July 26, 2006
According to Ken Silverstein of Harper’s Magazine, "a well-connected former CIA officer has told me that the Bush Administration is … considering" sending U.S troops to Lebanon as "peacekeepers," that is to say shock troops for the Israeli invasion.
The officer, who had broad experience in the Middle East while at the CIA, noted that NATO and European countries, including England, have made clear that they are either unwilling or extremely reluctant to participate in an international force. Given other nations’ lack of commitment, any "robust" force—between 10,000 and 30,000 troops, according to estimates being discussed in the media—would by definition require major U.S. participation. According to the former official, Israel and the United States are currently discussing a large American role in exactly such a "multinational" deployment, and some top administration officials, along with senior civilians at the Pentagon, are receptive to the idea.
I bet they are, especially considering these "top administration officials" (think Cheney) and "senior civilians at the Pentagon" are neocons.
Predictably, the "uniformed military … is ardently opposed to sending American soldiers to the region, according to my source. 'They are saying "What the f—?"' he told me. "Most of our combat-ready divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan, or on their way, or coming back. The generals don’t like it because we’re already way overstretched,’" not that this matters to the neocons, who are well-accustomed to committing U.S. troops to do Israel’s bidding.
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990—it’s the threat against Israel," declared Philip Zelikow, the executive director of Bush’s nine eleven whitewash commission. Zelikow made this admission before a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002.
Sending U.S. troops to Lebanon "would be viewed in the Arab world as the United States picking up a combat role on behalf of Israel," Silverstein’s CIA source added.
"Once you start fighting in a place like that you’re basically at war with the Shiite population. That means that our soldiers are going to be getting shot at by Hezbollah. This would be a sheer disaster for us."
Indeed, it would also be a disaster for U.S. troops in Iraq, surrounded by 15 million Shi’ites. If Ayatollah Sistani issues a fatwa in response to the neocons attacking fellow Shi’ites in Lebanon, the U.S. military is doomed. It would make the Tet Offensive in Vietnam look like a tea party. It would be a replay of Dunkirk.
The scenario of an American deployment appears to come straight out of the neoconservative playbook: send U.S. forces into the Middle East, regardless of what our own military leaders suggest, in order to "stabilize" the region. The chances of success, as we have seen in Iraq, are remote. So what should be done? My source said the situation is so volatile at the moment that the only smart policy is to get an immediate ceasefire and worry about the terms of a lasting truce afterwards.
But then the idea is not to "stabilize" the region or gain a "ceasefire and worry about the terms of a lasting truce afterwards," but rather pitch it into chaos.
"The neo-Jacobins are rushing to get America involved in a general Middle Eastern war before Americans have time to think," warns Paul Craig Roberts. "Once we have attacked other sovereign Islamic countries, we will have to bring back the draft in order to raise the necessary armies or resort to nuclear weapons…. The root of the Middle Eastern problem is Israel’s uncanny ability to manipulate American public opinion and US foreign policy. This unique power means Israel doesn’t have to compromise. Instead, the Israelis escalate and involve us ever more deeply and one-sidedly in their disputes with Arabs…. Bush’s neo-Jacobins will not be content until they have 600 million enraged Muslims at our throats."
Indeed, this is precisely what the neocons desire—millions of enraged Muslims taking up arms against the United States, as this will force a reluctant and usually peaceful population—always opposed to war because they pay the ultimate price—to donate their sons and daughters to a horrific war.
The Straussian strain of neocon consider the American people little more than sheep to be culled and manipulated for their gain—and the gain of Israel.
According to the aged neocon Norman Podhoretz, the only impediment standing in the way of neocon glory is the American people, who have yet to demonstrate they have "the stomach to do what will be required," that is to say sacrifice ourselves to neocon-neoliberal and Zionist hegemony and the eradication (or at minimum submission) of the Muslim hordes.
According to Roberts, the "vision" of the neocons "is to knock off Iraq, Iran and Syria, the countries that could get in the way of Israel expelling the Palestinians to Jordan and grabbing Lebanon, as well. This is what World War IV is all about." For the neocons, there is "no room for diplomacy, compromise and agreements. These are the tools of wimps and will cause 'a relapse into appeasement and diplomatic evasion.’ There is only room for war…. To pursue the insane agenda of conquering and occupying the Middle East not only requires the stomach for inhumane acts, but also demands millions of Americans taking up arms. Here come the draft and a generation of casualties."
Or the end of the planet as we know it, as Hezbollah—and soon millions of enraged Shi’ites not only in Lebanon but also in Iraq and Iran—have no intention of throwing down their Kalashnikovs and RPGs and surrendering to the Zionists, determined to wipe them out or at minimum enslave them, as they attempt to enslave the Palestinians.
It will be a bitter fight to the end—and in order to "win," the United States and Israel will resort to dragging out the "mini-nukes" and irradiating all those who dare resist. Bush’s neocons have already indicated they fully intend to use nuclear weapons.
In fact, if you count depleted uranium, they are already nuking the Arabs of Iraq and now Lebanon (see Dr. Doug Rokke, PhD., former Director, U.S. Army Depleted Uranium project, Depleted Uranium Situation Worsens Requiring Immediate Action By President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and Prime Minister Olmert, i.e., at least 100 GBU 28 bunker busters containing depleted uranium warheads are on their way to Israel to be used in Lebanon).
I am old enough to remember nuclear drills in grade school, as we were continually propagandized as children to believe the evil commies would nuke us at any minute. Of course, the Soviet Union had no intention of nuking us, nor us them, and this was called MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction—a good deal for the death merchants, but a scary deal for everybody else, culminating in the Cuban Missile Crisis, an event I am old enough to remember as well.
Later, when I was a bit older and more cynical, I made light of my grade school nuke drills, declaring the reason we crawled down beneath our desks on hands and knees was to kiss our posteriors good-bye, as any nuclear confrontation between nations bristling with thermonuclear weapons would be certain suicide.
I am now beginning to believe such a suicide is actually possible.