DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on January 09, 2007, 08:28:38 PM
-
Beltway Insiders Versus Neo-Cons
Clash of the Elites
By JOHN WALSH [article taken from CounterPunch at www.counterpunch.com]
A titanic power struggle is being waged within the policy elite or power elite, or more simply the U.S. ruling class. The clash is taking place over the war on Iraq, U.S. policy toward Israel--and ultimately over the best way to run the U.S. empire. The war on Iraq is shaping up as such a disaster for the empire that it can no longer be tolerated by our rulers in its present form. The struggle is as plain as the nose on your face; nevertheless it draws little comment. One reason is that we are taught to view matters political through the prism of Democrat versus Republican, whereas this struggle among our rulers cuts across party lines. On the "Left," few so much as allude to this internecine war, much less use it to good effect. This is apparently due to a very rigid, very dogmatic view of how empires function, indeed how they "must" function, and due to a fear of being labeled anti-semitic and thus running afoul of the Israeli Lobby. In many cases this silence reflects an actual sympathy among "liberals" for neocon foreign policy, either out of a latter day do-gooder version of the White Man's Burden, or an attachment to Israel.
This struggle is in no way hidden and definitely not a secret conspiracy. It is out in the open, as it must be, since it is in great part a battle for the hearts and minds of the American public. This fact makes the absence of commentary about it all the more chilling. The fight among our rulers sets the neocons against other very important elements in the establishment: the senior officer corps, represented by Jack Murtha and Colin Powell; the old money like Ned Lamont; the oil men, like James Baker (With Baker against the war, how then can oil be the only reason for the war?); those who want to see the American imperium run effectively, like Lee Hamilton and Robert Gates of the Iraq Study Group; many in the CIA, both active duty and retired; policy makers like Zbigniew Brzezinski who has long opposed the war which he has ascribed to the influence of certain "ethnic" groups; and even former presidents Gerald Ford who kept his mouth shut and Jimmy Carter who has not and whose frustration with Israel and the neocons is all too clear in his book "Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid."
Influential voices tied to the ruling circles include some writers for the militantly anti-war publication of the Old Right, The American Conservative.
On the other side are the neocons, based in the Washington "Think" Tanks, in the civilian leadership of the pre-Gates Pentagon, in Dick Cheney's office, in large parts of both parties in Congress, and in the editorial and op-ed pages of the print media. Most of the House and much of the Senate is still under the control of the neocons thanks to the fund-raising exertions and threats from AIPAC and its minions. Hence, the most powerful political allies of the neocons are the leading Democrats, who indulge in the most intense and shallow anti-Bush rhetoric but are reliable allies in the neocon crusades in the Middle East. The neocon side has relied heavily on the power of ideas,. This in turn hinges on the second rate level of those writing for the mass media who think little for themselves and go along with whatever framework for policy discussion is put forward by the neocons. Good examples of this are most op-ed pages, TV programs like the Sunday morning talk shows, Weekend Edition on NPR and Washington Week in Review on PBS. The neocons have not dominated the weekly news magazines, with the exception of U.S. News and World Report, but they are working to remedy that. Witness, for example, the adoption of William Kristol as a star columnist at Time!
Given this balance of forces, it would seem that the neocons must lose  but the outcome remains an open question. If they do prevail, that will be the end of our democracy and freedoms as we have known them. If you have any doubts about that, consult their philosopher, Leo Strauss. The neocons cannot be automatically counted out, even though their base is narrow, for they can draw on all the resources of a mighty nation state, Israel, a modern Sparta, with its vaunted intelligence services and special forces which span the world and operate in the U.S., as well as its ability, if it desires, to launder cash and deliver it to U.S. operatives. And of course the war profiteers like Halliburton and others love the Iraq adventure. The arms manufacturers may be less happy with it, since money is not being spent on profitable high-tech weapons which do not have to function but rather on highly unprofitable "boots on the ground."
