A Stumble and A Kick

"Let me assure you Americans- [Bush] has NO PLAN. There is no plan for the mess we’re living in- unless he is cunningly using the Chaos Theory as a basis for his Iraq plan. Things in Iraq are a mess and there is the sense that the people in Washington don’t know what they’re doing, and their puppets in Iraq know even less. The name of the game now in Iraq is naked aggression- it hasn’t been about hearts and minds since complete areas began to revolt. His Iraq plan may be summarized with the Iraqi colloquial saying, “A’athreh ib dafra”, which can be roughly translated to ‘a stumble and a kick’. In other words, what will happen, will happen and hopefully- with a stumble and a kick- things will move in the right direction."

That's an excerpt from the latest entry by the brilliant and perceptive Riverbend. Her blog, Baghdad Burning, has served as a unique window onto the true state of affairs in Iraq for thousands of people around the globe. She has provided the inspiration for the latest edition of Radio Sub Rosa, A Stumble and a Kick.

Download: A Stumble and a Kick

Some Immodest Proposals

Taking a sensible look at the issue of international terrorism was difficult enough before the attacks of September 11, 2001. What little detailed information existed regarding, say, Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah, was rarely discussed in the mass mainstream media and probably not well understood by many Americans. Our own government maintained a rapt sense of ambivalence, bordering on denial, about its own involvement with terrorist groups or the states that sponsored them. The Reagan Administration vowed America would never deal with terrorists or their sponsors. But as the Iran-Contra fiasco made abundantly clear that vow didn't apply where particular foreign policy goals were at stake. There certainly was very little discussion about the conditions and pressures that give rise to terrorist groups except in a few well-known conflicst such as Northern Ireland, Basque Spain, or Israel. Even those discussions were usually highly-sanitized for mass media consumption.

A simplistic but useful rule of thumb is that terrorism breeds in "failed states." This is certainly true in the case of Afghanistan where the ruling Taliban regime and their al Qaeda allies swept through a country shattered by 30 years of civil war. That dynamic is magnified by the porous, virtually lawless border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where anti-U.S. sentiment is at a fever pitch along with zealous support of al Qaeda. The ongoing civil war between Israel and the Palestinians is another clear example of terrorism and oppression feeding off each other in the occupied terroritories, which are little more than slums with a flag and a fractured, murderous ruling party. While Americans are caught up in post-9-11 jingoism, and most lack basic understanding of terrorism's causes, there is even less understanding of the ways in which terrorists organize their human and financial resources, let alone how they carry out operations. Indeed, it is alarmingly clear that most federal agencies had never explored these aspects of the crisis before 9-11 and have been missing much of the picture since. While understanding the "failed state" theory is critical, there also exist areas where terrorists move freely, launder money, buy arms, gather intelligence and broker such things as false identity papers. Douglas Farah, a Washington Post reporter, investigated al Qaeda's aggressive efforts to secure untraceable supplies of raw diamonds from West Africa. He subsequently wrote a book, Blood From Stones, which is a chilling in-depth look at how easily al Qaeda operatives moved in the region, laundering cash with diamond purchases and brokering huge arms deals. The book cites a report that Robert Cooper produced for Britain's Foreign Policy Centre that defines "soft states" as nations or regions:

[where] chaos is the norm and war is a way of life. Insofar as there is a government, it operates in a way similar to an organized crime syndicate. The pre-modern state may be too weak even to secure its home territory, let alone pose a threat internationally, but it can provie a base for non state actors who may represent a danger to the postmodern world... notabley drug, crime and terrorist syndicates.

-- "Reordering the World: Post-Modern States", Foreign Policy Centre, London, April 2002

These regions are not in-and-of themselves the breeding grounds for terrorists of any particular strain. In the case of Liberia and Sierra Leone, where Farah first investigated the diamond trade, the rebel groups in power certainly comprised guerillas and terrorists, but were not necessarily anti-American or anti-Western. What Cooper's definition describes, however, are regions where groups such as al Qaeda carry out critical aspects of their global operations without detection.

This mess is complicated by American foreign policy initiatives past and present, most largely unknown or unexamined by the American public, which result in long-held feelings of animosity towards the USA in numerous regions. Even obstensible allies, such as Pakistan, have encouraged and abetted radical terrorist groups for their own ends, despite knowledge of these groups rabid anti-American ideologies.

