط الحجج والتعلات كافة: لم تبق الا حجة أو تفسير واحد هو: ان الولايات المتحدة سخرت لخدمة الأجندة الصهيونية: أو «ان اليهود الأميركيين هم المسؤولون عن دفع الولايات المتحدة الى الحرب على العراق، وان زعماء اليهود يمكنهم منع الحرب اذا ارادوا ذلك»: النائب الأميركي، جيمس مورون.

 

ب ـ «ان الحرب التي تنوي الولايات المتحدة شنها على العراق تندرج في مخطط إقامة اسرائيل الكبرى، وان اللوبي الصهيوني في الإدارة الأميركية هو الذي يدفع بقوة واستماتة في اتجاه الحرب» المفكر الأميركي، مايكل كولينز بايبر.

 

ج ـ «بالتأكيد تم دفع خطة غزو العراق بقوة على أيدي عدد من ذوي النفوذ المؤيدين لاسرائيل من شاكلة الصقور الجدد داخل الإدارة وخارجها: ريتشارد بيرل. وبول وولفويتز. ووليم كريستول وآخرون». البروفسور بول شرويدر أستاذ التاريخ بجامعة الينوي.

 

د ـ «المسؤولون عن الحرب على العراق هم مخططون آخرون معروفون، ولكنهم لا يخدمون المصالح الأميركية، ولا الأمن القومى الأميركي». الجنرال باستر غولسون.

 

طوال السنوات الخمس الماضية كنا في ذهول: أين أحرار أميركا وصفوتها الوطنية مما يجري لبلادهم؟. فجاءت (وثيقة) جامعتي: هارفارد وشيكاغو لتثبت أن في أميركا أحرارا شجعانا يرفضون أن تتلاعب الصهيونية بمصائر بلادهم، وينوّرون الرأي العام الأميركي بحقيقة صاعقة مرة وهي: ان بلادهم قد اختطفت ويجب أن تعود الى أصالتها واستقلالها ودورها الدولي المتوازن.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

اعتقد ان ما يطرحه الكاتب ماهو الا ترداد لاسطوانه مشروخه تعودنا على سماعها

ربما لانختلف على ان هناك مشروعا امريكيا يحكم توجه الرئيس بوش حول شن الحرب على صدام ولكن السؤال عن هل ان ما يعلن هو الحقيقه. الرئيس بوش حدد هدفين الاول اسقاط نضام صدام والثاني تثبيت دعائم نضام ديمقراطي.. واعتقد ان الهدفيين قد حققهما فعلا. منتقدي بوش وخصوصا من اعداء حريه العراقيين يخلطون الاوراق ليشيروا الى الوضع الامني المتردي . وهنا يطرح السؤال الاهم . هل ما يحصل هو احد الاهداف الغير معلنه. اذا قلنا نعم فاننا نعترف ان كل مروجي القتل من الاسلاميين والعربان والقوى الاخرى التي تشجع الارهاب هم ادوات بايدي امريكا. واذا قلنا لا فاننا نصل لنتيجه اخطر تتمثل بان كل اؤلئك هم الاعداء الحقيقيين للشعب وانهم يريدون ايقاف المسيره العراقيه

 

فاي الاجوبه نفضل.. سؤال لناشر المقال الذي يرى انه باتفاق مع كاتب المقال

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest Guest

A mortgage is basically a loan specific to the real estate market. Typically, it covers 70-90% of the purchase price of a house or other property, with the penalty for non-payment being foreclosure, or reversion of the property to the lender. They are available from most banks, credit unions, portfolio lenders and some government agencies.

 

Mortgage loans usually employ a 30-year repayment (or amortization) schedule. Payments are a changing combination of interest and principal, so that in the early years a payment mostly consists of interest on the outstanding principal balance, but in later years the mix becomes much more heavily weighted toward paying the principal itself. There also is private mortgage insurance to consider, which is required if less than 20% is put down on the house. It has gotten easier to actually get rid of this extra payment as soon as possible.

 

Learning the administrative and legal aspects of the loan process is essential for anyone considering a loan. A borrower should know what contracts and documents he or she will encounter, and how to negotiate through the paperwork. Also, it is important to be aware of what fees may be assessed and how to minimize or eliminate them wherever possible.

