[A-List] Comment on a truthout.org/tompaine.com article by Ray McGovern

[Ralph Johansen <michele@xxxxxxxx>]

*From All Mosquitoes, No Swamp; No Elephants Either by Ray McGovern, 
appended below:

<Why is it that the state of Israel has such pervasive influence over 
our body politic? No one denied that it does; most seemed genuinely 
puzzled as to why. My embarrassment at my inability to answer the 
question is somewhat attenuated by the solace I take in the thought that 
I am in good company.>

************
What ex-CIA spook Ray McGovern overlooks or forgets in the article below 
are the real reasons why the US and Israel are so tight. THAT'S the 
elephant in the living room, not just the fact that they are close, that 
the Israelis have an effective lobby in the US and that little or 
nothing is written in the media concerning that affinity.

Do these guys read readily available and well-documented expositions in 
the bookstores, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard, or 
the writings of the Egyptian Samir Amin which are readily available 
online? Or Noam Chomsky? Or do they only read each other? Or even at a 
less probative but in its way equally revealing level, the cryptic 
musings of Samuel Huntington, as in his The Clash of Civilizations?

I put the question contained in McGovern's paragraph set out above to my 
wife Michele. Michele has been an English teacher for 23 years. She does 
not pretend to any expertise on geopolitics. She replied that she was 
astonished at that level of competence. She said, "These are experts on 
the region? How can they not know that Israel is in the region to make 
it easier for the US to control the oil there, without danger to 
themselves? Anyone should be able to figure that out." But she also said 
that she applauded people admitting that they don't know, if that was in 
fact the truth. "But it is scary that they don't know".

So maybe for some among us a recitation is called for (apologies if this 
is all old stuff to other than Ray McGovern and his roomful of experts).

The unspoken reason is that the Middle Eastern oil states must at all 
costs be kept in a dependent position, in which they can't seize the oil 
under their own land - to the disadvantage of the states in the north - 
and whereby they are prevented from using their revenue to the full 
benefit of their own people and to develop and broaden their own economies.

These small ruling circles in the oil countries are under constraint to 
cycle their revenues back to the wealthy countries, rather than 
investing them in their own lands.. Nor can the other, culturally 
aligned non-oil Middle Eastern states such as Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and 
Syria, as well as Turkey and Pakistan be permitted to let a situation 
develop where their people, especially the young among their poor and 
even in their narrow middle classes, make common cause with the 
Palestinians and now the Iraqis, to inflame and consolidate opposition 
in the region or otherwise threaten the precarious status quo there. 
Thus the need that the US has for a Zionist expansionary Israel and for 
the repressive authoritarian regimes where lie the greatest deposits of 
fossil fuel.

Incidentally, doesn't it appear obvious that, however regressive or 
often against interest it may seem, when secular change has been 
foreclosed by repression the role of religion and the mosques, 
ayatollahs and mullahs might increase as outlet and vehicle and 
expression of community, locus of resistance (as well as in other 
respects of passivity, of course) in the Muslim regions, in a manner not 
greatly different from what happened among the African-Americans and 
their churches and religious leaders (and in many cases quiescence) and 
their coded spirituals and the churches as centers for the anti-slavery 
and civil rights struggles, historically in the US? "Let my people go"?

So Israel is, in short, maintained in the Middle East as an unbalancing 
act. We'll look long and hard to see this dealt with in any substantial 
way in the US by any so-called "responsible" mainstream media source.

And Israel's arms and the generously supplied US tax dollars used by 
them in the prolonged repression of the Palestinians and in the threat 
that a heavily armed and nuclear Israel presents to the Arab states, and 
the arms supplies and indulgent US policies toward other repressive 
Middle Eastern regimes to be used against their own people (Israel and 
Egypt are among the recipients of the largest amounts of US aid), are 
all maintained with full US support - support which includes ALL the 
elite - Democrat and Republican alike.

