This essay was first published in the Palestine Chronicles 2004 12 15 and is copyright protected.

Not to be published without consent of the author.

IV The Neocons – The Lesser Cons

This is the fourth in a series of articles that explores the rise to power of the fundamentalist Christian right within the government of the United States and its affects on perceptions and actions in the Middle East. The previous article looked at the Big Four players in the Bush administration. This article focuses on the lesser neocons, those still powerful but not publicly as visible.

IV The Neocons – the lesser cons

The previous section surveyed the beliefs, powers, and interests of the Big Four neocons – Cheney, Rove, Ashcroft, and Wolfowitz. Before proceeding with the lesser cons, another quick review of the similarities between the Big Four can provide more light on the overall scene. One of the more interesting similarities is their singular lack of military experience that has somehow led to extreme hawkish positions politically. Perhaps to rectify this situation, they should volunteer to go to the front lines to celebrate, as just war advocates describe it, “the good that war does for men,” and forge “a sacred spiritual possession from the larger wreck of war itself.”[1] . Perhaps John Ashcroft discovered his vulnerability when he went to visit Iraq. All of the neocons have a long political record - these are not men who have recently formulated their views but have been long established warriors moving in and out of politics and business. They all have strong support from the Christian Right, and their voting records, where applicable, support the legislative initiatives of that group. Further, they all support the Israeli state, morally for sure, and with military supplies as in the case of Cheney, creating that interesting conflict of interest between the Christian Right’s prophecies and the existence of the Israeli state – and following that, Palestine’s existence is barely considered, more of a nuisance inside the bigger biblical story than a people struggling for survival. Following on this, the lesser cons - and they are only truly lesser in that they are not so much in the public eye yet still yield considerable influence - comfortably fit this overall picture.

The biggest of the lesser cons, and one who may have moved up in power by the time this is presented, is the current Undersecretary of state for arms control, non-proliferation and international security, John Bolton. He is very hawkish, consorts with the Israeli government, and has not had any military service, fitting comfortably into the ‘guidelines’ for participation with the Big Four. His title “has an Orwellian ring to it: Here’s the undersecretary of state for disarmament who is pushing for a U.S. armed to its teeth,”[2] and “he is a committed unilateralist who opposes global arms treaties on principle.”[3] Bolton himself has said the U.S. should “Recognize obligations only when it’s in our interest” and that the supporters of test ban treaties were “misguided individuals following a timid and neo-pacifist line of thought.”[4]

When the United Nations was discussing world trade in small arms Bolton declared “that the United States intended to thwart any agreement that might constrict the right of its citizens to possess guns,”[5] which could have one wondering if he might state the same objections about nuclear arms, that the U.S. would not restrict any state having access to them if that might constrict their right to them as well. As with most of these hawkish proponents of nuclear first strike capability, there is a different set of rules for other states than for themselves - non-proliferation and arms control should by necessity start at home. For Israel in particular Bolton said that America “Was not interested in taking Israel to task for its continuing development of nuclear weapons because it was not a ‘threat’ to the United States.”[6] When it comes to Armageddon, Bolton is one of its leading proponents and while he is a Lutheran, he fits in very well with the Christian right and their self-fulfilling prophecies of the end of times.

This leads to the most frequently quoted statement about any of the American hawks in books, articles, and web sites. It is a comment that leaves no doubt that these officials are willing to use nuclear weapons as a means of sorting out the ‘good’ from the ‘evil’. It is Senator Jesse Helms describing him: “Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, for what the Bible describes as the final battle between good and evil in this world.”[7]

His support for Israel and from Israel is obvious. He has attended meetings with Sharon and his government. He is a former member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. He participates frequently in representations involving the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), along with Wolfowitz, and is now pursuing Syria as the next threat with weapons of mass destruction. AIPAC actively lobbies members of the Senate and Congress as well as distributing materials for public consumption, ending by asking the public to thank your members for supporting whatever legislation they see is good. In meetings with Israeli officials in 2003 concerning American actions in Iraq, Bolton said “It will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran, and North Korea afterward,” with Sharon replying that “the American action is of vital importance,” – which begs the question, vital to whom?[8]

