[Peace-discuss] Rahm-Obama Bang Bang
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Fri Nov 7 17:07:28 CST 2008
While the tireless faithful seek to steer BHO's foreign policy like
dot.hack-ers huddling around by the dim light
personal computers deep inside the twin-cities of C-U, it might be
interesting
to consider what is already choreographed and
cut if not dried crisply a long time already regarding the tone of the
new administration.
from CounterPunch - October 24, 2006
Emanuel's War Plan for Democrats
The Book of Rahm
By JOHN WALSH
Last week in CounterPunch (1), I wrote that the chair of the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Congressman Rahm Emanuel, had
worked hard to guarantee that Democratic candidates in key toss-up House
races were pro-war. In this he was largely successful, because of the
money he commands and the celebrity politicians who reliably respond to
his call, ensuring that 20 of the 22 Democratic candidates in these
districts are pro-war. So the fix is in for the coming elections.
In 2006, no matter which party controls the House, a majority will be
committed to pursuing the war on Iraq--despite the fact that the
Democratic rank and file and the general voting public oppose the war by
large margins. (I hasten to add that this state of affairs can be
reversed even after the sham election between the two War Parties.)
What are Emanuel's views on war and peace? Emanuel has just supplied the
answer in the form of a scrawny book co-authored with Bruce Reed,
modestly entitled: The Plan: Big Ideas for America. The authors
obligingly boil each of the eight parts of "The Plan" down to a single
paragraph. The section which embraces all of foreign policy is entitled
"A New Strategy to End the War on Terror," a heading revealing in itself
since "war on terror" is the way the neocons and the Israeli Lobby
currently like to frame the discussion of foreign policy. Here is the
book's summary paragraph with my comments in parentheses:
"A New Strategy to Win the War on Terror"
("War on Terror," as George Soros points out, is a false metaphor
used by those who would drag us into military adventures not in our
interest or that of humanity.)
"We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country
safe. (He begins by playing on fear.) America must lead the world's
fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism, but we must stop
trying to win that battle on our own. (Messianic imperialism.) We should
reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first
century, not walk away from them. We need to fortify the military's
"thin green line" around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces
and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops.
(An even bigger military for the world's most powerful armed forces, a
very militaristic view of the way to handle the conflicts among nations.
What uses does Emanuel have in mind for those troops?) We should give
our troops a new GI Bill to come home to. (More material incentives to
induce the financially strapped to sign up as cannon fodder.) Finally we
must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic
counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5. (A new domestic spying
operation is an obvious threat to our civil liberties; MI5 holds secret
files on one in 160 adults in Britain along with files on 53,000
organizations.)
There it is straight from the horse's mouth.(2)
How does Emanuel, the man who has screened and chosen the 2006
Democratic candidates for Congress, feel specifically about the war on
Iraq, the number one issue on voters' minds. Emanuel and Reed do not so
much as mention Iraq in their book except in terms of the "war on
terror." Nor does Emanuel mention Iraq on his web site as among the
important issues facing us, quite amazing omission and one shared by
Chuck Schumer who is his equivalent of the Senate side, chairing the
DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee). However a very recent
profile in Fortune (9/25/2006), "Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull Politician," by
Washington Bureau chief Nina Easton notes: "On Iraq, Emanuel has steered
clear of the withdraw-now crowd, preferring to criticize Bush for
military failures since the 2003 invasion. 'The war never had to turn
out this way,' he told me at one of his campaign stops. In January 2005,
when asked by Meet the Press's Tim Russert whether he would have voted
to authorize the war-'knowing that there are no weapons of mass
destruction'-Emanuel answered yes. (He didn't take office until after
the vote.) 'I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the
right thing to do, okay?' he added."(3)
When Jack Murtha made his proposal for withdrawal from Iraq, Emanuel
quickly declared that "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha."
As for Iraq policy, Emanuel added: "At the right time, we will have a
position." That was November, 2005. In June, 2006, it was obviously
time, and Emanuel finally revealed his policy in a statement on the
floor of the House during debate over Iraq, thus: "The debate today is
about whether the American people want to stay the course with an
administration and a Congress that has walked away from its obligations
or pursue a real strategy for success in the war on terror. We cannot
achieve the end of victory and continue to sit and watch, stand pat,
stay put, status quo and that is the Republican policy. Democrats are
determined to take the fight to the enemy." The refrain is familiar;
more troops are the means and victory in Iraq is the goal.