If Israel for some unlikely reason ceased to serve US strategic 
interests or began to seriously impede US activities in the region and 
in the world, or failed to oppose the Palestinian danger to the Middle 
Eastern order of things and to play out its role in keeping area regimes 
off-balance, no Israeli lobby could prevail against the decision-makers 
in the US, not for five minutes. The Israeli government would either 
move back in line or be quite swiftly dealt with. As is the case for any 
regime anywhere, but especially in areas where oil deposits lie. Few 
escape this, as Iran did twenty-five years ago, but there the Shah was a 
trusted friend, allowed more license, and unexpectedly overthrown by a 
militant revolt (again led by the ayatollahs) - and they are made to 
know that the darkled beast has a long and malevolent memory.

Also, this is why we can be sure that major efforts will sooner or later 
again be undertaken to destabilize the Venezuelan government of Hugo 
Chavez - probably through a step-up of machinations and sanctioned 
terrorist acts originating in neighboring Colombia - and despite the 
strong internal support for Chavez from the people of the barrios in the 
recent recall elections. This depends on the extent to which Chavez's 
government continues to threaten US and other wealthy countries' access 
to the oil supplies there on the most favorable terms, in Venzuelan 
efforts to use that oil and more of the attendant revenue to develop the 
local economy to benefit their own people and to join in moves toward 
South American regional solidarity against US domination.

Where, anywhere in the world, has a land with large reserves of 
petroleum been permitted, against the power and interests of the wealthy 
developed countries, to benefit its own people from its mineral riches? 
Think of Nigeria, Angola (US and surrogate South African support for 
Jonas Savimbi for years), Venezuela, Colombia, the Near and Middle East, 
Indonesia (aside from countries already developed, all Caucasian, and 
where their oil deposits were exploited late and as an added benefit, as 
in Canada, Norway, Great Britain and the US).

Though the neoconservatives who dominated decision-making in the first 
Bush administration may now have fewer resources and diminished 
credibility, that should not be cause for much hope: there remains the 
course required by pressing and overrriding geostrategic imperatives, 
especially the dangers to the US at what may be the end of the prolonged 
free ride that Americans have had at the expense of the rest of the 
world and the increasing likelihood of impending economic slump or 
outright collapse. There is as well an openly declared long-standing 
commitment on the part of US rulers to do all that is necessary to 
prevent the rise to power of a rival regime as a threat to US total 
dominance in the world.

Therefore. there is a correspondingly greater need for control of 
events, for arrogating control of resources, and for coopting their 
peers elsewhere in the world; or at least if the rulers of poorer states 
threaten to give way to the pressure from their own nationals or 
otherwise to pull away from their assigned limitations, a need to 
promote fear of multi-layered US power to quell effective opposition.

These exigencies will continue to dictate US trade, diplomatic and 
military actions, and US policies internally in order to mobilize 
opinion, crabwise and in one virulent form or another - whichever of the 
two parties is in power.

To the extent that he omits to mention the foregoing, Ray McGovern 
either forgets, is not sufficiently aware or is among the loyal 
establishment opposition. Take your pick.

We certainly seem to be headed ineluctably toward deepening barbarism in 
the service of overlong and overweening privilege and power. Who can 
single out any spokespersons for American policy who are speaking out in 
opposition - other than just in opposition to present tactics in pursuit 
of that policy?

There appears to be increasingly settled consensus on the course to be 
followed. And that which does and does not appear in McGovern's article 
about the nature, size and shape of the elephants is very much "need to 
know" for all the rest of us.

Ralph


This article has been published in Truthout 
[http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120604X.shtml] dated December 5 and in 
Tom Paine Common Sense 
[http://www.tompaine.com/articles/all_mosquitos_no_swamp.php] dated 
December 3 in slightly different versions.

All Mosquitoes, No Swamp; No Elephants Either
By Ray McGovern

On November 24, the /New York Times revealed that a Defense Science 
Board panel directly contradicted President Bush's explanation of the 
motivation driving Al Qaeda. They don't hate our freedoms, they hate our 
policies. At a Capitol Hill briefing yesterday, Ray McGovern witnessed 
that, far from opening the floodgates of reality, terrorism experts—and 
the NYT—are avoiding the real message in the findings, putting us all at 
risk.