In our view, the Bush Administration has done nothing but enflame such sentiments and, even worse, made the world murkier and less secure. President Bush spouts folksy assertions like "the world is a dangerous place," intimating that he and his advisors are the only ones qualified to understand the dangers, and they move lockstep into one self-fulfilling prophecy after another. The facts would indicate that national security--preparation for any and all threats--and the war on terrorism are two distinct things. National secrurity addresses real issues of vulnerability that any enemy could exploit. The war on terrorism, as it is being prosecuted, singles out one vector of terrorist ideology, al Qaeda. Moreover, the ill-advised invasion of Iraq has clearly hamstrung every other aspect of America's security interests and damaged, if not permanently crippled America's credibility in the eyes of the world.

So how does America act to affect positive changes in the future? The first step is to remove Bush and his cabal of radical empire-builders from power on November 2nd. But then the real challenges begin.

Americans have to face facts: American foreign policy, however it is intended or interpreted, really does cause problems for people in other places. In many cases these people feel real pressure and real fear and many don't believe America has even the slightest interest in their plight unless their plight directly relates to strategic or ecomonic interests. In extreme cases, such as Israel or Chile, ordinary people are or have been oppressed in the very name of American interests. All but the most xenophobic outlook has to accept that terrorism is going to occur when a great power flexes and causes suffering.

America has to open the books: The American establishment has to come clean on foreign policy and clandestine intrigues designed to influence, promote, or affect change in other countries. In order for this to be even marginally effective, the government would have to simply cough up the goods. Obviously, current operations and resources could be potentially compromised so our hopes for complete transparency are, at best, an utter pipe dream. But we feel it is crucial for America to do more than simply gloss over things and hope some vague talk about "winning hearts and minds" actually convinces people whose lives are affected on every level by American power.

If these items sound something like a 12 Step program for recovering superpowers, bear with us; we're just getting down to nuts and bolts.

America should be part of the World's Police, not the World's Lone Secret Police: America should roll back its global military presence in nothing short of drastic terms. Since it is highly unlikely that America's military and political elite would agree to complete withdrawal--in fact, America couldn't and shouldn't completely dismantle its global military network--we propose that America retain control of the military installations it outright owns and leave the operations personnel in place. Meanwhile, we propose America reduce all standing overseas combat and logistics forces by 60% and replace those troops with true multinational forces, chartered by the United Nations, and charged with regional directives for peacekeeping and security for humanitarian relief and reform agencies.

At first, these multinational forces could be structured around the UN Security Council, with equal representation for permanent and rotating members, and would require full cooperation in all areas. (We can hear the War Pigs squealing and wallowing in a mad frenzy.) While America enjoys the advantages of a global military presence it is time to put its resources to use for things other than strictly promoting strategic and economic goals. Anyone who believes that our presence in the Middle East, and especially the Persian Gulf, is not inexorably bound to energy policy is as high as a purple kite with nitrous oxide stabilizing jets.

America needs to drive world aid efforts, not just support them: With the vast economic and technological resources at its command, America has the capacity to engergize relief efforts like no other nation. We propose a further 10% reduction in America's combat forces, realigned and retrofitted to create a fleet for global disaster, hunger, and ecological relief and recovery efforts, with the corresponding funds from military operations applied on a 1-1 basis. Membership in the fleet would be open to all Americans and citizens of foreign countries that sign a charter agree to provide support materiel and funds. Americans could use their time as part of a National Service Charter and all member nations should agree to honor time in the with an exchange student-type program in their education systems. In other words, two years in this service might translate to a year of study in a participating country.

The key is for Americans to realize that they own these vast and powerful resources. By making such radical proposals we open ourselves up to legitimate criticism. But we're asking that people start thinking in real terms about alternatives. Compare the cost of military deployment with the cost of, say, disaster relief operations and then contemplate and compare the long term results and benefits of both. It's time to start thinking about the image we project to the world and how it must appear when so much wealth is spent on zero sum machinations and weapons. The average cruise missile has a better working knowledge of geography than most American teenagers, yet the money required to build, deploy and launch a single Tomahawk could buy a dozen college educations. Compare, contrast, decide. Vote.