The public forays of the anti-neocons in this struggle are well-known. James Wilson in the New York Times, accusing Bush of lying about uranium from Niger; Richard Clarke's expose on the incompetence behind 9/11; the exposure of Judith Miller as lying about WMD, thus corrupting the NYT reportage (even the Washington Post, dominated as its opinion pages are by the neocons did not allow its reporting to be undermined by the likes of Judith Miller); the antiwar stance of John Murtha indicating the unhappiness of the senior officer corps with the dominance of US Middle East policy by the Israel-first neocons; Mearsheimer and Walt's paper, as important for who wrote it as for its content, which finally took on the Israeli Lobby, the core adversary of the anti-neocons; and most recently Jimmy Carter's book which inevitably raises the question of the shedding of American blood to preserve Israeli apartheid and to lay waste every and any nation perceive by Israel to be a threat. Add to this the report of the Baker Commission and the near-simultaneous removal of Rumsfeld and his replacement with a member of the Baker Commission.
The biggest blow to the neocon agenda came from the people themselves, in the form of the 2004 election defeat of the Republicans. Unfortunately, this defeat amounted only to a registration of national disgust over the war in Iraq but not one which would result in policy changes since the establishment Dems are solidly neocon in their foreign policy  especially when it comes to the Middle East and Israel. The same is true of many progressives. One looks in vain for a reference to the Lobby on the Michael Moore web site for example or in the missives from UFPJ or from "P"DA.
Two questions emerge. Are there advantages to be gained from this struggle for the peace movement? Most definitely. We are being provided with powerful testimony from the most unassailable sources  Jimmy Carter, Richard Clarke and Mearsheimer and Walt to name a few. And we should not allow this important information to be discredited by the neocons. The leading anti-neocons are not anti-empire, but at least they want to end the bloody war on Iraq and the dominance of Israel over key segments of U.S. foreign policy. That is a step forward. And second, given the key power of the Israel Lobby, can the peace movement fail any longer to ignore it as though it were irrelevant? Absolutely not. We ignore it at our peril. And we must get rid of all fears of being labeled as anti-semites. Most Jewish Americans, much to their credit, oppose the policies of the Lobby, which in the long run may be responsible for stirring up considerable anti-semitism in the U.S. and around the world. Would it not be wonderful if an anti-Lobby organization of Jewish Americans emerged with a title like "Not in Our Name"?
Finally, given the balance of forces at play, it is difficult to discern what Bush is likely to do in the coming days and months. The punditry is now predicting an escalation of the war in Iraq (aka a "surge"), but Bush surprised once with the firing of Rumsfeld of which there was no advance hint  quite the contrary. He is certainly under enormous pressure to alter course, and he may have to do so no matter how much he recoils from it. He may even do so after a "surge" which could be used as a smoke screen for a policy shift. But escalating the conflict even temporarily will sink his ratings below 30% and make him the most unpopular president in history. We shall see.
-
Geez
Can't counterpunch afford factcheckers?
-
<<Can't counterpunch afford factcheckers?>>
I guess they're more concerned to get out the truth than they are with answering to every nit-picking objection to every tiny and basically insignificant factoid.
Which brings me to the subject of your post: which insignificant factoid error attracted your eagle eye this time, BT? Did they get a date wrong? A percentage of disapproval off by a couple of points? Or better yet, why don't you just get to the heart of it and tell us what you disagreed with in the article?
-
I don't see how you can get out the truth, when the pillors of your case are made of jello.
And i'm not counterpunch's fact checker.
Might as well treat this post like one of Knutes.
Illustrative of the mindset and abilities of the opposition.
Amusing when time permits.
-
I don't see how you can get out the truth, when the pillors of your case are made of jello.
And i'm not counterpunch's fact checker. Might as well treat this post like one of Knutes. Illustrative of the mindset and abilities of the opposition. Amusing when time permits.
Kinda like so many of Tee's starting-with-a-false-premise posts and declarations
-
I'm kinda disappointed in BT. Genuinely. I thought he'd have at least one real bone to pick with Walsh - - some inaccuracy, some factual error, however insignificant, however meaningless in the big picture - - the very essence of nit-picking, as it were - - by which the entire article and everything in it could then be discredited totally and forever.
But no - - BT has actually sunk down to the level of sirs on this one: no specific fault to find, no particular error, no differences of interpretation or countervailing fact and no intelligent criticism; just the simple and somewhat childish denigration of what is, after all, a well-informed, knowledgeable article with none of the absurdity and error of the usual rightwing garbage that is posted here all the time, the recent Martin Peretz piece being an excellent example of the latter; we hear, in the complete absence of logic and reason, that Walsh is "amusing;" that the "pillars of his case are built on jelly."
