Did Israel Lead the US into the War on Iraq? - Plitnick, Beinin, Surasky

[Coastie for Truth]

As the war on Iraq rages on with no end in sight, the scandals around its beginnings continue to proliferate. Because of these scandals, one question now being revisited is the role the state of Israel may have played in initiating the invasion of Iraq.

Israel's role is debated whenever American policy in the Middle East is discussed. This is inevitable, because Israel is America’s key ally in the region and because the Israel-Palestine conflict is the focal point of attention for virtually anyone who cares about the Mideast. Some critics of the war on Iraq maintain that the decision to go to war was made largely to advance Israeli interests. Others maintain that Israel had nothing to do with it. The evidence suggests, however, that neither of these views is accurate.

--- SNIP ---(Please go to original article at

What matters are US interests
Oil is both the obvious and correct answer; specifically, American control over the region’s oil resources, which also motivates many policymakers’ support for Israel. It also motivates other policymakers’ urging greater American distance from Israel. The neocons, on the other hand, are ideologically supportive of Israel, as well as strategically, but this does not dictate all of their politics.

In a February 14, 2003 article in Foreign Policy in Focus, Michael Renner describes in detail just how huge the oil stakes were in Iraq and how big a difference for the US a client government replacing Saddam Hussein would make. The impact would be enormous, both for big oil companies and for many individuals connected to them in the Bush Administration. This is a much more obvious and clear reason for the war than Israeli interests. Berkeley political scientist Peter Dale Scott runs down a list of the geo-political and financial potential of US control over Iraq, as well as some of the challenges the US faced from nationalized oil and competition from the euro that framed the decision to go to war. These are just two of many sources that document a case, based on hard evidence, for why America went to war.

--- SNIP ---(Please go to original article at

Links (both cited by Plitnick):

1.

2.

As Plitnick et al. concede that one major problem with the oil analysis is that it doesn’t bother to consider the question of Israel. The same problem is mirrored on the other side—those advancing the “war for Israel” theory either ignore or dismiss other arguments. Plitnick et al state that’s the sort of environment in which conspiracy theories flourish (on both sides of the spectrum). Israel has always been a special concern of the United States, for strategic reasons, and so has oil.

Personal bias (in case you haven't guessed) -- after 30+ years in the alternative, renewable, and green energy industry -- )I got my degrees in chemical engineering when it was petroleum refinery centric but Big Oil didn't hire Jewish Boys) - IT's 99.999999% OIL

[Boojatta]

1. True or false: "the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia are or were the

focal point of attention for virtually anyone who cares about Europe."

Maybe it's a bit off topic, but I am curious about how people will answer that question.

[Colorado Blue]

2. Actually, I don't think the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia

were even of overwhelming importance in the rest of Europe. It took forever for anybody to bother intervening, to save lives and the life of a beautiful city - Sarejevo. It was really only when a massive refugee problem threatened to overwhelm other nations, Greece, Albania, etc., that serious attempts to resolve the conflict were undertaken - behind a US initiative, I believe.

That baffled me, actually. I think Europe is so scarred by WWs I and II, perhaps they are reluctant to engage in ANY crisis, even one IN EUROPE?

[bemildred]

4. No. nt

[Colorado Blue]

3. Oil has been a primary focus of the developed and developing

world for over a century, since it was first discovered as an efficient and cleaner alternative to coal.

One could argue that two World Wars were fought, in great part, to control the oil resources of the Middle East.

The fact that the British committed over 1,000,000 troops to the Middle East at the height of the fighting in France, speaks volumes.

Why? Because they like sand?

The idea that WWI broke out because some dude got shot in Sarejevo never made sense to me. But the threat to British industrial hegemony presented by the German plans to build a railroad from Kuwait to Berlin - THAT makes sense.

Germany had been cultivating the Ottomans for some time; the railroad, if completed, would have run from Europe, right through Turkey, to Mosul, thence to Kuwait. Germany would have been supplied with oil for its burgeoning industrial powerhouse, without having to ship the stuff thousands of miles, or rely upon coalmining.

Key focal points of WWII, again, were the oilfields of the Caucasus - hence the German attack on the Soviets - and also the Middle East - the Axis occupation of North Africa.

[Wordie]

5. But the authors point out that there were SEVERAL factors...

...and a concern for Israel and Israeli interests was one.

From the article:

The neocons and Israeli support for the war
We know that the Iraq invasion was pushed forcefully by the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration. Many of the neocons are Jewish, though not all of them. But when it comes to US Mideast policy, there is virtually no disagreement among them in relying on a powerful Israel as a key component. This, in and of itself, would fly in the face of the notion that Israel and Israeli interests were completely removed from the decision to invade Iraq. A number of key figures among the neocon wing of the Bush Administration were involved in writing an advisory paper for the Netanyahu government in 1996 entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. This paper listed removing Saddam Hussein from power as an “an important Israeli strategic objective.” It defies logic to believe that the same people, in their push toward war on Iraq, simply didn’t think about this. Writers involved in the “Clean Break” paper included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser and James Colbert. All of them were powerful proponents, in and out of government, for the war on Iraq.

