[lit-ideas] Re: [SPAM] Re: Neoconservatism replaced by Realpolitik
- From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:27:20 -0700
It tells us that he'd rather see a Sunni controlled Middle East than a Shi'ite one. It
would be interesting to know why.
No, they don't want a Sunni-controlled ME either.
Iran has a large (big army, etc.), stable, and fairly supported by its
population.
In contrast, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. have weak armies (poorly-trained, poorly
armed, and poorly movtivated conscripts who are forced to serve, and would flee if they
could).
The only Arab army large enough to withstand Iran was... Iraq, which the Bush White House
itself closed down. This was a tremendous mistake; the Iraqi army was all that protected
everything else (Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.) from Iran.
Iran also has a popularly-elected government. Okay, it's not the best democracy, but it's
democratically elected, which does not apply for any of the other states.
Hamas and Hezbollah are quasi-states; they carry out the functions of a state: schools,
agricultural help, and so on. They are also armed and strong enough now to withstand the
Israeli army. Soon, they'll be large enough to attack Israel.
So the Middle East is a whole mess of trouble: the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt
could collapse and populist Islamic revolutions will take over.
Remarkably, Bush tried to provoke this: they invaded Iraq to provoke democratic revolutions
throughout the ME; the people would arise, overthrow their dictators, and in a fit of love,
sign peace treaties with Israel. Bush wanted to overthrow the governments of Egypt, Syria,
and Saudi Arabia. That would solve the entire problem.
But of course, the Iraqi Shiite have a majority so they took power. Bush unwittingly handed
Iraq to the Shiites. Iran won: they got rid of a threat, they got influence in Iraq, and by
being threatened, the Iranian government became stronger.
So now, we have the new situation: protect the authoritarian governments in Egypt, Syria,
Saudi Arabia, and Israel from from their own populations.
This means a very dangerous game: fund the Sunni jihadi to attack Iran. Launch a barrage
strike against Iran (destroy 400 targets, kill the leadership, destroy infrastructure). The
Iranian people declare a western democracy, sign a peace treaty with Israel, and Bush
collects a Nobel Peace Prize.
But what happens in Act 5? If this plan works, the Sunni jihadi will be armed to the teeth
and proud with victory. Idle boys will turn their attentions to other targets: their own
corrupt governments and the USA. How will the USA convince the Sunni jihadi (they really
love the USA in Iraq) to stop fighting?
That's impossible. The jihadi will eventually topple governments in Syria, Saudia Arabia,
and Egypt. And then we'll have a militant Islamic republic, stretching from Egypt to
Pakistan with Israel smack in the middle.
For the sake of a short-term victory, Bush will set in motion the energy for a long-term
massive defeat.
What do I think will happen? Sometime this summer, Bush will attack Iran. Both Bush and
Israel are convinced they can win this war. But the Israeli attack on Lebanon was a test of
this strategy; it didn't work. Shiites in Iraq will drive out the USA. Hezbollah and Hama
will give Israel a hard time. Iran will sink a few US battleships. When the dust settles,
the USA has not acheived its goal. Iran emerges as victor. The Arab governments will sue for
peace on Iranian terms. Fundamentalist Islam will become very powerful. If one of the large
Arab countries falls, the rest fall soon after.
These alliances are satanic. That's the only word for this. Bush is working with the 9.11
jihadi. The Arab governments are terrified of the jihadi, but must work with them. The
jihadi hate everyone. The idea of the CIA and Israel arming and supplying "our allies" (as
Lawrence now calls the jihadi) is monstrous. This alliance is deeply unstable. The moment
Iran is no longer the enemy, "our allies" will turn on us.
Act 6: Blowback.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 2:54 PM
Subject: [SPAM] [lit-ideas] Re: Neoconservatism replaced by Realpolitik
Having read both pieces (right the way through) it's interesting that there's a point
Lawrence leaves well alone.