 

more about loans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...79-2703,00.html

 

Hawkish plan to plant a puppet in Iraq

Is George W. Bush about to install a dictator in Iraq, asks Andrew Sullivan

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

August 21, 2006

 

This conservative caucus never liked the neocon argument for removing Saddam. They didn't like nation building and didn't believe the Iraqis were capable of democracy. They wanted to remove a perceived WMD threat, but most of all, they wanted to strike terror into the heart of their enemies by showing what US military might could do.

 

Depose Saddam, remove the weapons, install a client dictator and leave as much rubble behind as possible: that was the game plan. This would deter the Iranians and leave a light military footprint. The plan had Donald Rumsfeld written all over it, and it helps explain a lot about the Bush administration's dogged refusal to add more troops in the first few months after the invasion.

 

Rumsfeld and Cheney may well be the key proponents of this argument. It is, of course, stupid. When you are dealing with a generational struggle to defang Islamist extremism, your central weapon is winning over the moderate Muslims and Arabs. You do the reverse by bombing a country into chaos and then leaving

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mutergem,

I heard a lot about a possible US retreat to the stratigic goals set by President Bush. I can't say if these reprots are based on credible resources or information but I can talk from an iraqi prospective.

 

It is simply rediclus to have such option, not from possibility of happening but from the desastrus implications that such move might bring to Iraq , ME and whole world. The situation today is completely different than 1991. The spirit of freedom that was planted by the occupier's calls to Iraqis was a real one.. Some might look to Iraqi frustration to the current situation and might say that they would accept any other solution even another dictator.. However the last four years gave us a very strong messages. When is come to reality, Iraqis would stand up to their freedom and would not choose other option. The last three voting processes with all threats never stopped them from send that message.

 

On other hand, there is no power on ground to enforce such option while local communities had already established their own arrangments that is today much more powerfull than the central governemnt. More than that we need not to underestimate the real objection to such move by Kurds and Shia.. Having Iran waiting for such conflict by Americans to these two most powerful groups , one can easily imagine the extend of damage to the American interests in Iraq and the region.. A damage that might go way beyond the implications of the foolish war by Israel generals to fight Hezbollah through demolishing Lebanese democratic government and system.

 

I have a strong feeling that the temporary marriage between American and Iraqi interests is going to be a "family arranged" strong one that have the call for democracy as it's housing.. No one should even think to hurt that only roof that keep every body safe..

 

Baathist are making a lot of noise preaching for such retreat , reminding and threatening Iraqis of what would happen to them when such retreat could happen, however I never ran into any Iraqi who even give it any serious thought.. today people are not affriad of Baathist return to power, they more affriad of the desastor that such option might bring to Iraq already wartorn infrastructure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mutergem, don't trust those anti-democracy conspiracies theories. They have been about as reliable as the people who want to spread them.

 

Here is an excerpt from Bush's August 21 press conference.

 

Q That's quite all right. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq. You've continually cited the elections, the new government, its progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You've had to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not?

 

THE PRESIDENT: You know, Martha, you've covered the Pentagon, you know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have the flexibility from the White House to do so.

 

Q I'm talking about strategy --

 

THE PRESIDENT: The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy. The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, its important we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving, so long as I'm the President. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists.

 

No, we're not leaving. The strategic objective is to help this government succeed. That's the strategic -- and not only to help the government -- the reformers in Iraq succeed, but to help the reformers across the region succeed to fight off the elements of extremism. The tactics are which change. Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you're leaving before the mission is complete. And we're not going to leave before the mission is complete. I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.

 

And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with Plan Baghdad. And that's when we moved troops from Mosul into Baghdad and replaced them with the Stryker Brigade, so we increased troops during this time of instability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

كشفت صحيفة أميركية بارزة عن ان بعثة أميركية مستقلة، شكلها الكونغرس لتقييم الوضع في العراق ووافق عليها الرئيس جورج بوش، ربما تقترح تقسيمه الى ثلاثة أقاليم تتمتع بقدر كبير من الحكم الذاتي.

 

فقد نقلت صحيفة التايمز ان مجموعة العمل التي يرأسها وزير الخارجية الاسبق جيمس بيكر لا تحبذ تجزئة العراق وانما تقسيمه الى ثلاثة مناطق تحتفظ كل منها بسلطات أمنية وادارية واقتصادية واسعة.