Israeli support for the invasion was never a secret. Both the Sharon government and a clear majority of the Israeli populace favored attacking Iraq. A Guardian (UK) report on the undermining of US intelligence agencies in order to provide “evidence” to support the invasion describes how Americans working outside the CIA worked with Israelis operating outside of the Mossad to help produce that “evidence.”Reports before the war indicated that Israel was playing a key role in preparing for the invasion, and other reports indicate that Israeli operatives have been working among Iraqi Kurds.

Against the idea of a war for Israel
But all of this is a far cry from proving that this was a “war for Israel.” While the results of the war don’t necessarily shed light on the intentions of the planners, the fact is that Israel’s position in the region is less secure as a result of the Iraq war, as many of us predicted. Some believed before the war that Israel would use the cover of the war to expel Palestinians from the West Bank en masse, but this never materialized. But the war has only increased mistrust in the United States’ ability to honestly broker the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the fact that the US allowed Sharon to count the unilateral disengagement from Gaza as being part of the “Roadmap” is perceived as an American agreement that Israel may impose facts and call it a “peace process.” The increase in both the number and the organization of terrorist groups like al Qaeda also increases the risk to Israel. Whatever gains Israel has made in advancing its policies in the Occupied Territories and the larger Middle East in the past three years have not come as a result of the war on Iraq, but despite it. (For views on this across the spectrum, see http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/article.html
http://www.juancole.com/2004/06/situation-in-iraq-acutely-threatens.html

The “Clean Break” paper, which is the cornerstone of the “war for Israel” theory, focuses on the idea of Israel as an independent actor. Where toppling Saddam is one point among many, promoting an independently-acting Israel is a major theme of the paper. Although constant lobbying to maintain and even increase aid to Israel is a permanent face of Middle East politics in America, the Israeli right, for whom the “Clean Break” paper was written, has always sought to move away from American aid so that Israel could act on its own, without having to worry about Washington’s reaction. Having America intervene so powerfully on Israel’s behalf flies in the face of one of the “Clean Break” paper’s central tenets, strongly implying that the decision to invade Iraq, though contemplated by these very same people, was not a primary way of advancing the goals set forth in the paper. Israel’s position was certainly not ignored by the neocon planners of the Iraq war; but the war does not advance the vision promoted in the paper.

So the authors take a balanced view, from what I see.

I agree with their analysis for the most part. I do question, however, their claim that the "Israel as an independent actor" theme of "A Clean Break" is as significant as they portray it to be in analyzing to what degree concerns about Israel influenced our policies. That "A Clean Break" has as its central tenet greater independence for Israel does not seem to me necessarily to mean that the other strategies for ensuring Israel's success would be abandoned by the writers and supporters of the neocon take on things in the administration, does it? It's not necessary for the goal of Israeli independence to be pursued by the US (which of course makes no sense), for those other goals to be pursued. At the time the paper was written we had a different administration. The goal of independence, as I see it, was meant to be the way that Israel could achieve those other goals. Once Bush became President, and the neocons found themselves with the ability to shape US foreign policy, they simply did not need to concern themselves with the independence issue, as many, although not all, clearly saw US interests and Israeli interests in the ME as virtually indentical.

That said, I also think that the article presents a great analysis of the overall situation. It was neither oil alone that led us to war, nor a concern for Israel alone that led us to war, but rather both played a part.

[Coastie for Truth]

6. Oil and/or Israel - Nth Redux - just for the two of us

As a counterpoint to the "A Clean Break" paper - I would mention that Bush and Cheney - both oil men - would have to be aware of the issues raised by "Peak Oil" - that is, we are running out of cheap, accessible, "sweet crude." What's left is either more expensive to drill, refine, ship, or "steal and defend." As one who has spend most of a career in various positions in the alternative, renewable, and clean energy fields, I would have to say that "peak oil" trumnps "Israel."

See for example,

*

* The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century -- by James Howard Kunstler

* Beyond Oil : The View from Hubbert's Peak by Kenneth Deffeyes

* Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy by Matthew R. Simmons

* Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage
by Kenneth S. Deffeyes

* Blood and Oil : The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum by Michael T. Klare

* Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil by David Goodstein


* The Prize : The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power by Daniel Yergin

* Crude Politics : How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism
by Paul Sperry

BTW - thanks for your previous suggestion of "America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order" by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke. Interesting, not persuasive. But they do have an interesting suggestion of the origin of neo-con thought. That is, they agree with my perception of the change in Irving Kristol's writing in the late 1960's.