If the reader has not noticed by this point, there is no mention of Palestine, neither as a problem that Israel has to deal with, nor as a people with their own proper aspirations for their own homeland. It leads to the obvious thought that Bolton’s (and most of the hawks) support for Israel extends from the Mediterranean in the west to the Jordan in the east, and from the Sinai in the south to the Golan in the north. Anything or anybody else does not even measure as an inconvenience, it is simply ‘conveniently’ ignored. The more and the longer it is ignored, the more and the longer Israel will be established in the occupied territories. While the U.S. occupies and ‘democratizes’ the Middle East countries, Israel will be more secure in its occupation, colonization, and settling of Palestine. As will be seen later, this ties in very well with the Israeli right groups such as the Ne’emaney Eretz Israel (“those who are faithful to the land of Israel”) and the American Christian right groups looking for the end of times. I will return to these ideas more fully later, but now, a few more neocons.

While Bolton simply ignores Palestine, Richard Perle, another long time hawk associated with Wolfowitz and Wohlstetter, who were discussed in the previous section “The Big Four”, states quite clearly that Palestine should not exist. Perle comes across as one of the most strident proponents of a greater Israel and while demanding “rigour” from others, does not necessarily follow suit himself with his conflicts between business and empire. Described as a “dull man with a psychopathic gaze”[9] and known as “Ronald Reagan’s “prince of darkness” for his distaste for disarmament treaties,”[10] Perle and his comrade in arms Douglas Feith (more below) call for Israel to “permanently annex the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip”[11] ; and in their most recent book An End to Evil they advocate that “Palestinians must not be allowed to have a state.”[12] But as with most persons in a position of power in the United States, Perle, who recently resigned as chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board but still sits in the group, has his interests in other businesses and relationships.

Perle is no friend of the Saudi’s, adding them to the list of ‘axis of evil’ countries. Yet he has met with Saudi investors for his Trireme company that invests “in companies dealing in technology, goods, and services that are of value to homeland security and defense.”[13] Combine that with Trireme’s partnership in Hollinger, of which he is co-chairman and director, and that company’s ownership of the Jerusalem Post of which he is director, and the tangled webs of deceit woven by the neocons are readily visible. Certainly he has a lot to gain by promoting the fear of terrorism and an ongoing occupation of the Middle East by American forces.

In support of those actions, he has his partner, Douglas Feith, currently the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Pentagon’s third-ranking civilian official. As Perle creates the policies from the Defense Policy Board, Feith can put them into action from his more powerful position, and as indicated above, he “and Perle share the same views on many foreign-policy issues.”[14] Feith, in 1997, was honoured with his father “for their services to Israel and the Jewish people” by the pro-Likud Zionist Organization of America,” and in 1992 he served as vice president of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).[15] The further one examines the neocons, the more the tendency arrives to believe that, no it is not a conspiracy, it is simply the truth of the matter that there is a small but powerful Jewish presence in the American government, especially in the part that reads ‘unelected officials’.

But even the elected officials come under direct contact with the Jewish presence as AIPAC has donated over forty million dollars to just over nineteen hundred congressional candidates since 1978, a not untidy average sum of twenty thousand dollars. That this would have an influence on American policy is without doubt. What matters is how far that influence may or may not reach and how much spin may be put on their actions in support of terror fears and the Orientalist viewpoint of the ‘good versus evil’ structure that eliminates the need for careful thought and reflection as to how the current situation rose in the first place. And it also gives truthful support to the statement attributed to Sharon addressing Peres in a government meeting: “I want to tell you something very clearly, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people, control America, and the American know it.”[16]

There are three other ‘lesser cons’ that are worthy of mention here, because of their ties with Israel and their positions in American power. They share the attributes of the neocons mentioned above: militant hawks, denial of Palestine as a state, suspect legal/business/ethical ties, and associations that combine the American Right with the Israeli Right.

