Sunday, April 24, 2005

"The Coming Pax Americana"

This article by Efraim Halevy, former head of the Mossad and now Ariel Sharon's national security advisor is very interesting and worth reading. It's written, obviously, for an Israeli audience, and is surprisingly candid about the current Israeli government's strategic thinking.

In particular, the talk of a very broad, and long lasting, American military occupation of multiple Arab states is of interest:

The shapers of the basic political approach of the Bush administration say that the United States plans "to be in the area" for as long as 10 years and more, if needed. Speaking in a semi-closed forum during a visit to Israel a few months ago, Bill Kristol, one of the most influential "neocons" (neoconservatives) in the United States, noted in this connection that the American presence in Europe after World War II lasted for nearly 60 years. Israelis who are trying to promote a role for NATO in the region, in one form or another, are actually promoting a generation-long American presence.

There you have it -- on the record -- straight from the Israeli National Security Advisor!

In a visit to the United States two weeks ago, I was told by several well-informed observers that should one of the more severe scenarios come to pass, the United States will have no choice but to deepen its presence in the Middle East. To that end, it will have to renew the draft, to ensure that there are enough forces to deal with developing situations in countries like Saudi Arabia.

Halevy also is very candid about Sharon's "disengagement" plan being a "bypass" of the Bush administration's "road map" to a final status agreement with the Palestinians.

Of course, the real question is, why is all of this in the U.S. interest? A large part of the reason Saudi Arabia is so unstable right now is the U.S. presence in Iraq, which has made the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims feel that the U.S. has gone to war against the whole Islamic world. Halevy's (and the neocons', and AIPAC's) preferred solution for all of this is additional U.S. wars against other Arab and Muslim (Iran) states, a resumption of the draft (where else would we get hundreds of thousands of additional Americans to serve as cannon fodder for this?), and a "generational" presence as occupiers in the region. (Of course, this would generate additional impetus for terrorism against the U.S. itself.)

I would strongly urge my readers to forward this article around via email to your friends and family, with a paragraph or two of your own thoughts on the matter. It's only by getting the American public to understand what is going on -- that we're being manipulated -- that we will be able to counteract this.


Blogger Stu Piddy said...

Karl Rovehas said recently that he intends for the Republicans to be in power for quite some time.

Bush has said that the pursuit of stability is a from of vanity.

The American Army has been defeated in Iraq. It simply protects people who are have formed a faux government that will easily be destroyed by the insurgents.

The insurgents are actually , the natural ally of the United States and the government they are trying to put in place is a natural foe.

That's my perspective. So how do you think, if you think-it possible that the US can stay in Iraq or the Mideast for 10 more years? I mean how can the republican and Vichy Democrats make that palatable and how is it possible economically?


5/10/2005 02:56:00 PM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

The Coming Pax Americana

5/25/2005 07:40:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home