Antiwar.com Blog

Every once in a while someone will point out some theme that I disagree with in an article posted on AWC & ask me why, if I disagree, I bother doing the work of editing the site’s letters section, etc. But, in fact, it’s not possible (never mind necessary or desirable) to agree with everything since AWC presents such a wide variety of viewpoints.

Take two of today’s highlights, for example: Justin Raimondo’s “Israel is the Problem – Our Problem” and Christopher Layne’s “The Cost of Empire” (The American Conservative). Both reject the stated reasons for the invasion of Iraq, & suggest other motivations. Justin: “the strategic doctrine at the heart of U.S. Middle Eastern policy” is “the installation of Israel as regional hegemon.” Bush went to war “for Israel’s sake.”

Layne, on the other hand, doesn’t mention Israel as even a partial motivation. Instead, Layne claims, the invasion was a logical outcome of the “offensive realism” theory of international relations, which has guided US foreign policy since World War II. Specifically:

“The administration went to war in Iraq to consolidate America’s global hegemony and to extend U.S. dominance to the Middle East by establishing a permanent military stronghold in Iraq for the purposes of controlling the Middle Eastern oil spigot (thereby giving Washington enormous leverage in its relations with Western Europe and China); allowing Washington to distance itself from an increasingly unreliable and unstable Saudi Arabia; and using the shadow of U.S. military power to bring about additional regime changes in Iran and Syria.”

Antiwar.com, the politics website where everyone doesn’t have to agree on everything.

Lest anyone think that my take on patriotism in today’s article is meant to dismiss the concept altogether, please read this great essay by Joseph Sobran. Relevant to folks right and left.

In, The Last Nuclear Moment, after telling of Moshe Dayan’s suggestion that Israel use nukes to prevail in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Avner Cohen says:

“Mrs. Meir’s decision not to accept Mr. Dayan’s pessimism not only avoided a nuclear catastrophe, it demonstrated to the world that Israel was a responsible and trusted nuclear custodian.”

No, it shows that without the US to literally keep Israel’s Army from being utterly destroyed, the Middle East would be a big chunk of green glass right about now. The Israeli Army CAN NOT defend itself against the forces of its neighbors. Only the US’s can. Golda Meir was a monster who would have killed every Arab in existence if she could — and not have nuclear fallout rain down on Israel in the aftermath. THAT is why she chose to beg Nixon for help (also because, I mean, why NOT get free stuff from Americans?), not because she was a “great stateswoman” or any such crap like that.

“There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed.” (Golda Meir, June 15, 1969)

In case you need a little refresher on D.C. power-slut Lewis “Scooter” Libby, so prominently featured in the Valerie Plame scandal, here’s a tasty treat from National Review, March 2001. Byron York reported the following:

Libby, who said his law firms collected as much as $2 million for representing Rich, testified he had nothing to do with the application that led to clemency for Rich. He declined to say whether he approved of the decision to pardon Rich, but he conceded that he called Rich on January 22, two days after the pardon, to “congratulate him on having reached a result that he had sought for a long time.” Libby testified he made the call from his home to make clear that he was calling in a personal capacity, and not as a representative of the Bush administration.

In a particularly damaging exchange with Pennsylvania Democrat Paul Kanjorski , Libby agreed that Rich might be characterized as a traitor for fleeing the country and renouncing his American citizenship. Kanjorski asked Libby why he would call a traitor to congratulate him on his good fortune in winning a pardon. Visibly uncomfortable, Libby had no answer.

Same scum, different day.

I think there’s a real contender in today’s “Collateral Damage.” See if you can spot it. Its very badness may make you laugh.

First, condolences to the families, Jewish and Arab, of those hurt or killed in yesterday’s bombing. I’ll include one sentence from an Agence France-Presse report that I didn’t hear on the nightly news:

The radical Palestinian movement Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack which it said was carried out by a 29-year-old female lawyer, Hanadi Tayssir Jaradat, whose brother and cousin had been killed by the Israeli army in June.

I don’t think this requires any comment.

Second, I direct you to a good essay in the Daily Star by Ellen Siegel. It expands on some of the themes in my column last Monday. A sample:

I must differentiate between my religious beliefs, my history and Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. Being Jewish does not mean that I have to support Israel’s oppressive policies towards the Palestinians, the occupation, the violation of human rights and assassinations.
The holidays fall around the same time every year. Each holiday I am haunted by the anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. Always, I remember, I reflect, I repent. I renew my commitment to what is right and just ­ to the cause of the Palestinians in the camps.