To start, I. Lewis Libby, described as “Dick Cheney’s Dick Cheney” and a possible successor to Condaleeza Rice[17] , is the Chief of Staff and National Security advisor for the Vice-president. His connections include Enron and the “most corrupt corporate financier in the world”, Marc Rich, the latter having connections to Sharon and Israel.[18] Secondly, Elliott Abrams, assistant to then National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice, is a convicted Iran-Contra figure later pardoned by Bush I. His views are very much in support of Israel and he is in the group that calls for the United States to stand by Israel – in the sense of assisting Israel with its goals – rather than to act as a mediator in the conflict with Palestine. In 1997 he wrote a book titled “Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in a Christian America” which advocates a form of Jewish separatism within the United States. Finally in this trio is David Wurmser, previously working for John Bolton, now working under Libby as a part of Dick Cheney’s staff. He is a protégé of Wolfowitz and Perle and advocates ‘regime change’ in both Iraq and Syria as a means for ensuring Israeli security.

The overall lean of this group is evident in an American Enterprise Institute report titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” authored in part by Perle, Feith and Wurmser. The report concludes rather disingeniously, phrased in fine sounding rhetoric that conceals the reality underlying their statements (although it is not only the conclusion that is rhetorically disingenious), in an apparent anti-war sentiment that “No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace it seeks.” It discusses Israel as on sound economic footing, free, powerful, and healthy internally – and one can hardly argue with such positive ideals – and that “Israel – proud, wealthy, solid, and strong - would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.” It is a wonderful spin on an occupation of Palestine, an occupation assisted by American money, American military technology, and America’s own occupation of Iraq, and possibly other countries. In return America is learning how to fight urban guerilla warfare as reflected clearly in the recent assault on Fallujah, and could possibly find uses in other Middle East metropolitan areas, using the Israeli peace-keeping methods used so effectively in occupied Palestinian towns.

For all of the neocons, the Big Four and the Lesser Cons, there is an entanglement of beliefs systems and strategies, an entanglement of power and deceits and suspect business and legal associations, entanglements of convenience that only the arrogance of near absolute power can breed. All of these men are unelected power players in the American government, yet they wield incredible power, power that can and will reshape the Middle East, but with outcomes unpredictable except within the Christian Right’s biblically literal beliefs of prophecy for the coming messianic age. But before looking at the beliefs that make this ‘war on terror’ a religious war – ‘modernity versus tribalism’, ‘Christianity versus Islam’, the Orientalist ‘good’ versus ‘evil’ - I will examine the more moderate support provided by the concepts of ‘just war’ as propounded by various groups from the right through to the left. It is to these ‘just war’ concepts that I will look at next, as they provide – the justification upon which the Religious Right is able to build its prophetic goals.

[1]Temes, Peter. The Just War – An American Reflection on the Morality of War in Our Time. Ivan R. Dee, Chicago, 2003.

[2]Williams, Ian “Beware of Bolton” www.alternet.org/story/13256 . November 21, 2004.

[3]Kellner, Douglas From 9/11 to Terror War Rowman and Littlefield New York 2003.

[4]Bolton cited in Williams, ibid.

[5]Johson, Chalmers The Sorrow of Empires Metropolitan Books New York, 2004.

[6] http://lunaville.com/mt/archives/000358.html

[7]cited in almost every source that has any comment on the politics of John Bolton.

[8]Raimondo, Justin “War is not in U.S. interest” www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-03-17-oppose_x.htm

[9]Escobar, Pepe “The Roving Eye this war is brought to you by…” www.atimes.com/Middle_East/EC20Ak07.html.

[10]Kellner, ibid.

[11]Johnson, ibid.

[12]Regan, Tom “Neocons: Don’t Stop Now” www.csmonitor.com January 12, 2004.

[13]Hersh, Seymour M., “Richard Perle – Lunch With the Chairman” www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030317Fa_fact

[14]ibid.

[15]“Empire Builders: neoconservatives and their blueprint for power” www.csmonitor/specials/neocons/index.html

[16]www.wrmea.com November 11, 2004.

[17]Larouche, Lyndon H. “Bush Must Say ‘No’ to Israeli Nuclear Blackmail” www.larouchepub.com

[18]Lee, Richard, “Israel’s foreign policy is the U.S.’s foreign policy” March 10, 2003 http://idaho.indymedia.org