Right-wing "neo" conservatives are as bad (or as good) as Microsoft
- they never give up. Last week, they once again raised the possibility of
installing a king in Iraq:
We need not shy away from the 1925 [Iraqi] constitution because it establishes
a constitutional monarchy. Understandings could readily be worked out that
would not lead to a diminution of Amb. Bremer's substantive authority in
vital areas [apparently there would be a king, but Bremer would be
kingier] ... [King
and Country, By Bernard Lewis and R. James Woolsey, WSJ 10/29/03 requires
subscription for access]
This was originally part of the foreign policy of Israel. In 1996, Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu asked an Israeli think tank to come up with a foreign policy
statement for him. Here are some excerpts from it:
[Introduced the idea of getting rid of Saddam:] Israel can shape
its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening,
containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing
Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic
objective in its own right ...
[And the idea of having the Hashemites control Iraq:] Were the
Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to
help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and
Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost
the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and
in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.
The report was written by Richard Perle [now adviser
on US Defense Policy], James Colbert, Douglas Feith [now Undersecretary
of Defense] and others [A
Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm]
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - mike
I think we're screwed. We have the opposite of what existed in the late 50s/early 60s. Then, military leaders were itching for a nuclear first strike against the USSR. Civilian leaders like Eisenhower and Kennedy and LBJ restrained them. Now, it is civilian hawks who are trying to bully the military into carrying out their creepy agenda. You'll notice from the signatory list above that no more than 2-3 of these clowns have any military experience.
The difference is that now there is no countervailing power bloc like the Soviet Union to stop the lunatics. In the 60s, the USSR and USA wackos cancelled each other out.
Unending war for unattainable peace. The republic has been overthrown.
2 - jadester
altho i wouldn't be surprised if most or all of them have various financial interests in arms manufacturers...
3 - Pete Nelson
I think your conspiracy theories border on lunacy. They aren't worth serious contemplation. This kind of nonsense is why the Democrats are losing traction with the center. Did you read that Afghanistan just released a new constitution? No monarchy there! I wonder why, since Afghanistan had a king more recently than Iraq. Could it be that the U.S. wants a democracy there?
And why is anyone that disagrees with you "ultra-right wing?" Blech.
And Mike "the republic has been overthrown" Larkin - did you notice that we had elections yesterday?. If I were king, I would cancel all elections so I could appoint whomever I wanted and make whatever laws I wanted, wouldn't you? That Democratic mayor guy in Philly - he'd be out! So much for that "overthrown republic" business.
4 - Hal Pawluk
Hi, Pete. What conspiracy? Do you know something you're not telling us?
I simply laid out the planning that was engaged in by the ultra-right wing neoconservatives. It was a good plan and it was well-executed, achieving exactly the results they wanted.
Did you read any of the source material? If you do, you'll find that the neos weren't hiding anything, and proudly signed their names to everything.
Note that I call only the ultra-right wing neoconservatives, ultra-right wing, since that's what they are. Those who disagree with me, I usually don't label at all, as you would know if you really knew anything about me at all.
"Did you read that Afghanistan just released a new constitution? No monarchy there! I wonder why, since Afghanistan had a king more recently than Iraq. Could it be that the U.S. wants a democracy there?"
A more likely reason is that the warlords who have divided up the country don't want to give up any of their authority.
And did you read that the US has so far delivered democracy to the city of Kabul?
And that since the US did this, Afghanistan has become the world's largest producer of opium, providing 75% of the world's entire supply last year?
Blech, indeed.
5 - mike
Comment #3:I didn't say the "democracy" had been overthrown, sweet P. I said the "republic" had been overthrown. They had elections in imperial Greece. In late Napoleonic II France. In pre-Kaiser Germany. For a while. Empires are death to republican values and, ultimately, to democracy itself.
6 - Pete Nelson
Hal,
I did indeed read the source material. I think that you very much misunderstood it. The letter you cited doesn't appear to me to mean what you think it does. The way I read it, a group of conservatives (not "ultra-right wing" by any means - unless you include pretty much all Republicans in that category) asked President Clinton to take a strong stance against what they viewed as a serious threat. You draw together several loosely related sources, some of which I think are rather suspect (e.g. Woodward's book), and then come to the conclusion that the U.S. wants to install a king in Iraq!?! (That's the conspiracy you've apparently so cleverly discovered). I can't imagine what possible purpose that would serve. There has been no hint of that happening so far, that I'm aware of. I have heard nothing of any former Iraqi royalty stepping forward to assert sovereign rights. You say the plan was to install a king in Iraq and that "it was well executed." Well, where is this king?
