|
Naturally, Kristol and the Bushcons want “reverberations” and a violent response from Muslims. Kristol, as the Michael Corleone of the Bushcons (the characterization is attributed to David Corn), wants to stoke the fires of jihad because religious war is at the heart of the Straussian neocon Master Plan—a “clash of civilizations” designed to “reshape” the Middle East, that is to provide an excuse to invade and conquer not only Iraq but Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and lesser Arab nations. “We want you nervous,” declared the Bushcon and former CIA director James Woolsey, addressing every single Muslim in the world. “We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you—the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family—most fear: We’re on the side of your own people.” Of course, for the average Iraqi or Palestinian, the assertion that the Bushcons are “on the side” of the Arab people—as they kill them in the tens of thousands—is nothing less than absurd. Kristol and Woolsey are on the side of the Likudites in Israel and the stockholders over at Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, where the neocons are heavily invested (it’s no secret 32 major administration appointees are former executives with, consultants for, or significant shareholders of top death merchant corporations).
The neoconservative agenda has been stalled in Iraq. That the neocons are not, as James Woolsey pretentiously puts it, "on the side" of the Arab people is only part of the reason for their failure.
The neocons' real problem is that the US forces are overextended. Assuming the neocons have a wet dream of taking over all of the Middle East, those plans have been put on hold by the Iraqi resistance to theirn colonial occupation. There are about 140,000 US troops in Iraq. Half of the Army's combat divisions are there. Iran is a larger and more populous country; occupying Iran in addition to Iraq would take what remains of the the available resources the neocons would need to implement their loony ideas of empire. That doesn't leave any room of conquest and occupation of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and so forth.
Of course, Mr. Nimmo is right: the US cannot fight a religious war against 1.9 billion Muslim and win. I think the neocons are smart enough to know that, too, and really don't want to try that. The Christian fundies looking forward to a rapture at the End of Times are another matter. Of course, they don't care about winning a war; for them, war is just a way bringing about the end of the world and their personal salvation. This is an idea not based on any verifiable facts or otherwise rational scientific thought.
Which brings me to the problem I am having with the thesis that underlays Mr. Nimmo's musings. He sees the neocons as principally interested in fighting a religious war. They are principally secular men with little interest in Islam one way or the other. Mr. Nimmo is confusing to groups who have influence in the current administration. The neocons and the Apocalyptic Christian fundies may have some common interests that diverge in the mind (for want of a better word) of G. W. Bush, but otherwise the only thing they really have in common is that I don't have any use for either. They are very different sorts of Right wing wackos.
What is important to the neocons is control of the world's oil supply, not the religious faith of the people under whose land that oil rests. That takes precedence over all else. No religious or other ideological doctrine is so sacred to them that they will not violate it to gain control of that oil. They would perhaps prefer not to infuriate every Shiite Muslim on earth by obliterating the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf, but if that stands between them and their goal, they would no doubt do so. They may even be reluctant to kill Moqtaba al-Sadr, who is really just a rank demagogue; if he is killed, there are more like him to fill the niche he vacates.
If the neocons do destroy the Imam Ali Mosque, one would wonder whether they would, if they found it necessary, destroy St. Peter's Basilica in Rome if it served their purpose. Are they aware that one act would be viewed by the world's Shiite Muslims with as much indignation as the other would be viewed by the other would be by the world's Roman Catholics? Perhaps, perhaps not. My guess is that they would do it, although we'll never know for sure.
What seems certain to me is that the neocons don't care who they infuriate in their quest for world domination. They regard themselves as superior to common folk you and me. They had the privilege of opting out of the war in Vietnam, although they found it a noble cause while the rest of us had difficulty seeing its worth; they had to spare themselves because they are for some reason better and were destined to rule over us. Democracy? Who needs free and fair elections? The ignorant masses might choose somebody like al-Sadr or Hugo Chávez or even Al Gore or John Kerry rather than them; so we can't have that, can we?
Mr. Nimmo is right about there being something sinister afoot; but he doesn't quite understand its true nature.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(475 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