While You Were Out

International terrorism is the singlemost critical issue facing America and the world. This is not simply because terrorists kill people indiscriminately and justifying their actions with what almost everyone agrees is the perversion of sacred doctrines. However, the entire world--not just the so-called "Arab Street"--is affected directly by America's ongoing War On Terror. This is true for several reasons, not the least of which is the close connections to America's energy policy and corporate interests, as well as the simple fact that continued aggression by any actor causes reciprocal action. The scope and measure of the Bush administration's response to terrorist attacks on American soil have arguably soured an already terrible situation and the repurcussions have already caused misery for other nations, notably Spain, Turkey, and the Philippines. Therefore, it is crucial to re-examine America's response, to demand that our government redefine its aims and redirect its response.

In our two most recent articles, Cause and Effect and Radical Visions, Ritual Reality attempted to outline the underlying philosophies of America's War on Terror as well as some of the historical roots of modern Islamist terror networks. We content that when American military force was shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, this was in no way based on a reasonable examination of the facts surrounding the 9-11 attacks, nor have members of the administration attemtped to engage the American public with substantive, factual discourse on the true nature of terrorism, let alone the origins and aims of Al Qaeda and affiliated groups. The Bush administration has in essence told the American public that nobody really needs to understand the issue of Islamist terrorism. They use carefully constructed language to acknowledge the unconventional nature of the conflict, with statements such as, "this is a new kind of enemy and a new kind of war," designed to allay public concerns. The underlying assertion is that only the White House understands the problem, only the White House has the expertise to provide a final solution. Meanwhile, the escalating carnage in Iraq is described as the "central front in the war on terrorism," harkening back to the heroic conflicts of the 20th century when our nation's enemies were clearly defined and the casualties exalted as a supreme sacrifice.

Nothing is said about waging another type of campaign, in which America acknowledges the need to reshape its image in the eyes of the world. Ron Suskind's recent article for The New York Times Sunday Magazine provides a striking example of this mindset:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Source...

This is the mentality that lead to the deliberate misleading of the American public and the world into an unnecessary and ill-fated war in Iraq. Within hours of the 9-11 attacks, members of the administration were at pains to link Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 hijackings and to distort and exaggerate any threat Iraq posed to America.

Former national security and counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke describes this mindset in his book Against All Enemies:

From the interactions I did have with Bush it was clear that the critique of him as a dumb, lazy rich kid were somewhat off the mark. When he focused, he asked the kind of questions that revealed results-oriented mind, but he looked for the simple solution, the bumper sticker description of the problem. Once he had that, he could put energy behind a drive to achieve his goal. The problem was that many of the important issues, like terrorism, like Iraq, were laced with important subtlety and nuance. These issues needed analysis and Bush and his inner circle had no real interest in complicated analyses; on the issues that they cared about, they already knew the answers, it was received wisdom.

The administration first invaded Afghanistan with the intent of uprooting the Taliban and destroying the Al Qaeda network. While it was able to achieve a measure of success toward both of those goals, the military was directed to shift key resources and tropps for redeployment to Iraq. Afghanistan is wobbling unsteadily between stability and chaos while the American-appointed government clings to what power and influence it has. The title of Bogey Man has shifted from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein and now to al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born terrorist behind much of the insurgent violence directed at the American forces occupying Iraq. Most Americans haven't a clue regarding Al Qaeda's cell-based structure nor any idea of how sleeper agents and cells can operate for years, conducting reconassaince and refining attack plans, with little or no need for a command apparatus. Money is wasted on massive military operations overseas and resentment grows among potential terrorist recruits. This is a zero-sum game with the likely result of increasing risk to Americans, especially those abroad, not to mention citizens of coutnries that support American military actions.

Further, the administration and the GOP in general has succeeded in making the war on terrorism the central issue of the Presidential election. The result is the Democratic party scrambling to cast itself as the War Party and its candidate, John Kerry, saluting the country and "reporting for duty." Kerry continues to assert he won't shirk in the fight against terrorists and that he has a plan to win the the war. The administration counters that a vote for Kerry is virtually an invitation for more attacks, more fear.

But are there alternatives? The first step is to remove George Bush from office and evict the cadre of neocon lunatics that have manipulated the country and the world with fear and intimidation. Then the real challenge begins.

Next week: A few immodest proposals for real change

Cause and Effect

Between now and the November 2nd election Ritual Reality will publish a four-part series examining what we believe is the true crisis facing this country and the world.

