Digby's recommended reading: "A Clean Break: A New Strategy ...

[understandinglife]

... for Securing the Realm

<clip>

Kaus notes that there is no way of knowing if Libby had heard about this talk when he went over the edge on Wilson, but it's possible.

It reminds me that Wilson has long held that the administration's Iraq policy could most simply be explained by the "Clean Break" document which was written for the Netanyahu government in 1997. It's interesting to note how many of the current players were involved in that document:

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

If you haven't read that document, you should. It's amazing.

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

Link:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_11_27_digbysblog_archive.html#113314395861303151

Interesting reading given all the context we now have.


Peace.

[sam sarrha]

1. i can deal with all that NeoCon crap... what is your point..??

[understandinglife]

5. I don't understand what your question is. Perhaps you can state it ...

... a bit more clearly. And, I don't understand what the "NeoCon crap" is to which you refer.

Thanks.


Peace.

[htuttle]

2. Ever since I read this a few years ago,...

...I've been trying to make sense out of this statement (from the document):

"Iraq is the tactical pivot. Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot. Egypt the prize."

I understand why they thought Iraq is the 'tactical pivot' and Saudi Arabia the 'strategic pivot'. But I've been completely at a loss to understand how Egypt is 'the prize'. Anyone have any clues/thoughts on this in particular?

[librechik]

3. it really sounds like secret code intended for Masonic/illuminati

cultists. I hope that's not what it means, but why else? To finish the meter of the line? It sounds like fairy tale BS.

[htuttle]

6. That's about what I was thinking

Other than the Suez and it's importance to the oil shipping routes, I can't think of any rational reason for them to be so interested in Egypt.

As far as irrational reasons go, however, I do wonder whether they are getting all 'spooky' about Egypt the same way Napolean and Hitler did before them...

[librechik]

12. yeah these guys believe they are linear descendants of the pharoahs

with royal prerogatives. Sounds silly, but that's what they believe, and nowadays they have nukes!

[KoKo]

4. Its an excellent read.....and makes sense of the vitriol against Wilson.

which was then picked up by idealogues in the Media. Wilson's views were dangerous to them because exposing Niger fakeries would lead "inquiring minds" eventually to who forged the documents and the connections between the Chalabi's, Abramoffs and so many other players back to the Neo-Con philosophers.

Just what is this War on Terrorism about? Who benefits the most. And, how does oil fit in with who benefits and who loses.

Understanding who really promoted Iraq Invasion and why is key to making sure our foreign policy doesn't continue on this course in the future.
That Democrats are involved in the philosophy...is why they are so timid and torn about speaking out. They lose financial support and/or their base if they stray to far from total commitment.

Notice Hillary's strong support of Iraq Invasion and her concern over troop withdrawals. Her support depends on her committment. Her husband's future roll depends on support from those who don't want certain "secrets of our foreign policy" revealed.

It's sad that we can't have honest debate about this in Government, amonst the "Think Tanks" or in the media.

[Wordie]

9. Here's Digby quoting Wilson:

<snip>
What Wilson quote is most likely to have angered Libby? I'd nominate the following excerpt (again, via Maguire) from a discussion by Wilson at the Education for Peace in Iraq Center on June 14, 2003, about a month before Libby's call to Russert:

"I think there are a number of issues at play; there's a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon's life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to make Sharon's life--enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we've had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it's a terribly flawed strategy." <unsnip>

[KoKo]

13. Kick....it's worth going over there to Digby just to stretch one's mind...

:kick:

[Wordie]

7. I've read several sources who believe that "A Clean Break" marked

the true intellectual underpinnings of the PNACers. And that the PNAC's later statement of principles in the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was based upon the ideas of "A Clean Break." If one reads both documents, one can clearly see the similarities.

Thanks for posting this. I think the document lays out all the reasons that we are now in Iraq, and shows clearly that the invasion of Iraq was a long-time goal of the persons in the Bush administration who actually were instrumental in justifying and overseeing the invasion.

This appears to be pretty unambiguous evidence of why we ended up in Iraq.

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. There's one more document that completes the set

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY
CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

For many decades now, the United Sates has been without an energy policy. Now, the consequences of not having an energy policy that can satisfy our energy requirements on a sustainable basis have revealed themselves in California. Now, there could be more Californias in America’s future. President George W. Bush and his administration need to tell these agonizing truths to the American people and thereby lay the basis for a new and viable U.S. energy policy.

That Americans face long-term energy delivery challenges and volatile energy prices is the failure of both Democrats and Republicans to fashion a workable energy policy. Energy policy was allowed to drift by both political parties despite its centrality to America’s domestic economy and to our nation’s security. It was permitted to drift despite the fact that virtually every American recession since the late 1940s has been preceded by spikes in oil prices. The American people need to know about this situation and be told as well that there are no easy or quick solutions to today’s energy problems. The president has to begin educating the public about this reality and start building a broad base of popular support for the hard policy choices ahead.