[Boojatta]

7. Neo-conservative motivation for the decision to invade Iraq

We know that the Iraq invasion was pushed forcefully by the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration.

Do you blame Bush, do you blame the particular neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration who pushed forcefully for the invasion, or do you blame some larger group of people? Could you identify the ideas that motivated the people who are to blame? Is it possible to describe flaws in those ideas very clearly so that, even with no insider status as a neoconservative, forceful "pusher", one might still be listened to?

But when it comes to US Mideast policy, there is virtually no disagreement among them in relying on a powerful Israel as a key component. This, in and of itself, would fly in the face of the notion that Israel and Israeli interests were completely removed from the decision to invade Iraq.

Had Israel been militarily less powerful, would the Bush Administration have been less willing to invade Iraq?

[Wordie]

8. Huh?

You selected this:

We know that the Iraq invasion was pushed forcefully by the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration.

I don't quite understand why, out of the entire article, you would select that particular quote to ask about. (...and you are aware, aren't you, that the quote came from the orignal article in the OP and that I was quoting from it?)

Then you asked these questions:
Do you blame Bush, do you blame the particular neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration who pushed forcefully for the invasion, or do you blame some larger group of people? Could you identify the ideas that motivated the people who are to blame? Is it possible to describe flaws in those ideas very clearly so that, even with no insider status as a neoconservative, forceful "pusher", one might still be listened to?

These questions seem a bit odd to me, but let me refer you to the OP once again, and to the articles espoused in "A Clean Break," which you can read here: http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm (The link was hot in the original article, but it didn't copy, and perhaps that's part of where the confusion has come from, if you haven't been able to read it.) As far as your blame question is concerned, there's lots to go around; my point was that it was not one person or group but a combination of factors, so trying to force it into an "either/or" thingie doesn't work for me. For the identification of some of those neocon ideas, I again suggest that you refer to "A Clean Break." The ideas in the paper focus on Israel, but many have been incorporated into the approach of the US administration regarding foreign policy in the ME.

As far as flaws are concerned, one that immediately comes to mind is the idea that we could destabilize Iraq in a positive way, or even that we could invade Iraq with a likely positive outcome. BASICS: There is a large Shia population in Iraq and Shias tend to be far more fundamentalist in their religious views (remember the Iranian revolution?); the Baathists who had been in power under Saddam on the other hand, tend to be more secular. Had there been any person with this very basic knowledge, they could have easily predicted some of what we see now, with the Iraqi Shias increasingly aligning with the much larger Shia population in Iran, increasing the power of the mullahs of Iran, as a result of the war. I think a very forceful point could have been made predicting this outcome, and that such an outcome would be highly counter to US interests, not to mention those of Israel. Instead, we know what happened. I don't think any neocon would have make this point, however, as they appeared to be have been in the thrall of the idea of "regime change," as espoused in "A Clean Break."

Then you quoted the following, again from the article:

But when it comes to US Mideast policy, there is virtually no disagreement among them in relying on a powerful Israel as a key component. This, in and of itself, would fly in the face of the notion that Israel and Israeli interests were completely removed from the decision to invade Iraq.

You asked this:

Had Israel been militarily less powerful, would the Bush Administration have been less willing to invade Iraq?

And there, it appears there has been a misconstruing of the intent of the authors of the piece when they made that observation. I think when they refer to "a powerful Israel," they are speaking of the goal that Israel be powerful, vis a vis her neighbors, rather than as you seem to have read it, that, somehow, the military power of Israel itself led to the US invasion of Iraq. (Or maybe I'm entirely missing your question's point. It does not seem to make much sense to me.)

[Boojatta]

9. "Huh" motivates clarification. Clarity -- it's a good thing.

(...and you are aware, aren't you, that the quote came from the orignal article in the OP and that I was quoting from it?)

You didn't select the quotes because you wanted to ask questions about them, right? You selected the quotes because you understood them and thought that they deserved attention, right?

There is a large Shia population in Iraq and Shias tend to be far more fundamentalist in their religious views...

If a community includes a large number of Shia then there is an automatic hazard?

...they could have easily predicted some of what we see now, with the Iraqi Shias increasingly aligning with the much larger Shia population in Iran

If Shia convert Americans to Shia Islam, then can the US government predict that those Americans will align themselves with the Shia population in Iran? Should freedom of speech and freedom of religion therefore be abolished in the USA?

And there, it appears there has been a misconstruing of the intent of the authors of the piece when they made that observation. I think when they refer to "a powerful Israel," they are speaking of the goal that Israel be powerful...