Whether Hersch is right about the financing of Sunni extremists in Lebanon, or whether he's
mistaken, doesn't detract from the serious move away from the fundamental NeoCon policy, the
one that was advertised after 9/11 and the one that brought on board a whole host of angry
Americans; namely that the fight was against Islamic terrorism. There are many people out
there who, like Eric, just want to see this brand of terrorism ended. What Hersch is saying
and what Lawrence and Young (Reason.com) agree with, is that the time of absolutes is over
and realpolitik has taken over, realpolitik which dictates that the US now finds itself
allied with the same brand of Sunni extremists that they vowed to eradicate. Whether there
is funding or not, Bush et al are siding against Shi'ites not because this might be the best
way to reach the goal of ending Islamic terrorism, but rather because it contributes towards
some goal that is, in the advertised war, unspecified. In other words, this move to
realpolitik tells us more about Bush's foreign policy. It tells us that he'd rather see a
Sunni controlled Middle East than a Shi'ite one. It would be interesting to know why.
My guess is that the motivation is complex. For instance, the principal players in the
Shi'ite camp are the Iranians, the same Iranians that were balanced by Saddam the Dictator,
the same Iranians that had Chalabi in their pocket, quite possibly the same Iranians that
pushed the Bush Administration into Iraq. Revenge then? Possibly. Certainly, if it was the
Iranians that Bush was after all the time, what on earth was he doing attacking Iraq. Oil,
the security of oil production in the Middle East (and a stake in it), is certainly on the
agenda as well - nobody could deny that - as is the continued allegiance with Saudi Arabia
and also that with Israel.
I'd guess also that this course of events has been in the making for some time, most likely
since it became clear that the Iraq fiasco was just that, a fiasco. I'd guess that the
assassination of Rafiq Harari had more to do with the intended pressurising of Syria rather
than Syria itself seeking to eradicate opposition in Lebanon - who benefitted from that
killing, certainly not Syria. Despite what Lawrence has said, the July War in Lebanon was
conceived by Israel (and the US probably) and was only triggered by Hezbollah's capture of
Israeli soldiers
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/834549.html
As it was, the war backfired and boosted Nasrallah's standing rather than turning much of
Lebanon against him. I'd also guess that the US has been involved in various black ops in
Iraq designed to ramp up hostilities between Sunni and Shia elements (no evidence, just a
hunch).
So where does this leave Bush's War on Terror? It's been very interesting to see the
nomenclature evolve since 9/11. Lawrence, I'm sure, will be more up to date with the current
vogue.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:26 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Neoconservatism replaced by Realpolitik
What you're saying, Andreas, isn't true. Make an accusation and see what happens, is that
the idea? You're laughing at your own joke. If you could stop laughing long enough to
think, you would recall attacking me several times over the years for believing in Samuel P.
Huntington's Clash of Civilization position -- which is directly opposed to the Neocon
approach. You can't have it both ways. It is not possible for me to support the Neocon
position and the Huntington position at the same time. In actual fact I have supported
neither. In note after note I have compared the two approaches, Huntington vs Fukuyama, but
have come down on neither side. I do recall saying that I could wish that Fukuyama were
right, but said in the same sentence or one right next to it that Huntington's view had more
evidence to support it.
And you insist on continuing to build upon your taunt rather than read the material you
are ostensibly discussing; which disproves your taunt. If we assume that virtually all of
the Middle East is radicalized (you may recall that I doubted that there were any Moderates
there to speak of), then if we are going to apply realpolitik we are going to have to
support some of them if we intend to get them to fight each other.
Note that your comment was that "the Bush White House is now arming al Quaeda-affliated
jihadi groups." I did say that didn't sound plausible. You provided no context, and I
couldn't imagine any that made any sense, but then I read the article (which you apparently
didn't) and learned of Hersh's context. He doesn't say quite what you say. Here is what
Hersh wrote: "American, European, and Arab officials I spoke to told me that the Siniora
goernment and its allies had allowed some aid to end up in the hands of emerging Sunni
radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian refugee camps
in the south. These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hezbollah; at the same
time, their ideological ties are with Al Qaeda."
Have you learned nothing from all the notes I've written (a rhetorical question)? The
"ideological ties" statement means what to you, Andreas? Quick! It means the teachings of
Sayyid Qutb. It means Islamic Fundamentalism. How many in the Islamic World share these
ideological ties with Al Qaeda? The estimate I've heard most often is 300,000,000. Osama
bin Laden studied under Sayyid Qutb's brother Mohammad Qutb. The ideology Hersh sloppily
aludes to is Islamism.