This recommendation sits at the core of an Independent Task Force Report sponsored by our two organizations. The Task Force was chaired by Edward L. Morse, a widely recognized authority on energy, and ably assisted by Amy Myers Jaffe of the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy of Rice University. The Task Force included experts from every segment of the world of energy – producers, consumers, environmentalists, national security experts and others.

There are no easy Solomonic solutions to the energy crises, only hard tradeoffs between legitimate and competing interests. Tightening environmental regulations, among other factors, have discouraged the rapid expansion of badly needed energy infrastructure in many U.S. locations. But Americans are also demanding a cleaner environment and cleaner energy.

http://www.rice.edu/energy/publications/docs/TaskForceReport_Final.pdf


Sorry about the PDF format. They use to have this document on line, up until a couple of weeks ago but for some reason they've taken it down.

Here's the original link but it doesn't work anymore:

http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/workingpapers/cfrbipp_energy/energytf.htm

[mod mom]

8. I am struck by this quote:

"To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel."

These are American policy makers writing this, yet it appears to me (please correct me if I have mis-interpreted) that they are assisting Netanyahu to shape American policy.

[understandinglife]

10. I have always read it the way you describe. It is unambiguous to me.

And, of course, provides a relevant lens through which to observe our planning and current actions on the Syrian boarder and the recent spike in propaganda from Bush and the neoconsters regarding Syria.

This post of billmon's that I reference, may be of interest:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5299745#5315943


Peace.

[mod mom]

11. Excellent post, I don't know how I missed that one.

[KoKo]

14. Digby and his links helps me keep sane!

The discussion is always interesting..and when I get down I always find he or Tristero (who posts on his site) pump me up and get my brain back in gear.

[sam sarrha]

15. point is .. you cant tell what they are saying.. what is your take on it

it appears to me that the NeoCons are Massad and Zionist plants..

there is so much about dominating the middle east..

there is so much Israeli about the NeoCons, they must just be them

i dont even want to read their manifesto parpaganda bullshit.. it is all warped and twisted lies.. i dont have the time or energy to unravel the lies and spin

what is your take on what it says..

[understandinglife]

17. My take on what it says is ...

... first Iraq, then Syria.

Joe Wilson obviously thought, by June, 2003, the Iraq phase was underway (see comment # 9 or the original Digby link in the OP).

And, as you will see if you follow the link in # 10, and read non-US reports about what Bush is doing on and in Syria, the Syria phase is probably being implemented.

"Clean Break" heralded subsequent PNAC manifesto and is nothing but a cleverly structured outline for aggressive war on Iraq, Syria and Iran for the purpose of re-structuring the Middle East. I liken it to the minutes of a meeting in 1937 that got some folk in trouble in November of 1945 (see comment # 10).

As to whom folk are affiliated and the like, I have no clue, and for a variety of reasons I have no intention of speculating on it.

Suffice, from my perspective, for me to say that Cheney has an unambiguous track record for what he wants to control in the Middle East and he and his neoconster buddies have been doing it. Problem is, too many Americans are dying and too many Iraqi citizens are dedicated to killing Americans "over there" because "over there" happens to be those Iraqi citizens home. So, Cheney and his neoconster buddies, hopefully soon, are going to be busted by Mr. Fitzgerald and others.

Poppy Bush is going to need to do what he did in Nixon's final cabinet meeting -- he's going to need to go the WH and tell his wacko war criminal son to resign. Probably will need to take the wife with him, this time.


Peace.

[Wordie]

18. Here's a related article that appears to explain the Egypt=prize comment.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_280.shtml
A frightening "Strategy for Israel"
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Nov 30, 2005, 01:24

...Yinon, who was attached to Israel's Foreign Ministry, published his paper, titled "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," in Kivunim (Directions) a "journal for Judaism and Zionism," and if the Association of Arab-American University graduates hadn't widely distributed the article, it might have disappeared down the memory hole.

...The basic premises of the plan are these: In order to survive Israel must become an imperial regional power and must also ensure the break-up of all Arab countries so that the region may be carved up into small ineffectual states unequipped to stand up to Israeli military might.

"Regaining the Sinai Peninsula is therefore a political priority which is obstructed by Camp David . . . , he writes . . ."and we will have to act in order to return the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai prior to Sadat's visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed with him in March 1979."

Yinon then predicts that if Egypt is divided and torn apart some other Arab countries will cease to exist in their present form and a Christian Coptic state would be founded in Upper Egypt. (I always wondered why Egypt was referred to as 'the prize' in a 2002 Rand presentation to the Pentagon at the behest of chief neo-conservative and friend of Israel Richard Perle)
...and here's a link to the original document, translated and edited by Israel Shahak:
http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/zionist_plan.html

I personally don't believe that all Israelis think like this, but I am quite certain that some do, and just as the hawks in our own government can screw things up for the rest of us, the people with these sorts of beliefs in Israel often are the ones with the power to affect policy.