JUST THE BEGINNING! IS IRAQ THE OPENING SALVO IN A WAR TO REMAKE THE WORLD?
ROY TAYLOR MINISTRIES
roytaylorministries.com roytaylor7@yahoo.com (e-mail)
CLICK HERE FORAMERICAN PIE AND THE ARMAGEDDON PROPHECY HOME PAGE
CLICK HERE FOR THE GENETIC CODE IS THE GENESIS WORD IN THE BOOK OF LIFE
CLICK HERE FOR THE SUN SHALL BE DARKENED AND THE MOON SHALL BE TURNED TO BLOOD!
CLICK HERE FORTHE LAMB, THE TEN HORNS, AND THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST
CLICK HERE FOR A NUCLEAR SACRIFICE IS NOW BEING PREPARED,WE ARE TO BE ITS INTENDED VICTIMS!
FR. ALEXANDER WOLFE MURRAY'S CHURCH BELIEVES THAT ROY TAYLOR IS A PROPHET PAGE ONE"
Dear Fellow Patriot!
In a sensational move, The Sacramento Bee (and other
major newspapers), this morning, reprinted the article
below by Robert Dreyfuss on the War on Iraq. Almost
like whistle-blowing, however, I am not that naive to
think that that's what it is. The article leaves no
doubt on who is running the war and also makes it
clear that this is just the beginning. Strangely, The
Bee does not carry this article on the web, so I'll
forward it to you. Please forward it to your friends
and family, and let them know that it comes from the
mainstream media.
[S T A R T]
Just the Beginning
Is Iraq the opening salvo in a war to remake the
world?
Robert Dreyfuss
For months Americans have been told that the United
States is going to war against Iraq in order to disarm
Saddam Hussein, remove him from power, eliminate
Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass
destruction, and prevent Baghdad from blackmailing its
neighbors or aiding terrorist groups. But the Bush
administration's hawks, especially the
neoconservatives who provide the driving force for
war, see the conflict with Iraq as much more than
that. It is a signal event, designed to create
cataclysmic shock waves throughout the region and
around the world, ushering in a new era of American
imperial power. It is also likely to bring the United
States into conflict with several states in the Middle
East. Those who think that U.S. armed forces can
complete a tidy war in Iraq, without the battle
spreading beyond Iraq's borders, are likely to be
mistaken.
"I think we're going to be obliged to fight a regional
war, whether we want to or not," says Michael Ledeen,
a former U.S. national-security official and a key
strategist among the ascendant flock of
neoconservative hawks, many of whom have taken up
perches inside the U.S. government. Asserting that the
war against Iraq can't be contained, Ledeen says that
the very logic of the global war on terrorism will
drive the United States to confront an expanding
network of enemies in the region. "As soon as we land
in Iraq, we're going to face the whole terrorist
network," he says, including the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO), Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad
and a collection of militant splinter groups backed by
nations -- Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia -- that he
calls "the terror masters."
"It may turn out to be a war to remake the world,"
says Ledeen.
In the Middle East, impending "regime change" in Iraq
is just the first step in a wholesale reordering of
the entire region, according to neoconservatives --
who've begun almost gleefully referring to themselves
as a "cabal." Like dominoes, the regimes in the region
-- first Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon
and the PLO, and finally Sudan, Libya, Yemen and
Somalia -- are slated to capitulate, collapse or face
U.S. military action. To those states, says cabal
ringleader Richard Perle, a resident fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and chairman of
the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon
advisory committee, "We could deliver a short message,
a two-word message: 'You're next.'" In the aftermath,
several of those states, including Iraq, Syria and
Saudi Arabia, may end up as dismantled, unstable
shards in the form of mini-states that resemble
Yugoslavia's piecemeal wreckage. And despite the
Wilsonian rhetoric from the president and his advisers
about bringing democracy to the Middle East, at bottom
it's clear that their version of democracy might have
to be imposed by force of arms.
And not just in the Middle East. Three-thousand U.S.
soldiers are slated to arrive in the Philippines,
opening yet another new front in the war on terrorism,
and North Korea is finally in the administration's
sights. On the horizon could be Latin America, where
the Bush administration endorsed a failed regime
change in Venezuela last year, and where new
left-leaning challenges are emerging in Brazil,
Ecuador and elsewhere. Like the bombing of Hiroshima,
which stunned the Japanese into surrender in 1945 and
served notice to the rest of the world that the United
States possessed unparalleled power it would not
hesitate to use, the war against Iraq has a similar
purpose. "It's like the bully in a playground," says
Ian Lustick, a University of Pennsylvania professor of
political science and author of Unsettled States,
Disputed Lands. "You beat up somebody, and everybody
else behaves."
Over and over again, in speeches, articles and white
papers, the neoconservatives have made it plain that
the war against Iraq is intended to demonstrate
Washington's resolve to implement President Bush's new
national-security strategy, announced last fall --
even if doing so means overthrowing the entire
post-World War II structure of treaties and alliances,
including NATO and the United Nations. In their book,
The War Over Iraq, William Kristol of The Weekly
Standard and Lawrence F. Kaplan of The New Republic
write, "The mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not
end there. … We stand at the cusp of a new historical
era. … This is a decisive moment. … It is so clearly
about more than Iraq. It is about more even than the
future of the Middle East and the war on terror. It is
about what sort of role the United States intends to
play in the twenty-first century."