Part 2: Doomed to Repeat?

Hardly a day goes by without someone referring to the "post-9/11 world". This is a handy piece of shorthand that means everything from "plan to arrive at the airport at least two hours ahead of your scheduled departure time" to "Terror Alert Level: Orange - Elevated" crawling across the bottom of the television screen. The post-9/11 world is visceral, immediate, dangerous.

Vice President Dick Cheney recently attempted to define the difference between the world we live in now--America at risk and at war--and the world that was before. The greatest threat, he solemnly intoned, was that America would make the wrong choice, vote for the wrong presidential candidate, and slip into a "pre 9/11 mindset". Should that happen we are sure to suffer another catastrophic attack.

It's high time we discussed the the pre-9/11 world, the forces that created certain strains of international terrorism, and the reasons they are directed at the West and the USA in particular. It goes deeper than "they hate our freedom" or "America just wants their oil."

A number of scholars and journalists have tried to do plumb those depths. Many of them single out the Egyptian scholar, poet, and literary critic Sayyid Qutb as the godfather of the radical Islamist movement. By most accounts, Qutb was hardly an authority on Islamic law. But he was a scathing critic of the harsh imperialist influence on his native country and resulting oppression of his countrymen. He came to believe that the Egyptian government was corrupt and ultimately beholden to outside powers and he called for the removal of both by any means. His ideas caught on. Qutb's writings had an immediate effect and continue to be highly influential. Haneef James Oliver, author of The Wahhabi Myth, offers the following:

Qutb's lack of knowledge in Islam coupled by his jailing led him to change his understanding of Islam according to the circumstances he was faced with. Consequently, his writings became more and more radical as time went by. Eventually, his revolutionary ideology of takfir (excommunication) and setting out against the authorities became ingrained in the minds and hearts of a new generation of youth who were looking for something greater than the failed way of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun. To this day, Qutb is considered to be the head of this ideology for all insurrectionary groups.

Source...

Understanding the circumstances that led to Qutb's ideological transformation is key to understanding the present day crisis. The Arab world was beset by the forces of corruption. These were codified in part by Western imperialist powers, which not only interfered with but often dictated the internal affairs of Muslim states, but also present in Islamic regimes that colluded with the imperialist powers. This doesn't begin to penetrate the complexity of the issue but it does provide the basis for real understanding and further discussion. It is essential for Americans to understand what the "War on Terror(ism)" is selling, and how such a war hides origins which are deeper and more complex than a blind hatred of "American freedom."

If we examine the phenomenon of modern Islamic terrorism in a broader historical context, we must eventually acknowledge a causal relationship between the rise of extremism and centuries-old Western imperialism in the Muslim world. In his fascinating book Krakatoa, author Simon Winchester describes how the massive volcanic eruption that destroyed the namesake island and killed 40,000 people resulted in a bloody uprising among Muslims in Java. By his account a sect of fundamentalists radicalized the local population by preaching that the volcano's destruction was Allah punishing Muslims for accepting colonial rule. The violence was intended to purge the region of the Western establishment. That was in 1883. Qutb and the radical outbursts he inspired occurred in Egypt in the 1950s. Sporadic incidents of terrorist or revolutionary guerilla actions are recorded throughout the intervening years. The political and social forces of the late imperialist age clearly affected and reinforced the rise of modern terrorist ideology.

But one important event, in 1953, marks a profound shift in the course of history and bears a direct relationship to the present clash between the American government and radical Islamic terrorists. It happened in Iran.

The Eisenhower administration, specifically Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother CIA Director Alan Dulles, were persuaded by the British government to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh. Obstensibly, the British and Americans feared a Soviet-backed Communist coup that threatened Allied strategic interests. The underlying reason involved a long-term dispute between Britain and Iran over petroleum production and export, which Britain had controlled through a typical iron-fisted colonial arrangement. Mossadegh has secured the nationalization of his nation's oil resources and this was unconscionable to the British. The CIA orchestrated a coup that put Reza Shah in a position of undisputed authority. The American government provided unwavering support or the brutally despotic Shah until he was deposed in 1978.

Stephen Kinzer in his book All the Shah's Men cites a number of American historians and their views of the rammifications of U.S. involvement in the coup of 1953.

Nikki R. Keddie: Feelings against the United States government became far stronger when it became known that the United States was heavily involved in the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh. American support over twenty-five years for the Shah's dictatorship and nearly all its ways added to this anti-American feeling.