Maybe I misunderstood the authors, but the authors did use the phrase "relying on a powerful Israel."

[Wordie]

14. Since you like questions:

Here's one for you: what do you think of the article?

I do think I was not clear enough about my comments about the Shias. Its the fundamentalist, theocratic part of the equation that should have been emphasized in what I said. Nevertheless, to go on to ask, based on what I wrote, if I thought all Shias pose an automatic hazard is just not at all what I was talking about (and I have no choice but to presume that your questions arise out of your reading of what I wrote, since you give me nothing else to go on - if they are being asked for some other reason, please let me know).

Your questions about the Shia in the US aren't clear. If there was a large Shia population in the US that believed - and intended to act on that belief - that the US should become a fundamentalist theocratic nation, and imposing their beliefs on everyone else, then yes, I'd be very concerned. Just as I am about Robertson and Falwell. Otherwise, why should anyone fear them? And who said anything anywhere about freedom of speech or religion in the US, or anywhere else? Besides, one can believe that people ought to have religious freedom while simultaneously believing that the exercise of that religion in the political sphere in any particular case might not be in our best interests. The world is nuanced, not black and white.

Your questions feel to me more intended to provide you with a "gotcha" moment at my expense than an honest or respectful discussion of the issues presented either in the article overall, or in the specific part I quoted. Who knows I may be reading you wrong, and so entirely wrong about that. Again, what do you think about the part of the article I quoted? Reveal yourself.

[Boojatta]

19. "exercise of that religion in the political sphere in any particular case"

Here's one for you: what do you think of the article?

No comment. Maybe if this were a thread in the Nonfiction forum....

Your questions about the Shia in the US aren't clear.

Okay, feel free to specify what isn't clear. Then I might keep the questions the same but attempt to add clarifying comments, or revise the questions, or simply forget about those questions and move on.

Besides, one can believe that people ought to have religious freedom while simultaneously believing that the exercise of that religion in the political sphere in any particular case might not be in our best interests.

In your words "our best interests" what group of people were you considering as possessing the interests that you have in mind? For example, were you referring to progressives throughout the world; to all Americans; to American progressives; to any people who welcome facts and don't just accept facts when absolutely forced to; or to some other group?

Could you elaborate on the issue of exercise of religion in the political sphere? Is there anything you can say about the way that some Shia in Iraq are exercising religion in the political sphere?

The above paragraph "Could you elaborate..." is on the subtopic of flaws in the ideas that motivated the invasion of Iraq. Of course, the thread title is "Did Israel Lead the US into the War on Iraq?" and technically Israel is not an idea, but perhaps the above paragraph is nevertheless on topic.

[Wordie]

23. Oh, I see now...

I said:

Here's one for you: what do you think of the article?

Then you said:
No comment. Maybe if this were a thread in the Nonfiction forum....

Apparently you've missed the concept: what a "discussion forum" is for. I think the authors made some good points. If you disagree with me, fine. But I'm hardly going to get into this any further with you if you aren't really intending to disuss anything.

I'm here to discuss the issues. What about you? From what exalted position do you reject the authors' position outright?

[Boojatta]

24. Maybe "Oh, I see now..." means "Welcome to the Israel/Palestine Forum"

I think the authors made some good points. If you disagree with me, fine.

I neither agreed nor disagreed. I said "no comment."

From what exalted position do you reject the authors' position outright?

Do you intend to suggest that "outright" rejection of the authors' position is not "fine" with you? Isn't it possible to think the authors made some good points, but to nevertheless reject the authors' position? In any case, if you wish to insinuate that I reject the authors' position "outright" (whatever that means), then could you please quote my words to that effect?

[Wordie]

27. You said: "Maybe if this were a thread in the Nonfiction forum...."

Again, here it is in it's entirety:

No comment. Maybe if this were a thread in the Nonfiction forum....

If that is not an outright rejection of the authors' point, my apologies; but could you please explain then why you said that? You seem to be twisting your own words!

All those who wish to discuss issues are welcome in the I/P Discussion Forum, imho. Why not give it a try?

[Boojatta]

28. Well, this seems to be a rather long-winded response to your question

In response to "Since you like questions: Here's one for you: what do you think of the article?", I wrote: "No comment."

I also tried to explain why I had no comment: "Maybe if this were a thread in the Nonfiction forum...."

If the discussion had been about a short story from a book of short stories, then the discussion might occur in the DU forum called "Books: Fiction."

The discussion was about an article/essay. If there is or will be a book that includes that article, then maybe the discussion could occur in the DU forum called "Books: Non-Fiction." That forum seems an appropriate place for a general question such as "what do you think of the article?".

Perhaps you will pardon my casual use of the words "Nonfiction forum" to refer to what is formally known as the "Books: Non-Fiction" forum. In fact, I had forgotten about the "books" part, so it didn't even occur to me that a stand-alone essay would not be discussed in the "Books: Non-Fiction" forum.

