-Caveat Lector-
http://www.kurtnimmo.com/blog/
Bush Win: A Straussian Mandate for Total War
Kurt Nimmo
November 04, 2004
Carol Giacomo of Reuters writes:
Armed with a clearer mandate than the disputed 2000 election,
President Bush may well use a second term to advance the robust
conservative foreign policy "revolution" he launched four years ago—a
move some say would be a huge mistake.
Most Americans do not understand the dynamics of the Bush
administration. It is ruled by a camarilla of lunatic warmongers,
Straussian neocons who believe America's military power should be used
to "reshape" the Middle East in the name of Greater Israel.
Bush's Straussian advisors are fixated on killing Arabs and Muslims, the same
way Israel's Sharon is fixated on killing Palestinians. Bush's evil
genius mastermind is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, "now
widely known as 'Wolfowitz of Arabia' for his obsession with ousting
Iraq's Saddam Hussein as the first step in transforming the entire
Arab Middle East," writes Jim Lobe, one of a few journalists who
speaks the truth about the Straussian neocons. "Wolfowitz is also seen
as the chief architect of Washington's post-9/11 global strategy,
including its controversial pre-emption policy."
In addition to Wolfowitz, Lobe mentions two "other very influential Straussians
[including] Weekly Standard Chief Editor William Kristol and Gary
Schmitt, founder, chairman, and director of the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), a six-year-old neoconservative group whose
alumni include Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald
Rumsfeld, as well as a number of other senior foreign policy
officials."
As Schmitt told Giacomo, Bush "has made it clear over the past year
that he's not changing the overall direction of his policy. … [Bush]
may well change personnel (in his government) and tactical decisions,
but his overall vision is going to remain the same." In other words,
the White House will remain an appendage of PNAC and the Straussian
neocons.
Giacomo writes:
This includes doggedly pushing plans to try to transform Iraq into a
democracy and making good on a pledge that Iran should never be
allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Schmitt said the Iran pledge may
ultimately require using force. For the moment, Bush is geared toward
a Nov. 25 deadline for persuading the U.N. nuclear agency to send the
issue to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
Of course, the Bushcons don't care about transforming "Iraq into a
democracy," in fact democracy is antithetical to all things
Straussian. As Lobe writes elsewhere (
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935 ), quoting Shadia Drury, who
teaches politics at the University of Calgary and is an expert on the
philosophy of Leo Strauss, the Bushcons "really have no use for
liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name
of liberalism and democracy."
Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he
believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal
nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving
Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the
public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the
American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation
of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as
absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who
otherwise would be out of control. … While professing deep respect for
American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be
hierarchical—divided between elite who should lead, and the masses who
should follow.
On November 2, 59,054,087 Americans (if we can believe the election
results) gave Bush and his Straussian managers, Strauss' platoian
elite, a mandate to lead, while the rest of us will be expected to
follow. "I think it's still possible Bush will hew to the
neo-conservative line … If that happens, I predict disaster," Patrick
Cronin of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told
Reuters.
Not a disaster for the Straussian neocons, who will retreat to the
sanctuary of their think tanks and foundations, but a disaster for the
American people. And that disaster will be Iran. "Of course, you do
know that now the Bush administration and the neocons are setting
America up for a war with Iran," writes Mike Rogers for Lew Rockwell,
quoting a Persian friend, Faramarz (
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers74.html ).
With George W. Bush as your next president, go ahead, America, attack
Iran. But, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, you will be forced
to pay the piper. And it will, most certainly, be a catastrophically
heavy price. … Did you know that Iran has more than three times the
population of Iraq, and 63% of that population is under 31 years old?
Did you also know that, geographically speaking, Iran is four times
larger than Iraq? … Did you also know that, although no one is sure of
the total casualties during the Iran-Iraq war of 1979 to 1988,
estimates range from 800,000 to 1 million dead, at least 2 million
wounded, and more than 80,000 taken prisoner? That there were
approximately 2.5 million who became refugees and whose cities were
destroyed? That the financial cost is estimated at a minimum of $200
billion? And even though, according to some estimates, Iran lost about
one million soldiers, it was still not defeated?
"The United States says that we have endangered their interests,"
Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told a crowd of thousands on a visit to
the city of Hamedan in western Iran in July of this year. "If anyone
invades our nation, we will jeopardize their interests around the
world," the Associated Press quotes Khamenei as warning. In other
words, if the Straussian warmongers manage to get the United States to
invade, Iran will attack the United States not simply in the Gulf, but
around the world. This is an ominous warning, to say the least.
As Mark Gaffney writes ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article71
47.htm ), Russia has developed an advanced anti-ship cruise missile,
known as the Moskit or "Sunburn," and this fearsome missile (for which
the United States military has no defense) is "a growth industry
generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined
sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran." Gaffney
explains what Iran's possession of this missile means:
The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the
Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel
decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its
nuclear infrastructure. Storm clouds have been darkening over the Gulf
for many months. In recent years Israel upgraded its air force with a
new fleet of long-range F-15 fighter-bombers, and even more recently
took delivery of 5,000 bunker-buster bombs from the US—weapons that
many observers think are intended for use against Iran.
The arming for war has been matched by threats. Israeli officials have
declared repeatedly that they will not allow the Mullahs to develop
nuclear power, not even reactors to generate electricity for peaceful
use. Their threats are particularly worrisome, because Israel has a
long history of pre-emptive war.
(…)
The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate
in the first so-called surgical raids on Iran’s nuclear sites, that
is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israel’s brand-new fleet of 25
F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target
Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing
US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives
the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant
Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will
interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will
understand that the real fight is with the Americans.
The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in
self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support
them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors,
even as the unfortunate US sailors in harm’s way become cannon
fodder [attacked with Russian Sunburn missiles by Iran]. In the
Gulf’s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be
difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control
of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below
will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American
blood…
Idle speculation? Maybe. Even so, Iran believes the threat from Israel
is so great it distributed "antiradiation pills to civilians in
townships surrounding" its nuclear reactors, according Martin van
Creveld, reporting for IHT in August. "In a country that has always
sought to keep its nuclear activities out of the spotlight, that is a
highly unusual step." Iran knows more about Israel and the United
States' intentions than do most of the 59,054,087 "values-based"
Americans who gave the Straussian neocons a green light on November 2
to invade Iran (and Syria, Lebanon, maybe even Saudi Arabia, North
Korea, and Cuba—the list remains open for addition).
Of course, such ambitions will require plenty of bullet-stoppers—and
the Great Unwashed (and ill-educated) masses will be told by the
Straussian elite to pony up the lives of their kids, or their own
lives, not only in the name of Greater Israel, but also in the name of
mindless nationalism at home, a powerful force for societal control.
Leo Strauss believed aggressive nationalism and war are the glue that
binds society. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable
only if it is united by an external threat," Drury writes. "Following
Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one
has to be manufactured [emphases added]." Is it possible 9/11 was that
manufactured threat, the "new Pearl Harbor" that is so prominent in
Straussian neocon thinking, an excuse to initiate wars against Muslim
nations (for many Straussians are unabashed Zionists), beginning with
Afghanistan and Iraq and soon moving on to Iran, Syria, and elsewhere?
Obviously, invading large countries such as Iran will require
thousands, if not millions, of soldiers, so conscription (slavery)
will be on the front burner next year. Unfortunately, large numbers of
Americans are so ignorant of the Straussian philosophy and agenda,
preferring to see Bush as one of them—in other words, "values-based"
Christian evangelical simpletons—they will not catch on until it is
far too late, that is if they catch on at all.
59,054,087 Americans have decided America's fate—and it is a fate of
total war, not excluding nuclear confrontation (a distinct possibility
if Mark Gaffney's scenario comes to pass), and ultimately fascism
because, as history instructs, fascism and totalitarianism (with
attendant authoritarian control of society) is the ultimate result of
total war and the militarization of society, a process well under way
and now encouraged by stupid Americans who can't find Iran on a map.
http://www.kurtnimmo.com/blog/
Bush Win: A Straussian Mandate for Total War
Kurt Nimmo
November 04, 2004
Carol Giacomo of Reuters writes:
Armed with a clearer mandate than the disputed 2000 election,
President Bush may well use a second term to advance the robust
conservative foreign policy "revolution" he launched four years ago—a
move some say would be a huge mistake.
Most Americans do not understand the dynamics of the Bush
administration. It is ruled by a camarilla of lunatic warmongers,
Straussian neocons who believe America's military power should be used
to "reshape" the Middle East in the name of Greater Israel.
Bush's Straussian advisors are fixated on killing Arabs and Muslims, the same
way Israel's Sharon is fixated on killing Palestinians. Bush's evil
genius mastermind is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, "now
widely known as 'Wolfowitz of Arabia' for his obsession with ousting
Iraq's Saddam Hussein as the first step in transforming the entire
Arab Middle East," writes Jim Lobe, one of a few journalists who
speaks the truth about the Straussian neocons. "Wolfowitz is also seen
as the chief architect of Washington's post-9/11 global strategy,
including its controversial pre-emption policy."
In addition to Wolfowitz, Lobe mentions two "other very influential Straussians
[including] Weekly Standard Chief Editor William Kristol and Gary
Schmitt, founder, chairman, and director of the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), a six-year-old neoconservative group whose
alumni include Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald
Rumsfeld, as well as a number of other senior foreign policy
officials."
As Schmitt told Giacomo, Bush "has made it clear over the past year
that he's not changing the overall direction of his policy. … [Bush]
may well change personnel (in his government) and tactical decisions,
but his overall vision is going to remain the same." In other words,
the White House will remain an appendage of PNAC and the Straussian
neocons.
Giacomo writes:
This includes doggedly pushing plans to try to transform Iraq into a
democracy and making good on a pledge that Iran should never be
allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Schmitt said the Iran pledge may
ultimately require using force. For the moment, Bush is geared toward
a Nov. 25 deadline for persuading the U.N. nuclear agency to send the
issue to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
Of course, the Bushcons don't care about transforming "Iraq into a
democracy," in fact democracy is antithetical to all things
Straussian. As Lobe writes elsewhere (
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935 ), quoting Shadia Drury, who
teaches politics at the University of Calgary and is an expert on the
philosophy of Leo Strauss, the Bushcons "really have no use for
liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name
of liberalism and democracy."
Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he
believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal
nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving
Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the
public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the
American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation
of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as
absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who
otherwise would be out of control. … While professing deep respect for
American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be
hierarchical—divided between elite who should lead, and the masses who
should follow.
On November 2, 59,054,087 Americans (if we can believe the election
results) gave Bush and his Straussian managers, Strauss' platoian
elite, a mandate to lead, while the rest of us will be expected to
follow. "I think it's still possible Bush will hew to the
neo-conservative line … If that happens, I predict disaster," Patrick
Cronin of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told
Reuters.
Not a disaster for the Straussian neocons, who will retreat to the
sanctuary of their think tanks and foundations, but a disaster for the
American people. And that disaster will be Iran. "Of course, you do
know that now the Bush administration and the neocons are setting
America up for a war with Iran," writes Mike Rogers for Lew Rockwell,
quoting a Persian friend, Faramarz (
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers74.html ).
With George W. Bush as your next president, go ahead, America, attack
Iran. But, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, you will be forced
to pay the piper. And it will, most certainly, be a catastrophically
heavy price. … Did you know that Iran has more than three times the
population of Iraq, and 63% of that population is under 31 years old?
Did you also know that, geographically speaking, Iran is four times
larger than Iraq? … Did you also know that, although no one is sure of
the total casualties during the Iran-Iraq war of 1979 to 1988,
estimates range from 800,000 to 1 million dead, at least 2 million
wounded, and more than 80,000 taken prisoner? That there were
approximately 2.5 million who became refugees and whose cities were
destroyed? That the financial cost is estimated at a minimum of $200
billion? And even though, according to some estimates, Iran lost about
one million soldiers, it was still not defeated?