Ray McGovern’s duties during his 27-year career at CIA included daily 
briefings of then-Vice President Bush and the most senior national 
security advisers to President Ronald Reagan. McGovern is on the 
Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Yesterday’s conference on “Al Qaeda 2.0: Transnational Terrorism After 
9/11,” sponsored by the New America Foundation and the New York 
University Center on Law & Security, was a gift to those wanting an 
update on informed opinion on the subject. The event also proved to be 
as highly instructive for what was not addressed as for the issues that 
were. The elephants known to be present remained largely unnoticed.

The cavernous Caucus Room of the Russell Senate Office Building was full 
to the gunnels. Panel after panel of distinguished presenters from near 
and far, from right to left—including authors Peter Bergen, Michael 
Scheuer, Jessica Stern and Col. Pat Lang— exuded and freely shared their 
expertise. But there was myopia as well.

The mosquitos of terrorism were dissected and examined as carefully as 
biology students once did drosophila, but typing the generic DNA of 
terrorism proved more elusive. Worse, no attention was given to the 
swamp in which terrorists breed. Were it not for a few impertinent 
questions from the audience, the swamps might have avoided attention 
altogether.

The first panel featured two experts from RAND both of whom touched—very 
gingerly—on the need to drain the swamp. The first closed his remarks 
with a 30-second observation that less attention might be given to 
kill/capture metrics than to addressing the causes of terrorism and 
breaking the cycle of terrorist recruitment.

The second speaker from RAND, referring to that organization’s numerous 
studies on influencing public opinion, closed his remarks with this: 
“When the message coheres with the context in which the message is 
transmitted, it works.” Sending out the right message during the Cold 
War was easier, he said, because the context (the United States being 
the only alternative to the USSR) was very clear. On terrorism, he 
added, we need to ponder “the mismatch between context and message.”

What About The Elephants?

Then came a rude question from the audience: Is it not striking that 
even in an academic-type setting like this, elephants must remain 
invisible? Is it not ironic, that the U.S. Defense Science Board, in an 
unclassified study on “Strategic Communication,” 
<http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf> 
completed on September 23 but kept under wraps until after the November 
2 election, let the pachyderms out of the bag? Directly contradicting 
the president, a panel of the Defense Science Board gave voice to what 
virtually all in that ornate Senate Caucus Room knew, but were afraid to 
say. It named the elephants.

“Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our
policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what
they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against
Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support
for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States.

"Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing
democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than
self-serving hypocrisy...

"...Nor can the most carefully crafted messages, themes, and words
persuade when the messenger lacks credibility.”

U.S. Support For Israel “Immutable”

Another questioner pressed the mismatch-context-message expert from 
RAND: “What can we do to change the context?” In answer he acknowledged 
that the United States has a bad reputation, but he insisted that this 
is “unavoidable” because our support for Israel, for example, is 
“immutable.” The United States is also connected to what many Muslims 
consider “apostate” regimes, but it is difficult to escape what binds 
us, because we need their “tactical support.” (Read: oil; military 
bases; intelligence.)

There was some wincing and squirming in the audience, but in the end it 
was left to Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist, former CIA case 
officer, and author of the book /Understanding Terror Networks/ 
(published earlier this year) to state the obvious on Israel and Iraq. 
Putting it even more bluntly that the Defense Science Board panel, he 
asserted:

“We are seen as a hypocritical bully in the Middle East and we have to 
stop!”

Now why should that be so hard to say, I asked myself. And I was 
reminded of a frequent, unnerving experience I had while on the lecture 
circuit in recent months. Almost invariably, someone in the audience 
would approach me after the talk and congratulate me on my “courage” in 
naming Israel as a factor in discussing the war in Iraq and the struggle 
against terrorism. But since when did it take uncommon courage to state 
simply, without fear or favor, the conclusions of one’s analysis? Since 
when did it become an exceptional thing to tell it like it is?