Surely you can do better than that, BT.
-
I'm kinda disappointed in BT..... - - BT has actually sunk down to the level of sirs on this one: no specific fault to find, no particular error, no differences of interpretation or countervailing fact and no intelligent criticism
Still have yourself fooled, I see. Well, as long as it makes you feel better
-
<<Still have yourself fooled, I see. Well, as long as it makes you feel better >>
You're not even going to try to prove me wrong, are you?
-
The biggest blow to the neocon agenda came from the people themselves, in the form of the 2004 election defeat of the Republicans.
Maybe that's what caught BT's eye.
Man, he got a date wrong! God, what if he were president and, like, went to war with a country that totally didn't have anything to do with 9/11?
-
I don't see how a fact check would help .
This article doesn't depend on facts , where are the facts ?
I do consider this opinion to be pertinant ;"This struggle is in no way hidden and definitely not a secret conspiracy. It is out in the open, as it must be, since it is in great part a battle for the hearts and minds of the American public.
The ultimate leadership of the USA is the people , the smaller leadership is subordinate and replaceable.
-
<<Still have yourself fooled, I see. Well, as long as it makes you feel better >>
You're not even going to try to prove me wrong, are you?
Been there, done that.
-
Man, he got a date wrong! God, what if he were president and, like, went to war with a country that totally didn't have anything to do with 9/11?
I seem to remember the Dems being up in arms because Bush said "February 30th" instead of "September 30th" just a few months ago. I thought dates were important?
Besides, as Plane pointed out, there are precious few facts in that article. The date being one of them.
-
Fascist reaction to the Walsh article was typical - - there are "precious few" facts. Absolutely hilarious but typical of the movement in general: when faced with a fact you don't like, simply deny that it's a fact.
The article was crammed with facts. In a story on changing opinions in the battle of ideas, including public opinion, there were abundant names, with opinions, given and there were reasons assigned to explain the shift. There were assessments of the relative strengths of the conflicting sides, their resources and their prospects. Opinion admittedly, but if opinion counts for nothing at all, what is the point of this or any other discussion group? There was of course the ultimate expression of opinion, the election results, and an interpretation of those results.
As plane says, the ultimate leadership is the people, but it would be extremely foolish to pretend that the people make up their collective mind independently of all external influence, that public opinion is not enormously influenced by those whose business it is to shape it, and this was a story about the conflicts and changes among the shapers of the public mind.
Personally, I found it a very interesting perspective and I'm kind of amazed at the intellectual bankruptcy among the conservatives in the group who aren't even prepared to take this guy on. It certainly raises issues of various unsavoury influences on American policy that conflicts with the crypto-fascist view that "the people" are sovereign in America, when in fact the amount of democracy actually enjoyed is minimal and shrinking fast.
-
there were abundant names,
Even some of the names are wrong.
-
The article was crammed with facts. ... Opinion admittedly,
Opinions are not facts.
-
The article was crammed with facts. ... Opinion admittedly
Opinions are not facts.
Unless it's coming from Tee or any op-ed he supports, of course ;)
-
<<Even some of the names are wrong. >>
"Wrong" as in misspelled, or wrong as in the wrong person was named as holder of a particular office or what?
Methinks if there were substance to the nitpicking, full details would be freely dispensed; your reticence leads me to believe that the "errors" if they exist at all are truly insignificant.
-
<<Opinions are not facts.>>
Of course not. But the combination of the opinion with the name of the person holding it is very definitely a fact; if that person previously held the opposite opinion, that is a newsworthy fact; and, of course, it's a fact that certain influential opinion-makers are swinging around to a different view of things. That's news. If you can't understand WHY that's news, or why that's fact, we had best agree to disagree and move on to something else.
-
Methinks if there were substance to the nitpicking, full details would be freely dispensed; your reticence leads me to believe that the "errors" if they exist at all are truly insignificant.
Like i said i'm not counterpunch's fact checker. If they want to be a real publication they might need to get their own.
In the meantime........garbage in, garbage out.
-
I don't consider it a fact that Imperialists in power in the USA exist.
This may seem like a safe assumption to you , but I consider it to be an opinion based on assumption.