And Mike, name calling is really the lowest form of argument. If you can't be respectful when you disagree, I won't bother with you. As far as I'm concerned, you've lost all credibility, so I'm done corresponding with you.
7 - Hal Pawluk
Pete, you say you read the sources but you seem to have skimmed past the facts about the king and focused on the letters (from which I specifically said the call for the king was dropped).
The king of Jordan was proposed to control Iraq in the 1996 briefing paper prepared for Netanyahu by Perle et al. and presented to the US Congress a few days later by Netanyahu.
If you had read the Wall Street Journal article, you would have seen that I did not "come to the conclusion that the U.S. wants to install a king in Iraq!?!":
James Woolsey specifically proposed exactly that.
8 - Pete Nelson
Hal, you say that the call for a king was dropped, and yet in your article you say "And now we may end up with a King of Iraq again..." So, is there or is there not some sort of plot or plan to install a king in Iraq (specifically, King Hussein of Jordan, you seem to be saying)?
James Woolsey may have proposed that, but he isn't part of the current administration, and hasn't been in government since 1995. According to this (www.csis.org/html/4woolsey.htm), Woolsey is a partner in a law firm. He has lots of other corporate positions on various boards, and he is a VP of Booz Allen and Hamilton. So, how does what he said reflect official U.S. policy?
If there is a plan to install a king, why hasn't it happened, and why hasn't there been any mention of such a plan in the media? If there is no such plan (after reading your original post and your subsequent comments, I can no longer discern what you actually think), then what was the point of your article? Was it to establish that the "ultra-right wing" neo-cons are plotting some great conspiracy?
If that's the case, what's the aim of the conspiracy/plan, and why not just say so up front?
9 - Hal Pawluk
Pete, you really need to read last week's long Wall Street Journal article by James Woolsey. [I'm sorry the source requires a subscription, but you may be able to find a copy in your local library.]
The October 29, 2003 WSJ article is a proposal and trial balloon to use the British-imposed Iraqi constitution of 1925 to create a constitutional monarchy in Iraq now under American guidance and initial control. From last week's article again: ["Understandings could readily be worked out that would not lead to a diminution of Amb. Bremer's substantive authority in vital areas"]
A person doesn't have to be in government to influence government. Richard Perle springs to mind as a prime example.
James Woolsey is another. He is a member of the "Project For A New American Century"along with a noticeable number of others in positions of power in the current administration. I listed the names of a few of them in my original item.
Your continued use of terms like "conspiracy" and "plot" indicates, to me, marginalized thinking. The terms imply "midnight skulking" and perhaps there is some of that, but I haven't seen it.
The PNAC roster is quite clear and open about their beliefs, ideas and aims - a long article in the Wall Street Journal is hardly secret plotting.
I question those aims and beliefs.
10 - mike
You're offended because I called you "sweet P"? It was a term of endearment; I've never felt so close to you.
11 - Chris Arabia
Hal, if you would
"really be interested in reasoned responses that put party politics aside"
as you claimed, you might want to reconsider filling your post with pejorative partisan terms.
12 - Pete Nelson
Hal,
I stand by my earlier questions. You haven't answered any of them. I think your article implies some sort of grand conspiracy by the "ultra-right," as you call it, to install a king in Iraq.
Just this morning, President Bush made a speech in which he said "Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East -- countries of great strategic importance -- democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free."
(www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html)
How does that clear statement from the President imply in any way what you've said is the aim of the "ultra-right?"
James Woolsey may be influential in government, but he hasn't been in government for quite some time. Perle actually held a government post recently, from which he voluntarily left. In any case, neither speak officially for the U.S. government any longer.
Sorry, Hal, but I continue to find the whole theory unbelievable. I'd concede that some conservatives have perhaps been exploring different policy solutions for the middle east region, but I can't see it as official policy. There's way too much evidence that contradicts it, and the sources you cite (other than the WSJ) aren't, in my opinion, that reliable.
And besides all of that, the WSJ article quote you present clearly says that the idea would be to establish a "constitutional monarchy," right? Well, the U.K is a constitutional monarchy (see the CIA's World Fact Book for corroboration), you might recall. Are you saying that the U.K.'s form of government would be bad for Iraq? That doesn't seem so bad to me - figurehead monarch with real governmental power held by a Prime Minister and legislators. What's the problem with that? It isn't ideal, from my point of view, but certainly acceptable. Whether or not the Iraqis would accept it is certainly the crucial question, though.
I just don't see a problem, Hal. To quote an old commercial, where's the beef?