Mary Ann Heiss:
By subverting Iranian nationalism, the oil dispute of the 1950s laid the seeds for the Islamic Revolution that would come twenty-five years later and that would usher in even more anti-Western regimes in Tehran than Mossadegh's. As a result, its consequences continue even now to cast a shadow over the Persian Gulf and beyond.

James A. Bill:
This paved the way for the incubation of extremism, both of the left and of the right. This extremism became unalterably anti-American....The fall of Mossadegh marked the end of a century of friendship between the two countries, and began a new era of U.S. intervention and growing hostility against the United States among the weakened forces of Iranian nationalism.

Mark J. Gasiorowski:
U.S. complicity in these events figured prominently in the terrorist attacks on American citizens and installations that occurred in Iran in the early 1970s, in the anti-American character o fthe 1978-79 revolution, and in the many anti-American incidents that emanated from Iran after the revolution, including, most notably, the embassy hostage crisis. Latter-day supporters of the coup frequently argue that it purchased twenty-five years of stability in Iran under a pro-American regime. As the dire consequences of the revolution for U.S. interests continue to unfold, one can wonder whether this has been worth the long-term cost.

What most Americans probably don't realize--if they know about the coup d'état in Iran at all--is that knowledge of the CIA action in 1953 is widespread in the muslim world as are the long term effects. These have directly and profoundly reflected U. S. policy in the region:

• - The rise of extremist groups backed by Iran, stationed in Syria, and hostile to Israel
• - Israel's invasion of Lebanon and subsequent terrorist attacks on American troops sent to that nation as peacekeepers
• - The Reagan-Bush policy of backing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in exchange for his beligerent policy toward Iran

The last is perhaps the most immediate and timely example of U. S. policy that seeks short term gain through shortsighted strategies with disastrous long term results. By encouraging Hussein to develop a chemical weapons program that would rival Iran's--including clearance for the sale of a veritable witch's brew threw U. S. corporations--America bolstered the regime's ability to create the very WMD stockpiles that the current administration asserted to be an imminent threat. Hussein was another experiment that backfired. The real danger now is that the goals of the current administration are guided by a sweeping, radical ideology that preaches the transformation, by force of arms or other forms of coercion, of the world's most volatile region. The radicalism is not lost on the leaders of that region, many of whom, and this cannot be understated, see both the United States and radical Islamists as threats to their security.

Since the fall of the European imperial powers after World War II the United States has filled the position as a primary global actor. In the last 60 years, the United States has consistently applied pressure to nations around the globe. This pressure has been more direct and severe in the region of the Middle East. That constant pressure and near occupation in the region resonates deeply in the Arab world. Unfortunately the American government consistently fails to understand the historical context that frames our actions and policies. To simply dismiss Islamic fundamentalism as a reaction to "freedom" obfuscates a very real source of contention. A solution to the problem of terrorism will not be produced through the mechanical execution of the "War on Terror(ism)", but will only serve to exacerbate existing suspicion and radicalize many others. Accepting America's actions in the complex and nuanced causal chain will allow a greater perspective on the problems that face the world and lead to solutions that are more lasting than simply unleashing the machines of war.

Radical Visions

Between now and the November 2nd election Ritual Reality will publish a four-part series examining what we believe is the true crisis facing this country and the world.

Part One: Pax Americana

Day by day a tragedy of epic proportions unfolds in Iraq. However, as tragic as it may be, the invasion and ongoing pacification of that nation is symptomatic of an even greater crisis. Beyond the hourly accounts of desperate violence and casualty tallies, beyond the process of defining for a credulous american public what constitutes success, the situation in Iraq represents a triumph of sorts for a select group.

Simply put, this group has hijacked foreign policy and, through close ties to influential think tanks and the defense industry, seeks to impose a radical vision of American empire. In their view, America's destiny is to project a global military presence and assimilate, intimidate, or simply replace regimes that appear hostile to American interests.

We exaimine this development as well as explore the historical context of American foreign policy and the root causes of particular terrorist groups. But we also aim to present alternatives. By discussing the opinions and proposals of others and presenting ideas of our own for long term solutions, we hope to catalyse discussion of possible new directions for our nation's vast diplomatic, economic and technological resources.