[bemildred]

10. Questions are much easier to think up than answers. nt

[Boojatta]

11. Did I claim that I was ambitious?

[bemildred]

12. Only one this time? nt

[Colorado Blue]

13. Wordie, which do you really think, even if Israel were a factor,

was the most IMPORTANT factor: Israel or oil?

There's a disturbing trend afoot, to pin the blame for Iraq on Israel and/or on American Jews, when the overwhelming evidence indicates that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush, representing powerful industrial concerns, were interested in Saddam and in Iraq, for years.

I think that it is a very dangerous, as well as a very misleading, idea, to attempt to focus on "the Jewish question" in this way. In fact it is disturbingly reminiscent of 1920's Europe.

Also, the idea that Israel should be strong and defensible is not a bad or a rightwing idea. Rather, having a strong, Western, democratic state that is economically part of a developing Middle East makes sense. It makes sense for the people of the region as well as for America. Only those who continue to be focused on the idea that Israel is evil and should be destroyed, can't see the fact that an end to strife between Arab and Israeli equals vastly improved prospects for everybody concerned, and find this idea problematic.

As an example: Israeli desalinization and irrigation techniques are the best in the world. Does it make sense to beat up the people who have the best chance of helping produce the one resource more valuable than oil - WATER?

And, what is to be served by having a weak and helpless Israel, besides creating the probability of another Holocaust?

[Wordie]

15. Let me start out by saying...

I think that the issue of the neocons is frequently misconstrued as being an attack aimed at Jewsish people in general. I would have to say I have now read things by a of couple posters (not here on DU; elsewhere) that may indeed be such a general attack. I join you in condemning that. But that's not at all what I am saying; nor what many of the people who have voiced a concern about it are saying.

There's a disturbing trend afoot, to pin the blame for Iraq on Israel and/or on American Jews, when the overwhelming evidence indicates that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush, representing powerful industrial concerns, were interested in Saddam and in Iraq, for years.

I think that it is a very dangerous, as well as a very misleading, idea, to attempt to focus on "the Jewish question" in this way. In fact it is disturbingly reminiscent of 1920's Europe.

I did not generalize from the neocons to all American jews as a group; neither did the authors of the article. Further, the article was posted on a Jewish peace site; one can presume that they did not make such a generalization either. I acknowledge that there are some who do generalize in that way, but to presume that all who raise an alarm about the neocons are doing so is itself a highly inaccurate generalization. And to jump from that to a Holocaust concern seems to me to have the effect of shutting down an important discussion, which has absolutely nothing to do with an impending Holocaust.

Also, the idea that Israel should be strong and defensible is not a bad or a rightwing idea. Rather, having a strong, Western, democratic state that is economically part of a developing Middle East makes sense.

And, what is to be served by having a weak and helpless Israel, besides creating the probability of another Holocaust?

Where did anyone say that Israel should not be strong and defensible? The question is about the means used to assure that.

Wordie, which do you really think, even if Israel were a factor, was the most IMPORTANT factor: Israel or oil?

One question about your question: important to who? That's the issue. For the pro-Israel neocon hawks (not Cheyney, who I would judge to be more interested in oil, and Rumsfeld, who may be more concerned with dreams of empire and domination for the US), which is what the Jewish neocon members of the administration very clearly are, the answer would be Israel, imho. And the authors of the article, as well as the group sponsoring the site on which the article was posted, appear to agree. Therefore, as I said before, I would judge it to be a combination of factors that led us to war.

[Colorado Blue]

16. Well, as I've told you before, I thought that the war in Iraq

was a terrible idea for a lot of reasons.

One of the primary reasons, apart from the chaos I KNEW was going to break out, and which Bremer now says the Administration didn't foresee (duh), would claim so many innocent lives.

But a secondary reason, was I knew all along it would rebound on Israel AND on American Jews.

For one thing, I have always found it suspicious that the point men on the tube, explaining the war for the Administration, were the unappealing Wolfie and Perle. I mean, you put a comic opera Jew on the tube, his nickname is "The Prince of Darkness" - it seems tailor made to cast aspersions on Jewish people in general.

I know you do not believe this way but many people, around the world, traditionally have scapegoated Jews for various catastrophes. And in fact, that has occurred in this case. Antisemitic attacks have risen directly since 9/11, the reports from around the world are discouraging. Europe is becoming outright unsafe and the Middle East defies description.