But notice what the Lebanese Opinion Writers says: "The Fatah al-Islam story is based
entirely on a quote by one alistair Crooke, a former MI6 agent, who, we learn, 'was told'
that weapons were offered to the group, 'resumably to take on Hezbollah.' The passage on
Esbat al-Ansar is not even sourced.
"The Fatah al-islam story is instructive, because it shows a recurring flaw in hersh's
reporting, namely his investigative paralysis when it comes to Syria. In articles past,
Hersh has acted as a conduit for those defending the post-9/11 intelligence collaboration
between the U.S. and Syria, and lamenting the Bush administration's subsequent isolation of
Damascus in the run-up to and aftemath of the Iraq invasion. Most Lebanses believe that
Fatah al-Islam, far from being aided by the Lebanse government, is in fact a Syrian plant .
. ."
Another comment about al-qaeda in the Hersh article quotes a representative of the Siniora
government as saying "We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a
presence here." Have we not supported the Siniora government against Nasrallah and his
Hezbollah? Did Israel not support the Siniora government against Hezbollah? Does this mean
that the Bush Administration and Israel supported Jihadi Organizations with Al Qaeda ties?
Well. . . sort of, but not in any meaningful way. Ideologically there is little difference
betwen the Islamism of Sayyid Qutb and the Islamism of Khomeini. One gave rise to Al Qaeda
and the other to Hezbollah. Let them fight it out, and may the better Islamist organization
win.
Lawrence
Lawrence
> ------------Original Message------------
> From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sun, Mar-11-2007 12:15 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Neoconservatism replaced by Realpolitik
>
> Oh, this is too funny!
>
> Realpolitik was the basis of foreign policy of the USA from the 1940s
> to the 1990s.
>
> The Neocons despised Realpolitik because it meant appeasement with the
> Soviet Union,
> peaceful co-existence, and cooperation. They demanded a foreign policy
> based on ethics: the
> USA never tolerates an evil country; the USA has a mission to destroy
> evil countries. Thus
> the Neocons came to power with W. Bush and launched their wars.
>
> For the past five years, Lawrence has attacked Realpolitik. He has
> supported and promoted
> Neocon policy.
>
> And now... he lectures me that Realpolitik is a proper policy for the
> USA.
>
> More than that, he writes:
>
> > But we would also like the Sunnis who are most opposed to Iran to be
> our allies against
> > Iran.
>
> Yesterday: "hardly plausible"
>
> Today: "sensible tactics".
>
> Lawrence is now supporting 9.11 jihadi.
>
> How quickly he flipped. How suddenly he forgot his past positions. It
> only took one day for
> Lawrence to throw everything he believed into the memory hole. How good
> he is at
> doublethink.
>
> Eastasia is our friend! Eurasia has always been our enemy! Long live
> Oceania!
>
> yrs,
> andreas
> www.andreas.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:44 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Neoconservatism replaced by Realpolitik
>
>
> Andreas:
>
> I don't believe you read Hersh's entire article -- much too long for
> you. This is evidenced
> further by your note below. Do you interact with Hersh, with Young, or
> with me? No, of
> course not -- way too much reading required for that; so you continue
> building not upon any
> of the three notes, but upon your original taunt, a statement not only
> taken out of context
> but plausibly disagreed with by the Lebanese Opinion Editor.
>
> If you had actually read these notes, we might have a discussion about
> realpolitik, and how
> it is a continuation of the European "balance of power." The British
> and Germans were both
> very good at that. Actually, World War One could have been avoided had
> the various nations
> been more open about their treaties and commitments. It does no good
> to swing over onto the
> side of a weaker power if your potential enemy doesn't know it.
>
> Now in regard to the Middle East, I mentioned that one of the reasons I
> never took them
> seriously before 9/11 was that they seemed too busy fighting amongst
> themselves to ever want
> to fight us. After 9/11 we took them seriously, but they have probably
> never been that far
> away from going back to the good old days of fighting amongst
> themselves. From a
> realpolitik standpoint we erred in applying our European approach to
> the Middle East. When
> those pesky Europeans fight they do it in grand style -- best keep them
> away from each
> other's military throats if at all possible, and we have managed to do
> that for the most
> part since WWII, but now that Militant Islam has discovered the joys of
> attacking the West,
> it serves no good purpose from a realpolitik standpoint to keep those
> guys from each other's
> throats. Let them go back to fighting amongst themselves and maybe
> they'll leave us alone.