 

وبحسب الصحيفة ، فان من الضروري حث الحكومة العراقية على عقد مؤتمر دستوري يفتح الطريق امام نقل هذه السلطات وتوزيعها فيما سيطلب من سوريا وايران دعم وتأييد تسوية اقليمية بهذا الخصوص يتم التوصل اليها خلال مؤتمر دولي.

 

ولفتت التايمز الى ان بيكر اجتمع بالفعل مع ممثلين للحكومة السورية فيما يخطط للاجتماع مع مندوب ايران في مقر الامم المتحدة بنيويورك. وكان بيكر صرح بأنه يؤمن بأن العمل الدبلوماسي يستلزم التحدث مع الاصدقاء والاعداء من اجل تحقيق السلام.

 

لكن خبراء استراتيجيين ، ومنهم انتوني غرودسمان من مركز الدراسات الدولية والاستراتيجية في واشنطن ، يرون ان من الصعوبة بمكان تقسيم شعب يعيش ثلاثة وخمسون في المائة من تعداده في أربع محافظات ثلاثٌ منها مختلطة القوميات والمذاهب.

ويعتقد غرودسمان أن الولايات المتحدة لم تعد في موقع تحديد المستقبل النهائي للعراق لان الاوضاع السياسية الداخلية في العراق باتت تمتلك الزخم الاكبر ما يعني ان الامر يقرره العراقيون انفسهم.

Baker panel may recommend federal Iraq

WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 (UPI) -- A commission chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker may recommend a federal Iraq divided among the country's three major groups.

 

"The Kurds already effectively have their own area," a source close to the group told the Times of London. "The federalization of Iraq is going to take place one way or another. The challenge for the Iraqis is how to work that through."

 

Baker's panel was set up by Congress with President George W. Bush's approval in an effort to break out of what appears to be a dead end in Iraq, with the United States unable to create a stable regime, the newspaper said. Baker was secretary of state during the first Gulf War while Bush's father was president.

 

The source said the report to be released next month would favor devolving power to Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions with considerable autonomy. A weak central government would be involved with distribution of oil revenues, border security and foreign affairs.

 

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...08-121513-3258r

 

 

Also have a look to the following

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2393750,00.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Are neo-cons history?

By Jacob Weisberg

 

Published: March 14 2007 19:17 | Last updated: March 14 2007 19:17

 

The term “neo-conservative” has many usages, including “former liberal” and “Jewish conservative”. In recent years, however, it has taken on clearer definition as a philosophy of aggressive unilateralism and the attempt to impose democratic ideas on the Arab world. The neo-conservatives also constitute a distinct group around George W. Bush, the US president. They pushed for the invasion of Iraq and remain identified with hardline positions on Iran, Syria and North Korea.

 

Outside the administration, the chief fulcrum of neo-conservatism is the American Enterprise Institute. The day after vice-president Dick Cheney’s former aide Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury, AEI held its annual black-tie gala. I did not go expecting contrition, but under the circumstances it seemed possible that self-examination might feature on the menu. Once a lazy pasture for moderate Republicans hurtled into the private sector by Gerald Ford’s 1976 defeat, AEI has turned in recent years into a kind of Cheney family think-tank. It had not been a good week, year, or second term for any of these people and I thought a few cocktails might cause them to consider their predicament.

 

This was fantasy on my part. From the stage, one took no hint that matters were not working out as anticipated. All rose to salute the arrival of Mr and Mrs Cheney, herself a longtime fellow at the institute. The vice-president looked on from the head table as his friend, Bernard Lewis, perhaps the most significant intellectual influence behind the invasion of Iraq, came up to accept an award.

 

In his address, the 90-year-old Mr Lewis did not revisit his argument that regime change in Iraq could provide the jolt needed to modernise the Middle East. Instead, he spoke about the millennial struggle between Christianity and Islam. Mr Lewis argues that Muslims have adopted migration, along with terror, as the latest strategy in their “cosmic struggle for world domination”. This is a familiar framework from the original author of the phrase “the clash of civilisations”. What did surprise me was Mr Lewis’s denunciation of Pope John Paul II’s 2000 apology for the crusades as political correctness run amok, which drew clapping. Mr Lewis’s view is that the Muslims started the trouble by invading Europe in the eighth century; the crusades were merely a failed imitation of Muslim jihad in an endless see-saw of conquest and reconquest.

 

Were one to start counting ironies here, where would one stop? Here was a Jewish scholar criticising the Pope for apologising to Muslims for a holy war against Muslims, which was also a massacre of the Jews. Here were the theorists of the invasion of Iraq, many of them also Jewish, applauding the notion that the crusades were not so terrible and embracing a time horizon that makes it impossible to judge their war an error. And here was the clubhouse of the neo-conservatives, throwing itself a lavish party when the biggest question in American politics is how to escape the hole they have dug.

 

But whether or not the neo-cons are prepared to face it, there are increasing signs that their moment is finally over. At the Defence department, Donald Rumsfeld has been replaced by Robert Gates, a member of the Iraq Study Group and an affiliate of the realist school associated with the previous President Bush. Paul Wolfowitz, the architect who wanted to build a new Middle East on Saddam’s rubble, has been moved to the World Bank, where he observes a Robert McNamara-like silence on the failure of his war. Another former Pentagon official, Douglas Feith, is under investigation for misrepresenting intelligence data to make the case for the invasion.

 

At the State department, Condoleezza Rice is returning to her realist roots and now actually seems to direct policy. She has embraced shuttle diplomacy in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, is considering conversation with Syria and Iran and even made a nuclear deal with North Korea. These steps signify a broader shift away from what the neo-con defector Francis Fukuyama calls “hard Wilsonian” ideas and back towards the less principled, more effective pragmatism of Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser, and James Baker, former secretary of state.

 

The most important sign of all is the fading influence of Mr Cheney, who for six years dominated foreign policy in a way no previous vice-president ever has. Mr Cheney is discredited, unwell and facing various congressional investigations. He was badly damaged by the Libby trial, which exposed his ruthless mania to justify a war gone wrong.

 

But the larger factor in Mr Cheney’s demise is that his neo-conservative hypotheses have been falsified by events. Invading Iraq did not catalyse a new Middle East; isolating North Korea advanced its nuclear programme; high-handed unilateralism has reduced American power. At the outset of his presidency, Mr Bush thought himself lucky to have a number two who did not aspire to his job. He may now grasp the hazard of lending so much power to someone with no incentive to test his views in the political marketplace.

 

As disciples of Bernard Lewis, it is unlikely Mr Cheney and the neo-con crusaders will apologise for what they have wrought. Like Mr Bush, they look to the long span of history for vindication. It will indeed be eons before anyone trusts them again.

 

 

The writer is editor of Slate.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are neo-cons history?

By Jacob Weisberg

 

Published: March 14 2007 19:17 | Last updated: March 14 2007 19:17

 

The term “neo-conservative” has many usages, including “former liberal” and “Jewish conservative”. In recent years, however, it has taken on clearer definition as a philosophy of aggressive unilateralism and the attempt to impose democratic ideas on the Arab world. The neo-conservatives also constitute a distinct group around George W. Bush, the US president. They pushed for the invasion of Iraq and remain identified with hardline positions on Iran, Syria and North Korea.

 

Outside the administration, the chief fulcrum of neo-conservatism is the American Enterprise Institute. The day after vice-president Dick Cheney’s former aide Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury, AEI held its annual black-tie gala. I did not go expecting contrition, but under the circumstances it seemed possible that self-examination might feature on the menu. Once a lazy pasture for moderate Republicans hurtled into the private sector by Gerald Ford’s 1976 defeat, AEI has turned in recent years into a kind of Cheney family think-tank. It had not been a good week, year, or second term for any of these people and I thought a few cocktails might cause them to consider their predicament.

 

This was fantasy on my part. From the stage, one took no hint that matters were not working out as anticipated. All rose to salute the arrival of Mr and Mrs Cheney, herself a longtime fellow at the institute. The vice-president looked on from the head table as his friend, Bernard Lewis, perhaps the most significant intellectual influence behind the invasion of Iraq, came up to accept an award.

 

In his address, the 90-year-old Mr Lewis did not revisit his argument that regime change in Iraq could provide the jolt needed to modernise the Middle East. Instead, he spoke about the millennial struggle between Christianity and Islam. Mr Lewis argues that Muslims have adopted migration, along with terror, as the latest strategy in their “cosmic struggle for world domination”. This is a familiar framework from the original author of the phrase “the clash of civilisations”. What did surprise me was Mr Lewis’s denunciation of Pope John Paul II’s 2000 apology for the crusades as political correctness run amok, which drew clapping. Mr Lewis’s view is that the Muslims started the trouble by invading Europe in the eighth century; the crusades were merely a failed imitation of Muslim jihad in an endless see-saw of conquest and reconquest.

 

Were one to start counting ironies here, where would one stop? Here was a Jewish scholar criticising the Pope for apologising to Muslims for a holy war against Muslims, which was also a massacre of the Jews. Here were the theorists of the invasion of Iraq, many of them also Jewish, applauding the notion that the crusades were not so terrible and embracing a time horizon that makes it impossible to judge their war an error. And here was the clubhouse of the neo-conservatives, throwing itself a lavish party when the biggest question in American politics is how to escape the hole they have dug.

 

But whether or not the neo-cons are prepared to face it, there are increasing signs that their moment is finally over. At the Defence department, Donald Rumsfeld has been replaced by Robert Gates, a member of the Iraq Study Group and an affiliate of the realist school associated with the previous President Bush. Paul Wolfowitz, the architect who wanted to build a new Middle East on Saddam’s rubble, has been moved to the World Bank, where he observes a Robert McNamara-like silence on the failure of his war. Another former Pentagon official, Douglas Feith, is under investigation for misrepresenting intelligence data to make the case for the invasion.

 

At the State department, Condoleezza Rice is returning to her realist roots and now actually seems to direct policy. She has embraced shuttle diplomacy in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, is considering conversation with Syria and Iran and even made a nuclear deal with North Korea. These steps signify a broader shift away from what the neo-con defector Francis Fukuyama calls “hard Wilsonian” ideas and back towards the less principled, more effective pragmatism of Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser, and James Baker, former secretary of state.

 

The most important sign of all is the fading influence of Mr Cheney, who for six years dominated foreign policy in a way no previous vice-president ever has. Mr Cheney is discredited, unwell and facing various congressional investigations. He was badly damaged by the Libby trial, which exposed his ruthless mania to justify a war gone wrong.

 

But the larger factor in Mr Cheney’s demise is that his neo-conservative hypotheses have been falsified by events. Invading Iraq did not catalyse a new Middle East; isolating North Korea advanced its nuclear programme; high-handed unilateralism has reduced American power. At the outset of his presidency, Mr Bush thought himself lucky to have a number two who did not aspire to his job. He may now grasp the hazard of lending so much power to someone with no incentive to test his views in the political marketplace.

 

As disciples of Bernard Lewis, it is unlikely Mr Cheney and the neo-con crusaders will apologise for what they have wrought. Like Mr Bush, they look to the long span of history for vindication. It will indeed be eons before anyone trusts them again.

 

 

The writer is editor of Slate.com

 

 

People like this piss me off. He assumes that the people of Iraq are not capable of determining their own future. He assumes that the only way Iraq will succeed is if the great and mighty america builds it for them.

 

It is he who is short sighted and not the neo-cons. He wishes to proclaim a book finished when it is not even halfway written. The neo-cons never intended to write the ending of this book, only the first few chapters. It was always their intent that the nation and people of Iraq will write the rest.

 

Now I am not a neo-con. In fact I am a registered democrat - (the sworn enemy of neo-con). But I am not so hung up on scoring political points that I ignore the obvious. The neo-cons have always said that it was a 50 year project and that our direct involvement would be for less than ten. What exactly did he think they had in mind for the other 40?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...am/16944011.htm

 

Chalabi bemoans what he calls a failed occupation

By Hannah Allam

McClatchy Newspapers

Chalabi, sipping cardamom tea in an elegantly appointed salon, absolved himself of mistakes and insisted he had no regrets. Instead, he recited a litany of missteps he blames on the Bush administration, the U.S. military and newly minted Iraqi politicians who couldn't overcome their "parochial" interests for the good of the nation.

 

 

"The war was a success," Chalabi declared, "and the occupation a failure."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

الطالباني: تحول تحرير العراق إلى "احتلال" جلب نتائج وخيمة إلى البلاد

 

 

Talabani , in his speach to the Arab Summit " the transform of liberation into occupation brought desasrous results"

أنحى الرئيس العراقي جلال الطالباني خلال الكلمة التي ألقاها أمام القمة العربية في الرياض اليوم الخميس باللائمة على السياسات التي اتخذتها الإدارة المدنية الأميركية في العراق عقب سقوط نظام صدام حسين
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...