The war on Iraq benefited Israel by laying waste a country seen to be
one of its major adversaries. Emanuel's commitment to Israel (4) and his
Congressional service to it are not in doubt. The most recent evidence
was his attack on the U.S. puppet Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al
Maliki, because Maliki had labeled Israel's attack on Lebanon as an act
of "aggression." Emanuel called on Maliki to cancel his address to
Congress; and he was joined by his close friend and DSCC counterpart,
Sen. Chuck Schumer, who asked; "Which side is he (Maliki) on when it
comes to the war on terror?" In terms of retired Senator Fritz Holling's
statement that Congress is Israeli occupied territory, Rahm Emanuel must
be considered one of the occupying troops. And he certainly is a major
cog in the Israel Lobby as defined by Mearsheimer and Walt. Nor is the
idea that the Lobby exists and has tremendous influence on Middle East
policy any longer a taboo in the minds of the general populace.
According to a poll just carried out by Zogby International for CNI (5),
39% of the American public "agree" or "somewhat agree" that "the work of
the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key
factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran." A similar
number, 40%, "strongly disagreed" or "somewhat disagreed" with this
position. Some 20% of the public were not sure.
But in some respects, Emanuel is a mysterious fellow, as evidenced by
his biography, which is readily available on Wikipedia and in the piece
in Fortune (3). But there are a few things missing or not fully
explained. First, as is often pointed out, Emanuel's physician father
was an Israeli émigré; but, according to Leon Hadar, he also worked
during the 1940s with the notorious Irgun, which was labeled as a
terrorist organization by the British authorities.(6) Perhaps Rahm's
current interest in terrorism was first kindled at his father's Irgun knee.
Second, during the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in
Israel, "rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel."
(Wikipedia, New Republic). This is peculiar on two counts. Here the U.S.
goes to war with Iraq, but Emanuel, a U.S. citizen, volunteers not for
his country, but for Israel. Moreover, here is a well-connected Illinois
political figure with a father who had been in the Irgun, but he is
assigned to "rust-proof brakes" on "an army base." Maybe.
Third, immediately upon his return from his desert sojourn, Emanuel at
once became a major figure in the Clinton campaign "who wowed the team
from the start, opening a spigot on needed campaign funds."(3) How did
he do that after being isolated overseas, and with no experience in
national politics? Fourth, after leaving the Clinton White House, he
decided that he needed some accumulated wealth and "security" if he were
to stay in politics. So he went to work for Bruce Wasserstein, a major
Democratic donor and Wall Street financier.
According to Easton, "Over a 2 1/2-year period he helped broker
deals-often using political connections-for Wasserstein Perella.
According to congressional financial disclosures, he earned more than
$18 million during that period. His deals included Unicom's merger with
Peco Energy and venture fund GTCR Golder Rauner's purchase of SBC
subsidiary SecurityLink. But friends say his compensation also benefited
from two sales of the Wasserstein firm itself, first to Dresdner Bank
and then to Allianz AG." Again for a newcomer to haul in $18 million in
two years is almost miraculous. How did he do it? Next Emanuel won a
seat in Congress in 2002, and by 2006 he was chair of the DCCC. Another
near miraculous rise.
But Emanuel and his fellow hawks may yet fail to get their way. Major
figures among the rulers of U.S. empire, and their well-compensated
advisors, from James Baker to Jimmy Carter to Zbigniew Brzezinski to
Mearsheimer and Walt, see disaster looming unless the neocons of both
War Parties with their dual loyalties to the U.S. and Israel are brought
to heel. Second and more important, the people are fed up with the war
on Iraq and wary of other wars the hawks like Emanuel have planned for
us. The politicians who win office, whether Rove's Republicans or
Emanuel's Democrats, will have to deal with this rising tide of anger or
risk losing their sinecures. That risk is offset by the machinations of
Emanuel and others to guarantee that there is no genuine opposition
party or movement. And that lack of a real opposition is a problem we
must solve.
John Walsh can be reached at john.endwar at gmail.com.
(1) http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh10142006.html
(2) Emanuel and Reed also refer approvingly to Peter Beinart, the neocon
warrior theoretician for the Democrats, warehoused at Marty Peretz's The
New Republic, thus: "In his recent book, The Good Fight, Peter Beinart,
explains why a tough new national security policy is as essential to the
future of of progressive politics as a united front against
totalitarianism and communism was to the New Deal and the Great
Society." (This chapter ofThe Plan is titled: "Who Sunk My Battleship."
Needless to say, the battleship in question is not the USS Liberty.)
Emanuel and Reed also like Anne-Marie Slaughter's proposal for "a new
division of labor in which the United Nations takes on economic and
social assistance and an expanded (!) NATO takes over the burden of
collective security." In other words the UN can do the charity work
while the US-dominated NATO is policeman to the world. Quite a vision.
And their call for more troops is shared by the Republican neocons, with
William Kristol's Weekly Standard calling for 250,000 more for the army
this past week.
(3)http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/17/
(4)http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/usa/rahmzion.htm
(5) http://www.cnionline.org/learn/polls/czandlobby/index2.htm
(6) J. Palestine Studies, 23: 84(1994).
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list