The Passionate Attachment

America's entanglement with Israel

Jeff Huber, RIP

with 3 comments

I’ve just learned that one of my favourite writers has died. In memoriam of Jeff, here’s an excerpt from his “Bin Laden; Dead and Loving It“:

The upstart United States went on to consolidate its gains in the Cold War when the “Evil Empire” succumbed with a whimper, and became the first truly global hegemon. The American warmongery was lost at sea. How could they possibly continue to coerce Congress into continued cash caisson and gravy boat and wild blue budget defense spending?

Along came a fantastic new superhero of the neoconservative movement and no, I’m sorry to disappoint you Frank Zappa fans, it was not Studebaker Hoch. It was Bill Kristol, the slow-witted son of the “godfather of neoconservatism” Irving Kristol. Bill’s brain, Robert Kagan, whose even plumper brother Freddie is said by some to have been the “godfather of the Iraq surge,” talked Bill into forming a tank thinkery called the Project for the New American Century, and the rest, as they say, is the history of yet another empire that took a swan dive off a cliff in the Khyber Pass.

Bob Kagan gathered a kennel of the world’s most rabid right wing war wonks like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld who got down to work—or rather the glittering young Stepford Republicans who do their work for them got down to work—and cranked out a forest’s-worth of letters and statements and publications and reports about what American needed to do.

One such literary masterpiece was their 1997 Statement of Principles, a harangue that principally stated that even though America’s leadership had produced an era of global peace and prosperity unknown in any previous age, America’s foreign policy was “adrift.”

To correct the alarming global trend toward a post-modern renaissance, the New American Centurions insisted that, “we [Americans] need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global 
responsibilities,” and that, “we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” By “our principles,” of course, they meant good old conservative principles rooted in the grand traditions of cross burning, lynching and brainwashing poor white people into thinking cake is a super food.

Then in ’98 they wrote a letter to President Pants demanding that we (Americans) invade Iraq before Iraq invaded us or somebody just like them did. I was wrapping up my naval career at the time, and though I correctly diagnosed the New Centurions as a flock of crackpots suffering from Cold War withdrawal, I unwisely dismissed them as a harmless flock of crackpots suffering from Cold War withdrawal. By Sept. 2000 it looked like their handpicked finger puppet and his master Dick Cheney might actually gain the White House, and the Centurions bared their fangs with their Neoconservative manifesto, Rebuilding America’s Defenses.

RAD revealed the center of gravity of the oncoming administration’s foreign policy: global domination through military occupation. Invasion of Iraq was a key first phase of the neocon strategy. It had nothing to do with terrorism, or with weapons of mass destruction, or even with getting even with our long-time former ally Saddam Hussein. Ending Hussein’s regime was merely a convenient excuse to establish a permanent military base of operation in the center of the oil rich Gulf region.

But the Centurions admitted that the American public wouldn’t go along with a scheme as crazy as theirs without some sort of “new Pearl Harbor.” I turned in my retirement request right about that time, thinking that if I were a maniac bound and determined to outdo Bill Kristol’s maniacs, I’d give the crazy bastards exactly what they were looking for.

I don’t know if Osama bin Laden had the same thought, but he might as well have, because he couldn’t have picked a better stratagem than the 9/11 attacks to goad us into becoming the victim of our own military/industrial establishment, the one that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us in 1961 would take over if we didn’t stay on guard against it.


Written by Maidhc Ó Cathail

March 6, 2012 at 3:57 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’ve never heard of Mr. Huber, but that’s not surprising considering the inhospitality the American media shows towards viewpoints like the one Mr. Huber so effectively lays out in the above piece. For the same reason I can say his voice will be missed. RIP


    March 7, 2012 at 9:49 pm

  2. Huber’s position here seems to ignore the pro-Israel thrust of what he portrays as simply a quest for US global hegemony. Of course, people who support American power, NATO, etc actually include the strong opponents of America’s Middle East war agenda, such as Scowcroft and Brzezinski. And obviously this war agenda is harmful to American global hegemony as can be seen by its consequences and the likely consequences of a war on Iran. If such a policy actually enhanced US global power, there would not have been, and would not continue to be, so much opposition to it from the traditional foreign policy/national security establishment plus the military. And the most visible advocates of such a hegemonic US policy would not be Bibi Netanyahu and the Israel lobby. From what has been written here, Huber represents the PC anti-war position–US war in the Middle East is bad but it is caused by evil, crazed American imperialists. And the mention of Israel and its minions is kept out of the picture. It should also be added that none of the leading neocon promoters of the Middle East war agenda is a “crackpot” or “slow-witted,” which can be illustrated by their ability to obtain huge financial support from pro-Israel sources and their use of neocon think tank credentials to gain places in the mainstream media.. To paraphrase an old saying: “If the neocons are so stupid and crazy, why are they so rich.” Granted Huber wrote his piece before Iran became the central target, which has brought Israel to the fore–but the neocons had already made it clear that Iran would be targeted after Iraq, as I bring out in my book, “The Transparent Cabal::The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel.”

    Stephen Sniegoski

    March 9, 2012 at 10:13 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: