It began with the invasion of Iraq. It continues with the invasion of Syria. It’s all a part of The Plan. Don’t believe there’s a Plan? Don’t believe this is World War IV? Well, I didn’t make that up, they did. As I’ll show you after the fold, it’s been The Plan since right after the Berlin Wall fell…
I was really quite honored when David asked me a few months ago to be with you this weekend.
…I have adopted Eliot Cohen’s formulation, distinguished professor at Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, that we are in World War IV, World War III having been the Cold War. And I think Eliot’s formulation fits the circumstances really better than describing this as a war on terrorism…
…This is going to be a long war, very long indeed. I hope not as long as the Cold War, 40 plus years, but certainly longer than either World War I or World War II. I rather imagine it’s going to be measured, I’m afraid, in decades.
Can’t you just feel the Military-Industrial Complex getting all warm and fuzzy over those words! OH Happy Happy Joy Joy! War for DECADES!
BTW, the “David” Woolsey is referring to is David Wurmser, the fellow who is said to have rolled over for Fitzgerald and is now singing like a canary about the Plame leak.
More about David Wurmser:
From Lew Rockwell’s website:
Damascus has been in Wurmser’s sights at least since he began working with Perle at AEI in the mid-1990s.For the latter part of the decade, he wrote frequently to support a joint U.S.-Israeli effort to undermine then-President Hafez Assad in hopes of destroying Ba’athist rule and hastening the creation of a new order in the Levant to be dominated by “tribal, familial and clan unions under limited governments.”
Indeed, it was precisely because of the strategic importance of the Levant that Wurmser advocated overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in favour of an Iraqi National Congress (INC) closely tied to the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan.
“Whoever inherits Iraq dominates the entire Levant strategically,” he wrote in one 1996 paper for the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS).
Wurmser, whose Israeli-born spouse Meyrav Wurmser heads Middle East studies at the neo-conservative Hudson Institute, was the main author of a 1996 report by a task force convened by the IASPS and headed by Perle, called the ‘Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000’.
The paper, called A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’, was directed to incoming Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
It featured a series of recommendations designed to end the process of Israel trading “land for peace” by transforming the “balance of power” in the Middle East in favour of an axis consisting of Israel, Turkey and Jordan.
To do so, it called for ousting Saddam Hussein and installing a Hashemite leader in Baghdad. From that point, the strategy would be largely focused on Syria and, at the least, to reducing its influence in Lebanon.
Among other steps, the report called for Israeli sponsorship of attacks on Syrian territory by “Israeli proxy forces” based in Lebanon and “striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.”
“Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, even rolling back Syria,” the report argued, to create a “natural axis” between Israel, Jordan, a Hashemite Iraq and Turkey that “would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula.”
“For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East, which could threaten Syria’s territorial integrity,” it suggested.
A follow-up report by Wurmser titled ‘Coping with Crumbling States’, also favoured a substantial redrawing of the Middle East along tribal and familial lines in light of what he called an “emerging phenomenon – the crumbling of Arab secular-nationalist nations.”
The penchant of Washington and the West in general for backing secular-nationalist states against the threat of militant Islamic fundamentalism was a strategic error, warned Wurmser in the second study, a conclusion he repeated in a 1999 book, Tyranny’s Ally, which included a laudatory foreword by Perle and was published by AEI.
While the book focused on Iraq not Syria, it elaborated on Wurmser’s previous arguments by attacking regional specialists in U.S. universities, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who, according to him, were too wedded to strong secular states in the Arab world as the preferred guarantors of regional stability.
“Our Middle East scholarly and policy elite are informed by bad ideas about the region that lead them to bad policies,” he charged, echoing a position often taken by Perle.
In the book’s acknowledgments, Wurmser praised those who most influenced his work, a veritable “who’s who” of those neo-cons most closely tied to Israel’s far right, including Perle himself, another AEI scholar, Michael Ledeen and Undersecretary of Defence for Policy and the man in charge of post-Iraq war planning, Douglas Feith.
He listed former CIA director James Woolsey, who has called the conflict in Syria the early stages of “World War IV,” Harold Rhode, a Feith aide who has also called himself Wolfowitz’s “Islamic Affairs adviser” and INC leader Ahmed Chalabi.
In other words, The Usual Suspects over at AEI are once again calling the shots. Oh, and back to that AIPAC spy scandal that some people just don’t want to believe is somehow linked to AEI:
From Raw Story:
According to a 2004 story in the Washington Post, the FBI interviewed officials in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon, including Hannah and Wurmser, former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, to determine if they were involved in leaking U.S. security secrets to Israel, the former head of the Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabi and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Note that not much attention has been given to the news that the AIPAC spy scandal has widened to include intelligence leaks to Chalabi. Given that Chalabi allegedly gave Iran the heads up we’d broken their codes, this has huge implications.
The Usual Suspects are have been building up to it for some time now:
in a speech to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee, the country’s pre-eminent pro-Israel lobby group, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that Washington wanted to see “more responsible behavior” from Damascus. And he didn’t stop there. Denouncing the Syrian government’s harsh criticism of the US-led invasion of Iraq, Powell declared that Syria now “faces a critical choice.” It was strong language reminiscent of the nuanced threats leveled at Iraq last year, and it was greeted by hearty applause from the AIPAC crowd.
According to Newseek magazine, Rice said she favored isolating Syria diplomatically over launching a military strike. She cited a pending UN report that may blame Syria for assassinating former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.The United States has accused Syria of harboring Iraqi insurgents who have been escalating the war against American forces in Iraq. U.S. forces have recently been waging an offensive against insurgents infiltrating into Iraq from Syria. The offensive has concentrated on Iraqi towns along the Syrian border.
President Bush turned up the heat on the Syrian government last Thursday when he referred to it as an “outlaw regime,” even going so far as to say that such a regime was an “enemy of civilization.”
Prior to the president’s speech, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said last month that “our patience was running out,” with Damascus.
And now They have their excuse. The Syrians are alleged to have assassinated the Lebanese Prime Minister. So now George Bush tells the U.N. that they need to get on Syria’s ass.
President Bush on Friday called on the United Nations to convene a session as soon as possible to deal with a U.N. investigative report implicating Syrian officials in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.”The report strongly suggests that the politically motivated assassination could not have taken place without Syrian involvement,” Bush said after helping dedicate a new pavilion at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Southern California.
Having read the report here I have to agree. Syria probably did commit the crime. While some might wonder that this conveniently fits the AEI’s agenda, the investigation looks to be legitimately free of either the White House, or Israels interference.
THAT SAID, Syrian involvement flies in the face of these comments:
“If we send back our troops, this is a dream, a wish list for the Bush administration. … We’re not going to put ourselves in a confrontation with the tiger.“The White House said on Friday it had information that Damascus had drawn up an assassination list of Lebanese political leaders, a charge also made by a prominent anti-Syrian Lebanese opposition leader.
Moustapha repeated his country’s rejection of accusations that it had such a hit list.
“We are not that stupid. We understand what are the ulterior motives of this administration,” Moustapha said. “We’re not going to give them a pretext on a plate of silver and say we ‘will do everything possible to provoke you into attacking Syria.”
I’m sorry, but the Bush admin’s track record of “having information” is abysmal. Which HAS to make one wonder if Syria did, indeed, kill the Lebanese PM or if this wasn’t simply building a case for the Usual Suspects agenda all along.
In fact, one wonders if there isn’t proof that the White House is trying to “fix the intelligence” with Syria. Turns out perhaps there is evidence of just that:
Here is a most extraordinary letter from Syria’s Ambassador in Washington Imad Mustapha to Congresswoman Sue Kelly, which has come into my possession. It explains how the American Administration has been stonewalling Syrian cooperation on a host of issues. It explains how Syria is being set up to fail so that the US can isolate it and carry out a process of regime-change at the expense of Iraqi stability and the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. It explains how the US administration’s policy of forcing regime change in Syria is trumping the need to save lives in Iraq….Human rights activists in Syria have documented for a long time how Syria is arresting Islamists, cracking down on Syrians who go to Iraq to fight by arresting their family members and jailing the fighters when they return from Iraq. Read Razan Zeitouneh’s story about Syria’s “Preemptive War” against Islamists here. The Syrian secret police have been terrorizing would be terrorists in Syria for many months now. The US has cut off all intelligence sharing with Syria despite repeated Syrian attempts to cooperate on this most important issue. Rumsfeld refused a Syria delegation of top border officials permission to meet with their Iraq and American counterparts just two months ago. Read the story here.
The rest of the article is the Ambassadors letter. Very good reading.
So the big question remains: Are we attacking Syria?
The answer seems to be we already are:
As I suspected six months ago, U.S. military and Bush administration civilian officials confirmed last week that U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forces.An unknown number of Syrians are acknowledged to have been killed; the number of Americans — if any — who have died in Syria so far has not yet been revealed by the U.S. sources, who by the way insist on remaining faceless and nameless.
On the U.S. side, no declaration of war preceded the invasion of Syria, in spite of the requirements of the War Powers Act of 1973. There is no indication that the Congress was involved in the decision to go in. If members were briefed, none of them have chosen to share that important information with the American people. Presumably, the Bush administration’s intention is simply to add any casualties of the Syrian conflict to those of the war in Iraq, which now stand at more than 1,970. The financial cost of expanding the war to Syria would also presumably be added to the cost of the Iraq war, now estimated at $201 billion.
Is this true? Have we already invaded Syria? According to Paul Roberts we were planning to do so just three weeks ago:
The diplomatic editor of the London Telegraph reports (Oct. 5) that the US is aiming at Syrian “regime change.” The British newspaper quotes Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz as saying that a report blaming Syria for the assassination of a former Lebanese government official will be the catalyst that starts the ball rolling. Mofaz says the report will be the pretext for Bush to impose sanctions on Syria, “beginning with economic sanctions and moving on to others.”The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, reports (Oct. 3) that the Bush administration has asked Israel’s government to recommend a successor for Syrian president Bashar al Assad. No doubt, the Bush administration will describe Israel’s selection of Syria’s new president as the workings of democracy.
The Stratfor Intelligence Brief reports (Oct. 5) that Bush’s National Security Council is deciding whether to bomb Syrian villages along what are thought to be “the infiltration routes used by jihadists” and to have US special forces conduct operations inside Syrian territory.
Welcome to World War IV.