*Taking The Heat On Israel*

I thought of the debate I had on Iraq with arch-neoconservative and 
former CIA Director James Woolsey, on PBS’ /Charlie Rose Show/ on August 
20, when I broke the taboo on mentioning Israel and was immediately 
branded “anti-Semitic” by Woolsey. Reflecting later on his accusation, 
it seemed almost OK, since it was so blatantly /ad hominem/ , and so 
transparent coming from the self-described “anchor of the Presbyterian 
wing of JINSA (the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs).” A 
flood of e-mail reached me from all over the country—again, 
congratulating me on my “courage.”

I still don’t fully understand. And that was my candid answer to the 
question I dreaded, the one that so often came up during the Q and A 
sessions following my talks: Why is it that the state of Israel has such 
pervasive influence over our body politic? No one denied that it does; 
most seemed genuinely puzzled as to why. My embarrassment at my 
inability to answer the question is somewhat attenuated by the solace I 
take in the thought that I am in good company.*

Gen. Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser to President George H. 
W. Bush, and now chair of his son's President’s Foreign Intelligence 
Advisory Board, has been known to speak out on key issues when his 
patience is exhausted. For example, remember how, before the attack on 
Iraq, he described the evidence of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda as 
“scant” when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was calling it 
“bulletproof?” Well, it sounds like he has again run out of patience. 
Scowcroft recently told the /Financial Times/* that George W. Bush is 
“mesmerized” by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. “Sharon just has 
him wrapped around his little finger,” Scowcroft is quoted as saying. 
Scowcroft and I must have less to lose than those working for RAND.

Surgery At The Times

The Times gives off unfortunate signs of being similarly mesmerized 
and/or intimidated. This shows through quite often; I’ll adduce but two 
recent examples: protecting bad policies and editing bin Laden.

To his credit, Thom Shanker of the /Times/ broke the story on the 
findings of the Defense Science Board panel on November 24. However, the 
report was delivered to the Secretary of Defense on September 23—before 
the election. Faulting America's pro-Israel policies would have hurt 
both presidential candidates—but would have helped American national 
security.

Further, Shanker quoted the paragraph beginning with “Muslims do not 
‘hate our freedom’” (see above), but he or his editors deliberately cut 
out the following sentence about what Muslims do object to; i.e., U.S. 
“one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights,” 
and support for tyrannical regimes. The /Times/ did include the sentence 
that immediately followed the omitted one. In other words, the offending 
middle sentence was surgically removed from the middle of the paragraph.

Similarly creative editing showed through the /Times’/ reporting on 
Osama bin Laden’s videotaped speech in late October. Almost six 
paragraphs of the story made it onto page one, but the /Times/ saw to it 
that the key point bin Laden made at the beginning of his speech was 
relegated to paragraphs 23 to 25 at the very bottom of page nine. Buried 
there was bin Laden’s assertion that the idea for 9/11 first germinated 
after “we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American-Israeli 
coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon.”

With that kind of support from the “newspaper of record,” and with 
familiar national security faces, sans Colin Powell, in place for the 
president’s second term, it is a safe bet we are in for the same 
misguided policies—only more so. The president's circle of advisers now 
has an even shorter diameter, and it is unlikely that Gen. Scowcroft’s 
protégé, Condoleezza Rice, will seek his counsel as secretary of state 
any more than she did as national security adviser.

No Surprise

On the afternoon of Feb. 5, 2003, after Secretary of State Colin Powell 
made his embarrassingly memorable speech at the UN, my colleagues and I 
of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) drafted and sent 
a Memorandum for the president, which concluded with this observation:

“After watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would 
be well served if you widened the discussion beyond... the circle of 
those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling 
reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely 
to be catastrophic.”

With the circle now narrowed, those widely known as “the crazies” as 
mid-level officials, when George H. W. Bush was in the White House, are 
now even more firmly ensconced—and in charge of things like wars. Hold 
onto your hats!




*