Fears of a Holocaust in Israel are not unfounded. Israel is so small, it is only a few minutes flight time from air bases in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and was the target of Scuds from Iraq. Hizbollah in Lebanon has a serious missle arsenal and there are reports of weapons and even al Qaeda terrorists crossing into Gaza in recent weeks. On top of that the Iranian president has been blathering on in a way we haven't heard since Hitler and Hamas has declared the "hudna" is over and that they will seek to destroy the vestiges of the Oslo Accords, should they be elected and form a government in the P.A.

People have somehow gotten an idea that Israel is some mighty collossus, which runs the world at the very least. But in fact it is smaller than Lake Erie and extremely vulnerable. So concern for the safety of her 6 million citizens isn't wrong. It's merely humane.

[Coastie for Truth]

17. I don't know your background, education, or where you work

but based on your post, especially

One question about your question: important to who? That's the issue. For the pro-Israel neocon hawks (not Cheyney, who I would judge to be more interested in oil, and Rumsfeld, who may be more concerned with dreams of empire and domination for the US), which is what the Jewish neocon members of the administration very clearly are, the answer would be Israel, imho. And the authors of the article, as well as the group sponsoring the site on which the article was posted, appear to agree. Therefore, as I said before, I would judge it to be a combination of factors that led us to war.

I think we have had vastly different life experiences.

Suffice it to say, I have spent my career in several non-fossil fuel segments of the energy industry - where we have a Ying/Yang, "predator-prey" relationship with the petroleum industry.

I know them - I know how they operate - and I have even worked (past tense) for companies that have been bought by Halliburton and by Bechtel. I have had Texas Barbecue at the County Line Barbecue looking down on Austin and I have had shrimps at the San Jacinto Inn looking out over the Ship Channel, and I have had Gulf Shrimp at Gaido's in Galveston and at the Marina in Corpus Christi. I know the oil industry - I know it's people - the ones who fight the Coast Guard to minimize safety and environmental related "costs" (does the Valdez ring bell) and the ones who file predatory frivolous law suits against the "little guys" and "newbies" in the alternative, renewable, and green energy industry (I have been through those).

Israel would not make a pimple on a Texas oilman's left butt cheek. Israel don't mean crap to big oil. They still don;t hire Jews.

The Jewish neocon members of the administration are little more then an "Amen Corner" to be scape goats when the war goes badly. (And if you don't know what I mean by "scape goats when the war goes badly" you don't know any Jewish history or sociology - and I won't apologize for that one). Oil is the motivator.

"Coastie"

PhD (Chemical Engineering)
Professional Engineer

[Wordie]

20. Those were views contained in the article you posted!

Read it again. I merely agreed with the POVs of the authors of the article.

Here's the crucial section, right here:

The neocons and Israeli support for the war
We know that the Iraq invasion was pushed forcefully by the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration. Many of the neocons are Jewish, though not all of them. But when it comes to US Mideast policy, there is virtually no disagreement among them in relying on a powerful Israel as a key component. This, in and of itself, would fly in the face of the notion that Israel and Israeli interests were completely removed from the decision to invade Iraq. (emphasis mine)

A number of key figures among the neocon wing of the Bush Administration were involved in writing an advisory paper for the Netanyahu government in 1996 entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. This paper listed removing Saddam Hussein from power as an “an important Israeli strategic objective.” It defies logic to believe that the same people, in their push toward war on Iraq, simply didn’t think about this. Writers involved in the “Clean Break” paper included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser and James Colbert. All of them were powerful proponents, in and out of government, for the war on Iraq. (emphasis mine)

So, there you have it. The authors who you claimed agreed with your postition that it was nothing but oil that led us into the war with Iraq have a more nuanced postition than you apparently realized, and are saying that it wasn't just one thing that led us to war. And keep in mind that this is posted on a Jewish peace site; hardly people who are anti-semitic! So that isn't the motivation for those comments, clearly. It seems to me that they are discussing the fact that there are many views on politics within the Jewish community, and in this case, they're critically discussing the ideas of those particular Jewish neocons in the administration.

[Coastie for Truth]

21. I'm familiar with the article

I was disagreeing with the emphasis the authors put on the For the pro-Israel neocon hawks ... which is what the Jewish neocon members of the administration very clearly are, the answer would be Israel, imho.

I know oil - I know the industry - I know the people --- I have relied on them for research contracts, and been sued by them (to disrupt an "initial public offering") and sued them (employment discrimination class action), and I have lived in Texas.

My experience is that OIL was the prime mover for Iraq -- and Israel wouldn't make a pimple on a real Texas Oil Man's left butt cheek in the equation to go to war in Iraq.

The Israel Lobby (a minority within a minority) was there as a scape goat - when the war turned sour and the public support disappeared.

I opposed the war from Day 1 -- but then again, I worked on the General Motors Electric Vehicle, was on the waiting list to lease one, and own a Prius, and I take transit whenever I can. And, I try to follow a "Jim Kunstler" oil minimization life style.