>
> Hersh's article doesn't describe a clean realpolitik approach to the
> Middle East, however.
> From a desirability standpoint, yes, we would like the Iraqi Shiites to
> gain control of
> their government and remain our allies. But we would also like the
> Sunnis who are most
> opposed to Iran to be our allies against Iran.
>
> Realpolitik works even if the warriors know about it. We supported
> Saddam Hussein against
> Iran because we considered him the lesser of two evils. We didn't
> believe in his ambitions
> and he knew it. He knew exactly why we supported him, but he didn't
> care because he needed
> our support. The same thing applies in the Middle East -- even in
> Shiite Iraq, for example.
> Neocons here in the US believed in the idealism of a Liberal Democratic
> Iraq, but did the
> Shiite Iraqis ever embrace that ideal? I don't think so. Nevertheless
> they need US
> support. They need it to survive, and they don't want to move so far
> toward an antagonistic
> Sharia-Law approach that they antagonize the US. They are well aware
> that we are unhappy
> with Iran for several reasons including Iran's support of the forces
> opposing the US and
> Iraqi forces in Iraq. So we could get by with supporting Shiite Iraq
> and opposing Shiite
> Iran, but where it becomes complicated is in accepting nations like
> Saudi Arabia as our
> allies against Iran. They don't oppose Iran for the same reasons we
> do. They oppose them
> because they hate Shi'ism. That is the part I think difficult to
> manage.
>
> Unfortunately, realpolitik won't help us with Olivier Roy's alienated
> expatriate Muslims.
> Roy, and after him Fukuyama, believes that they rather then national
> Muslims are the real
> Islamic threat. They function as paramilitary organizations and owe
> allegiance to no Middle
> Eastern nation. If they operated out of a Middle Eastern nation like
> Afghanistan or Iran,
> the do it for reasons of convenience and not allegiance. These guys
> are still out there.
>
> Lawrence
>
>
>
> ------------Original Message------------
> From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sun, Mar-11-2007 10:41 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: For Lawrence
>
> From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> >> Lawrence, what do you say to the fact that the Bush White House is
> now arming al
> >> Qaeda-affiliated jihadi groups?
>
> > On the face of it, it doesn't sound plausible.
>
> Ah, so you admit it's plausible.
>
> Note Lawrence's reply. Lawrence of Arabia doesn't immediately dismiss
> as ludicrous or absurd
> the idea that Bush is collaborating with Islamic jihadi. Instead,
> Lawrence weakly says
> "well... on the face of it..."
>
> Lawrence realizes it is indeed plausible. It was these same Sunni Saudi
> militants who
> carried out 9.11, destroyed the WTC and attacked the Pentagon, but hey,
> what's a little
> misunderstanding among friends?
>
> Bush is preparing for a war with Iran. Bush and Israel are trying to
> provoke a general war
> between Sunni and Shiite. He is gathering the Sunni countries, namely,
> Egypt, Syria, and
> Saudi Arabia, which are threatened by Shiite Iran, into a coalition.
> Bush's tactic to
> support the Sunni jihadi is a short-term move, done in order to annoy
> Iran.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised at all when we find out the US is training the
> prisoners at
> Guantanamo, arming them, and sending them out to wage new wars.
>
> That's it, Lawrence. No more threat-of-militant-Islam from you. They
> are your friends now.
> You will now start cheering jihadi. Yesterday, you hated Leftists
> because they supported
> jihadi. Tomorrow, you'll hate Leftists because they are against the
> jihadi.
>
> This reminds me of something... ah, yes. The Communists. Remember in
> the 1930s how the
> Communists around the world fought against Hitler? And suddenly, there
> was the Hitler-Stalin
> Pact and Communists were dismayed to find they had to suddenly support
> their new allies? And
> then Hitler invaded the USSR and became the mortal enemy once again?
> Whipsawed back and
> forth.
>
> That's Lawrence's situation. The enemy is suddenly his ally, who one
> day will be enemy
> again. Lawrence of clear principles and total certaincy has to switch
> back and forth.
>
> yrs,
> andreas
> www.andreas.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Re: [SPAM] Re: Neoconservatism replaced by Realpolitik