The media tosses around the term 'neocon' with such regularity that it seems unnecessary to explain it here. In the comments section below we provide links to source materials. These materials comprise an adequate primer on the goals of the neocon cabal within the Bush administration.

In an article entitled "Is Iran Next?" (In These Times, September 28, 2004) Tom Barry writes:

In the months after 9/11, rather than relying on the CIA, State Department on the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency for intelligence about Iraq?s ties to international terrorists and its development of weapons of mass destruction, neoconservatives in the Pentagon set up a special intelligence shop called the Office of Special Plans (OSP). The founders, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Feith, are fervent advocates of a regional restructuring in the Middle East that includes regime change in Iran, Syria and, ultimately, Saudi Arabia.

Source

The Office of Special Plans represents nothing less than a radical cell within the military establishment dedicated to promoting and excecuting an overtly beligerent U.S. foreign policy. This cell sutured the 9-11 attacks by Al Qaeda-sponsored terrorists with deliberatly exaggerated and misleading claims about Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in order to catalyse their pre-existing geostrategic goals.

Feith and the OSP crew bolstered their case with largely unproven intelligence, while simultaneously undermining traditional intelligence channels. According to a report in the British paper The Telegraph:

In August 2002, Mr Feith's cell gave a briefing to Mr Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, which included a stinging condemnation of the CIA's intelligence assessment techniques.

In sharp contrast to the Senate intelligence committee's criticisms of "over-reaching" and "exaggeration" by CIA agents, the Pentagon briefing criticised the agency for requiring "juridical evidence" for its findings and for the "consistent underestimation" of the possibility that Iraq and al-Qa'eda were attempting to conceal their collaboration.

Source

Mr. Barry further outlines the connections between this cabal and well-connected thinktanks and lobbying interests:

Feith is joined in reshaping a U.S. foreign Middle East policy one that mirrors or complements the policies of the hardliners in Israel by a web of neoconservative policy institutes, pressure groups and think tanks. These include the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), Center for Security Policy (CSP) and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), all groups with which Feith has been or still is closely associated...

It now appears that Feith's Office of Policy, which was creating dubious intelligence rationales for the Iraq war, was also establishing a covert national security strategy for regime change in Iran most likely through a combination of preemptive military strikes (either by the United States or Israel) and support for a coalition of Iranian dissidents...

Not having its own intelligence-gathering infrastructure, Feith's office relied on fabricated information supplied by Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi expatriate who led the Iraqi National Congress (INC). In 1998, Chalabi's group was funded by the Iraq Liberation Act, a congressional initiative that was backed by neoconservative institutions such as AIPAC, CSP, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)...

Without notifying the State Department or the CIA, Feith's office has been involved in back channel operations that have included a series of secret meetings in Washington, Rome and Paris over the last three years. These meetings have brought together Office of Policy officials and consultants (Franklin, Harold Rhode and Michael Ledeen), an expatriate Iranian arms dealer (Manichur Ghorbanifar), AIPAC lobbyists, Ahmed Chalabi, and Italian and Israeli intelligence officers, among others.

The implications are clear; the policy of regime change was not limited to Iraq, but part of a broad-based strategy for the Middle East.

In early 2002, Leeden, along with Morris Amitay, a former AIPAC executive director as well as a CSP adviser, founded the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI) to build congressional and administration support for Iran regime change. AIPAC and CDI helped ensure passage of recent House and Senate resolutions that condemn Iran, call for tighter sanctions and express support for Iranian dissidents.

The CDI includes members of key neoconservative policy institutes and think tanks, including Raymond Tanter of the Washington Institute for Near East Affairs (WINEA), an off-shoot of AIPAC and Frank Gaffney, president of CSP. In the '90s, Feith served as the board chairman of CSP, whose slogan is "peace through strength," and where Woolsey currently serves as co-chairman of the advisory committee. Other neoconservative organizations represented in the coalition by more than one member include AEI and Freedom House.

Beginning in 1953 the USA has pursued policies that have both helped and contributed to instability in the Middle East. But the political philsophies and geostrategic aims currently ascendent in the Bush administration and the GOP establishment are perhaps the most damaging yet. They are heavily slanted towards U.S. energy policy and economic interests as well as the promotion of overt U.S.-Israeli military dominance in the region. Our next article examines the historical context of U.S. foreign policy and the rise of various terrorist ideologies.