[Coastie for Truth]

18. I posted the JVP study

to show that even JVP - Berkeley CA/Oakland CA based, far left, Jewish peace group, discounts Israel as a factor in the Iraqi War.

And JVP (and their spin off, AJVP) participated in International Answer's march (Beyt Tikkun was uninvited the first time). So, they are clearly not PNAC or Neocon.

Don't try to micro analyze the Jewish Left from outside - I am a relative of Lev Davidovich Bronstein (who my JVP relatives call "Cousin Leon") - and I get lost in the fine points and details (like the Uganda Movement and the Birobidzhan Movement, and the Kibbutzim of Northeastern Ohio and Minnesota and Northern California ... and I was raised in the Movement, talked about it every night at dinner, went to the Movement's after school and summer programs, etc. "Movement" refers to Workingmen's Circle and the Marxist Zionist Groups)

[barb162]

22. In the first Richard Clarke book

there was an interesting exchange right after 9-11 between Clarke and Bush. Paraphrasing, Bush saw Clarke and and first thing he asked was did Hussein do this. Clarke said no it most likely was al qaida, bin Laden, etc. And Bush asked him again. Bush, I believe, was after Hussein and Iraq before he ever got in the White House.

[Boojatta]

25. Caring about the Middle East, Visual Art , and lots of other stuff

the Israel-Palestine conflict is the focal point of attention for virtually anyone who cares about the Mideast.

Unless I am mistaken, art was stolen from at least one museum in Iraq as a consequence of inadequate provision of security by some person(s) in control of the US military.

If a US military commander had been personally interested in art and antiquities from the Middle East and had taken action and prevented the theft, then might that military commander nevertheless be excluded from a list of people that includes "virtually everyone who cares about the Mideast"?

Consider people who have a serious interest in some or all of the following: languages of the Middle East, law in the Middle East, sociology of the Middle East, epidemiology of the Middle East, religion in the Middle East, music of the Middle East, history of the Middle East, archaeology of the Middle East.

If the Israel-Palestine conflict is not the focal point of attention for some of those people, then are they not included in a list of people that includes "virtually everyone who cares about the Mideast"?

[Coastie for Truth]

26. Very good point.

You could write a great doctoral dissertation on that point. We have some fine universities in the local area.

[Englander]

29. From Haaretz -

White man's burden

By Ari Shavit
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical

1. The doctrine

WASHINGTON - At the conclusion of its second week, the war to liberate Iraq wasn't looking good. Not even in Washington. The assumption of a swift collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime had itself collapsed. The presupposition that the Iraqi dictatorship would crumble as soon as mighty America entered the country proved unfounded. The Shi'ites didn't rise up, the Sunnis fought fiercely. Iraqi guerrilla warfare found the American generals unprepared and endangered their overextended supply lines. Nevertheless, 70 percent of the American people continued to support the war; 60 percent thought victory was certain; 74 percent expressed confidence in President George W. Bush.

Washington is a small city. It's a place of human dimensions. A kind of small town that happens to run an empire. A small town of government officials and members of Congress and personnel of research institutes and journalists who pretty well all know one another. Everyone is busy intriguing against everyone else; and everyone gossips about everyone else.

In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend to read reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the success of the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall).

Are they wrong? Have they committed an act of folly in leading Washington to Baghdad? They don't think so. They continue to cling to their belief. They are still pretending that everything is more or less fine. That things will work out. Occasionally, though, they seem to break out in a cold sweat. This is no longer an academic exercise, one of them says, we are responsible for what is happening. The ideas we put forward are now affecting the lives of millions of people. So there are moments when you're scared. You say, Hell, we came to help, but maybe we made a mistake.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&sw=n

[Coastie for Truth]

30. Old and disproven news (from 2003)

The Shavit piece is a little bit old, obsolete, and superseded. 2003. Why not try "America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order" by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, newer and equally incorrect. By 2004 it was perfectly clear to those of us in the ENERGY INDUSTRY that this was a war about oil.

Go to the original source, viz., PNAC's .

1. Winning the Oil Endgame, Amory Lovins

2. The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century James Howard Kunstler

3. Democratic Underground: Israel-Palestine: The New Red, White and Blue, Thomas Friedman, NY Times 1/6/06, parallel citation The New Red, White and Blue, Thomas Friedman, NY Times 1/6/06

4. The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century -- by James Howard Kunstler

5. Beyond Oil : The View from Hubbert's Peak by Kenneth Deffeyes

6. Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy by Matthew R. Simmons

7. Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage
by Kenneth S. Deffeyes

8. Blood and Oil : The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum by Michael T. Klare

9. Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil by David Goodstein

10. The Prize : The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power by Daniel Yergin

11. Crude Politics : How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism
by Paul Sperry

12. - This is a blog by an energy insider who was there when BP shut down their solar energy project the first two times, when ARCO shut down their solar energy project, and when General Motors shut down their electric car and hybrid projects.