13 - Eric Olsen
I also have a problem with hyperbole here: common use of the term "ultra-right wing" is basically lunatic fringe, as in American Nazis, white supremacists, fundamentalist religious fanatics, pro-life activists/murderers. None of the people mentioned here come remotely close to these classifications. Freaking psycho SC Justice Scalia isn't even an "ultra-right winger" and he's way to the right of anyone mentioned here. "Ultra" means fullest extension, all the way out, can't go any farther.
14 - Hal Pawluk
You're right, Eric - I must have been in a really pissy mood - so I've deleted "ultra." Much better.
15 - Chris Arabia
Hal, if you would
"really be interested in reasoned responses that put party politics aside"
as you claimed, you might want to reconsider filling your post with pejorative partisan terms.
UPDATE: so you remove the single pissiest example and leave the remaining pissy ones? BFD.
16 - Hal Pawluk
Chris: I'm not sure what's bothering you, but I see the following terms as descriptive rather than disparaging:
right-wing
neo (short for neoconservative)
conservatives
Which one(s) do you think are a bad thing to be?
17 - Eric Olsen
it reads much better without the "ultra's" - now as to the premise: I can't it it s being in American interests to push for a king. If for some reason a "constitutional monarchy" a la UK is easier to achieve - FROM THE IRAQI END - than some other form of democracy, then why not? But why would we push it?
18 - Chris Arabia
none of this bothers me, but the questionable sincerity of the way that you pose yourself is a bit disappointing.
in this post, for example, you disparage the right and the neos and snidely use those labels over and over again. then you present yourself as neutral in the last sentence.
as for those terms, especially in this context i think it's disingenuous to suggest that they have no negative connotation. for one thing, one of the standard rebuttals on this blog is to dismiss someone as a right-winger. for another, the mere fact of using them repeatedly suggests disapproval.
i recall your earlier posts as making a more genuine attempt at disinterest, but i could be wrong.
19 - Hal Pawluk
If for some reason a "constitutional monarchy" a la UK is easier to achieve - FROM THE IRAQI END - than some other form of democracy, then why not? But why would we push it?
Beats the hell out of me, which is why I was so surprised to see Woolsey floating the idea.
Back in 1996 it was part of the Perle et al. plan to dump Saddam. I would guess that as they worked on the idea of getting rid of him, they asked themselves: "Okay, what do we do after he's gone?" Putting in a king from the line that once produced the kings probably seemed like a good idea, especially with the line being Shia, in spite of some of the drawbacks listed by Beeman.
Today, I suppose that it would provide a Middle Eastern face to governance of Iraq and it wouldn't reduce US control until the US is ready to give it up. [Quoting Woolsey again: "Understandings could readily be worked out that would not lead to a diminution of Amb. Bremer's substantive authority in vital areas".]
It might or might not be a good step on the way out of the country.
20 - Hal Pawluk
Got me, Chris: I did say "right-wing" twice.
21 - Chris Arabia
be snide if you want. you really didnt address my point, which is the affirmation that rings loudest.
22 - Hal Pawluk
Chris:
When I posted the item, I was more interested in substantive comments on the content rather than carping about the style. Others provided some of the former.
23 - Pete Nelson
Hal,
I think if your original article had taken the much more non-partisan, and if I may, thoughtful tone that your latest posts have, I doubt you would have gotten the rather harsh reactions you did. Instead, I think you would have gotten some interesting thinking and discussion. On the other hand, you may not have gotten as much reaction (at least from me), so if you were trying to elicit strong feelings, the partisan descriptions worked. I suppose you know what your goals for the article were. If you really did want just to address the issues, then more carefully neutral wording would be more effective, IMO. On the other hand, if you wanted to get reactions, the partisan descriptions and tone of the article (especially in its first incarnation) were almost certain to get some. All this, of course, speaking only from my point of view.
24 - Hal Pawluk
While the "ultra" may have been a bit inflammatory, I don't see anything particularly partisan in the piece. I guess you could say that the neos are Republicans so that's partisan, but they just happen to be the folks driving this particular agenda. I'd have said the same thing if Perle, Woolsey and friends were Greenpeacers, Free Traders, lefties-of-any-ilk, born-again evangelicals, atheists or even Democrats.
(On top of which, I'm not entirely sure that the neos really are Republicans - the movement came from the left wing of the Democratic party, and before that from a number of Trotskyist cells, so they are what they are, and that's another story entirely :-)
Whatever their pedigree, they're the ones floating the idea of a King of Iraq and I'm still trying to figure out why. Maybe it is just as simple as being a possible "escape hatch" from the "Slog of Iraq."
25 - Hal Pawluk
"I think if your original article had taken the much more non-partisan, and if I may, thoughtful tone..."
The way it looks from here, Pete, is that you orignally launched into the land of "lunacy" and "conspiracy" and "plots" without even reading all the material.