"The United States says that we have endangered their interests,"
Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told a crowd of thousands on a visit to
the city of Hamedan in western Iran in July of this year. "If anyone
invades our nation, we will jeopardize their interests around the
world," the Associated Press quotes Khamenei as warning. In other
words, if the Straussian warmongers manage to get the United States to
invade, Iran will attack the United States not simply in the Gulf, but
around the world. This is an ominous warning, to say the least.
As Mark Gaffney writes ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article71
47.htm ), Russia has developed an advanced anti-ship cruise missile,
known as the Moskit or "Sunburn," and this fearsome missile (for which
the United States military has no defense) is "a growth industry
generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined
sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran." Gaffney
explains what Iran's possession of this missile means:
The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the
Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel
decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its
nuclear infrastructure. Storm clouds have been darkening over the Gulf
for many months. In recent years Israel upgraded its air force with a
new fleet of long-range F-15 fighter-bombers, and even more recently
took delivery of 5,000 bunker-buster bombs from the US—weapons that
many observers think are intended for use against Iran.
The arming for war has been matched by threats. Israeli officials have
declared repeatedly that they will not allow the Mullahs to develop
nuclear power, not even reactors to generate electricity for peaceful
use. Their threats are particularly worrisome, because Israel has a
long history of pre-emptive war.
(…)
The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate
in the first so-called surgical raids on Iran’s nuclear sites, that
is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israel’s brand-new fleet of 25
F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target
Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing
US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives
the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant
Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will
interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will
understand that the real fight is with the Americans.
The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in
self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support
them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors,
even as the unfortunate US sailors in harm’s way become cannon
fodder [attacked with Russian Sunburn missiles by Iran]. In the
Gulf’s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be
difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control
of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below
will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American
blood…
Idle speculation? Maybe. Even so, Iran believes the threat from Israel
is so great it distributed "antiradiation pills to civilians in
townships surrounding" its nuclear reactors, according Martin van
Creveld, reporting for IHT in August. "In a country that has always
sought to keep its nuclear activities out of the spotlight, that is a
highly unusual step." Iran knows more about Israel and the United
States' intentions than do most of the 59,054,087 "values-based"
Americans who gave the Straussian neocons a green light on November 2
to invade Iran (and Syria, Lebanon, maybe even Saudi Arabia, North
Korea, and Cuba—the list remains open for addition).
Of course, such ambitions will require plenty of bullet-stoppers—and
the Great Unwashed (and ill-educated) masses will be told by the
Straussian elite to pony up the lives of their kids, or their own
lives, not only in the name of Greater Israel, but also in the name of
mindless nationalism at home, a powerful force for societal control.
Leo Strauss believed aggressive nationalism and war are the glue that
binds society. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable
only if it is united by an external threat," Drury writes. "Following
Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one
has to be manufactured [emphases added]." Is it possible 9/11 was that
manufactured threat, the "new Pearl Harbor" that is so prominent in
Straussian neocon thinking, an excuse to initiate wars against Muslim
nations (for many Straussians are unabashed Zionists), beginning with
Afghanistan and Iraq and soon moving on to Iran, Syria, and elsewhere?
Obviously, invading large countries such as Iran will require
thousands, if not millions, of soldiers, so conscription (slavery)
will be on the front burner next year. Unfortunately, large numbers of
Americans are so ignorant of the Straussian philosophy and agenda,
preferring to see Bush as one of them—in other words, "values-based"
Christian evangelical simpletons—they will not catch on until it is
far too late, that is if they catch on at all.
59,054,087 Americans have decided America's fate—and it is a fate of
total war, not excluding nuclear confrontation (a distinct possibility
if Mark Gaffney's scenario comes to pass), and ultimately fascism
because, as history instructs, fascism and totalitarianism (with
attendant authoritarian control of society) is the ultimate result of
total war and the militarization of society, a process well under way
and now encouraged by stupid Americans who can't find Iran on a map.