[Englander]

31. ~~Oil, Empire & Israel.~~

Any attempt to try & claim that the Iraq war was solely about the acquisition of natural
resources, any attempt to try & claim that it's wasn't about Full Spectrum Dominance*, or
a Likud-friendly strategy for securing the realm**, isn't very convincing.

___________________________


'The spies who pushed for war

Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force

Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian

As the CIA director, George Tenet, arrived at the Senate yesterday to give secret testimony on the Niger uranium affair, it was becoming increasingly clear in Washington that the scandal was only a small, well-documented symptom of a complete breakdown in US intelligence that helped steer America into war.

It represents the Bush administration's second catastrophic intelligence failure. But the CIA and FBI's inability to prevent the September 11 attacks was largely due to internal institutional weaknesses.

This time the implications are far more damaging for the White House, which stands accused of politicising and contaminating its own source of intelligence.

According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.

The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

________________________________________

*

'Dominance and Its Dilemmas

The Bush administration’s Imperial Grand Strategy

Noam Chomsky

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.5/chomsky.html

------

'Shock, awe and Hobbes have backfired on America's neocons

Iraq has shown the hubris of a geostrategy that welds the philosophy of the Leviathan to military and technological power

Richard Drayton
Wednesday December 28, 2005
The Guardian

The tragic irony of the 21st century is that just as faith in technology collapsed on the world's stock markets in 2000, it came to power in the White House and Pentagon. For the Project for a New American Century's ambition of "full-spectrum dominance" - in which its country could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major-theatre wars" - was a monster borne up by the high tide of techno euphoria of the 1990s.

>snip

Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance - a key strategic document published in 1996 - aimed to understand how to destroy the "will to resist before, during and after battle". For Harlan Ullman of the National Defence University, its main author, the perfect example was the atom bomb at Hiroshima. But with or without such a weapon, one could create an illusion of unending strength and ruthlessness. Or one could deprive an enemy of the ability to communicate, observe and interact - a macro version of the sensory deprivation used on individuals - so as to create a "feeling of impotence". And one must always inflict brutal reprisals against those who resist. An alternative was the "decay and default" model, whereby a nation's will to resist collapsed through the "imposition of social breakdown".

All of this came to be applied in Iraq in 2003, and not merely in the March bombardment called "shock and awe". It has been usual to explain the chaos and looting in Baghdad, the destruction of infrastructure, ministries, museums and the national library and archives, as caused by a failure of Rumsfeld's planning. But the evidence is this was at least in part a mask for the destruction of the collective memory and modern state of a key Arab nation, and the manufacture of disorder to create a hunger for the occupier's supervision. As the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported in May 2003, US troops broke the locks of museums, ministries and universities and told looters: "Go in Ali Baba, it's all yours!"

For the American imperial strategists invested deeply in the belief that through spreading terror they could take power. Neoconservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the recently indicted Lewis "Scooter" Libby, learned from Leo Strauss that a strong and wise minority of humans had to rule over the weak majority through deception and fear, rather than persuasion or compromise. They read Le Bon and Freud on the relationship of crowds to authority. But most of all they loved Hobbes's Leviathan. While Hobbes saw authority as free men's chosen solution to the imperfections of anarchy, his 21st century heirs seek to create the fear that led to submission. And technology would make it possible and beautiful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1674184,00.html

________________________________

**

'Playing skittles with Saddam

The gameplan among Washington's hawks has long been to reshape the Middle East along US-Israeli lines, writes Brian Whitaker

Tuesday September 3, 2002

>snip

For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would not be an unfortunate side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that everything is going according to plan.

In their eyes, Iraq is just the starting point - or, as a recent presentation at the Pentagon put it, "the tactical pivot" - for re-moulding the Middle East on Israeli-American lines.

This reverses the usual approach in international relations where stability is seen as the key to peace, and whether or not you like your neighbours, you have to find ways of living with them. No, say the hawks. If you don't like the neighbours, get rid of them.

The hawks claim that President Bush has already accepted their plan and made destabilisation of "despotic regimes" a central goal of his foreign policy. They cite passages from his recent speeches as proof of this, though whether Mr Bush really knows what he has accepted is unclear. The "skittles theory" of the Middle East - that one ball aimed at Iraq can knock down several regimes - has been around for some time on the wilder fringes of politics but has come to the fore in the United States on the back of the "war against terrorism".

Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled "A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm", it was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu. As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy "based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,785394,00.html

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

34. Especially by James Howard Kunstler.

[Englander]

35. Ha!

I~heart~the Guardian!

:)

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.