The Incoherence of the Incoherent

The Neo-Conservative movement wants Iran to emerge rapidly as the new military threat facing the U.S. in order to advance their "Project for the new American Century." Being worried by the "time-delay" the Washington Post gives Iran in acquiring nuclear weapons (not before 2015 will Iran have them according to the report), Gary Schmitt of the "Project" states that because US intelligence, by its own admission, knows very little about nuclear weapons development in Iran, their conclusions on the "time delay" might be wrong. Iran (according to Schmitt’s personal intelligence) could have a weapon before that time. How he arrives at that implied conclusion and how his intelligence capabilities are worthy of greater trust than national intelligence estimates, were not stated in this "memo", which was written to the highest opinion leaders in the US. He reminds the "opinion leaders" in the article that just as national intelligence estimates were wrong on Saddam Hussein’s WMDs before the first Gulf War (they underestimated the threat according to him) and the current Iraq war (they overestimated it this time, according to him), they might well be underestimating Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities.

What is alarming about these incoherent conclusions coming from the Neo-Conservatives, more so than their blunt hypocrisy (note that this is coming from the same camp whose friends in the establishment were pressuring the intelligence community to practically cook the WMD "intelligence" on Iraq ), is the fact that such incoherence is what dictates the foreign policy of the U.S. power elite, and justifies the hundreds of billions given to the military industries, while millions of Americans go without adequate food (37 million) and health care (47 to 82 million during any given year). Little wonder that such "leadership" has resulted in a world where over 40,000 die everyday due to preventable causes, and the ecological conditions to sustain life itself are being destroyed by a mad grab for profits. This is the kind of "leadership" that the "project" seeks to advance.

Why is a time delay in Iran’s alleged acquisition of nuclear weapons causing problems for Gary Schmitt, William Kristol and the rest of the neo-conservatives that run this organization and practically this country? Not being satisfied with the mess and human misery they have created in Iraq, and not concerned at all with the half a million people displaced by hurricane Katrina (their Project for the "American" century site does not even make a casual mention of it), Kristol’s gang wants a new "military threat" to emerge, in the area they are most interested in, the Israeli neighborhood. They feel the necessity of a new threat at this time because the public is getting weary of their widely advertised "Iraq threat", that is being recognized as nonsense by the previously duped masses (as poll numbers reveal). At the same time their banal "war on terror" terminology is starting to cause problems for a leadership that rushed into implementing this ideologically inspired "project". Busy inventing new threats, the Neo-conservatives have found a comfortable home among Democrats and Republicans alike, in the "organized irresponsibility" (as C. Wright Mills put it) that describes the American political establishment. The consequences of that "organized irresponsibility" are what the displaced in New Orleans are confronting today.

Gary Schmitt informs us in his concluding paragraph: "There are numerous practical problems we would confront in carrying out that decision (to attack Iran militarily), even if that were in theory the right one to make. But it does mean that we have no reason to relax, nor can we postpone difficult decisions indefinitely."

Unconcerned about the carnage and human misery their "right decision" caused in Iraq, Schmitt concludes that war (with Iran) in the not too distant future, might still be "the right decision to make". PNAC’s sister "patriotic" organization, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) mirrors these concerns about keeping the flame of perpetual war burning (Report #514) when it says "Hurricane Katrina is an unmitigated disaster for the people of the Gulf Coast. It shouldn’t turn out to be a look into the future for the rest of us." The "look into the future" according to their report should always be 9/11.

As we read Schmitt’s advocacy of a new war even though such a war might have "practical problems" according to him, we are reminded of these prophetic words from the 1950s, by C. Wright. Mills, from his book, The Causes of World War Three (1958):

"The expectation of war solves many problems of the "crackpot realists"; it also confronts them with many new problems. Yet these, the problems of war, often seem easier (for them) to handle.(compared) to political policies that are distasteful to many politicians...The terms of their long term solutions, under conditions of peace, are hard for the capitalist elite to face." (page, 87)

What is distasteful to these Neo-Conservative "crackpot realists" is peace in the Middle East, and the resulting effect that might have on regional development in the Arab world. In their uneasy alliance with corporations, whose leadership positions they normally hold when they are not posing as politicians, the Neo-Cons have found a dual fulfillment of purpose. The terms of the "long term solution" to the "Palestinian problem" are what they do not want to face. If that can be avoided, any "practical problems" that a new war might bring are easier for them to handle. The civilians who get killed in the thousands and the US soldiers (chosen by the way from the lower socioeconomic classes) that become casualties of war are of no consequence to them. These are all "practical problems" that they feel they can handle. In all such alliances to further power and wealth, human suffering and misery become at best, background noise justified by moral symbols, over used excuses, media distractions, and stage management.