Invading Iraq, occupying its capital and its oil
fields, and seizing control of its Shia Islamic holy
places can only have a devastating and highly
destabilizing impact on the entire region, from Egypt
to central Asia and Pakistan. "We are all targeted,"
Syrian President Bashar Assad told an Arab summit
meeting, called to discuss Iraq, on March 1. "We are
all in danger."
"They want to foment revolution in Iran and use that
to isolate and possibly attack Syria in [Lebanon's]
Bekaa Valley, and force Syria out," says former
Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs
Edward S. Walker, now president of the Middle East
Institute. "They want to pressure [Muammar] Quaddafi
in Libya and they want to destabilize Saudi Arabia,
because they believe instability there is better than
continuing with the current situation. And out of
this, they think, comes Pax Americana."
The more immediate impact of war against Iraq will
occur in Iran, say many analysts, including both
neoconservative and more impartial experts on the
Middle East. As the next station along the "axis of
evil," Iran holds power that's felt far and wide in
the region. Oil-rich and occupying a large tract of
geopolitical real estate, Iran is arguably the most
strategically important country in its neighborhood.
With its large Kurdish population, Iran has a stake in
the future of Iraqi Kurdistan. As a Shia power, Iran
has vast influence among the Shia majority in Iraq,
Lebanon and Bahrain, with the large Shia population in
Saudi Arabia's oil-rich eastern province and among the
warlords of western Afghanistan. And Iran's ties to
the violent Hezbollah guerrillas, whose anti-American
zeal can only be inflamed by the occupation of Iraq,
will give the Bush administration all the reason it
needs to expand the war on terrorism to Tehran.
The first step, neoconservatives say, will be for the
United States to lend its support to opposition groups
of Iranian exiles willing to enlist in the war on
terrorism, much as the Iraqi National Congress served
as the spearhead for American intervention in Iraq.
And, just as the doddering ex-king of Afghanistan
served as a rallying point for America's conquest of
that landlocked, central Asian nation, the remnants of
the late former shah of Iran's royal family could be
rallied to the cause. "Nostalgia for the last shah's
son, Reza Pahlavi … has again risen," says Reuel Marc
Gerecht, a former CIA officer who, like Ledeen and
Perle, is ensconced at the AEI. "We must be prepared,
however, to take the battle more directly to the
mullahs," says Gerecht, adding that the United States
must consider strikes at both Iran's Revolutionary
Guard Corps and allies in Lebanon. "In fact, we have
only two meaningful options: Confront clerical Iran
and its proxies militarily or ring it with an oil
embargo."
Iran is not the only country where restoration of
monarchy is being considered. Neoconservative
strategists have also supported returning to power the
Iraqi monarchy, which was toppled in 1958 by a
combination of military officers and Iraqi communists.
When the Ottoman Empire crumbled after World War I,
British intelligence sponsored the rise of a
little-known family called the Hashemites, whose
origins lay in the Saudi region around Mecca and
Medina. Two Hashemite brothers were installed on the
thrones of Jordan and Iraq.
For nearly a year, the neocons have suggested that
Jordan's Prince Hassan, the brother of the late King
Hussein of Jordan and a blood relative of the Iraqi
Hashemite family, might re-establish the Hashemites in
Baghdad were Saddam Hussein to be removed. Among the
neocons are Michael Rubin, a former AEI fellow, and
David Wurmser, a Perle acolyte. Rubin in 2002 wrote an
article for London's Daily Telegraph headlined, "If
Iraqis want a king, Hassan of Jordan could be their
man." Wurmser in 1999 wrote Tyranny's Ally, an
AEI-published book devoted largely to the idea of
restoring the Hashemite dynasty in Iraq. Today Rubin
is a key Department of Defense official overseeing
U.S. policy toward Iraq, and Wurmser is a high-ranking
official working for Undersecretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security John Bolton,
himself a leading neoconservative ideologue.
But if the neocons are toying with the idea of
restoring monarchies in Iraq and Iran, they are also
eyeing the destruction of the region's wealthiest and
most important royal family of all: the Saudis. Since
September 11, the hawks have launched an all-out
verbal assault on the Saudi monarchy, accusing Riyadh
of supporting Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization
and charging that the Saudis are masterminding a
worldwide network of mosques, schools and charity
organizations that promote terrorism. It's a charge so
breathtaking that those most familiar with Saudi
Arabia are at a loss for words when asked about it.
"The idea that the House of Saud is cooperating with
al-Qaeda is absurd," says James Akins, who served as
U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1970s and
frequently travels to the Saudi capital as a
consultant. "It's too dumb to be talked about."
That doesn't stop the neoconservatives from doing so,
however. In The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen
cites Wurmser in charging that, just before 9-11,
"Saudi intelligence had become difficult to
distinguish from Al Qaeda." Countless other, similar
accusations have been flung at the Saudis by neocons.
Max Singer, co-founder of the Hudson Institute, has
repeatedly suggested that the United States seek to
dismantle the Saudi kingdom by encouraging breakaway
republics in the oil-rich eastern province (which is
heavily Shia) and in the western Hijaz. "After
[Hussein] is removed, there will be an earthquake
throughout the region," says Singer. "If this means
the fall of the [Saudi] regime, so be it." And when
Hussein goes, Ledeen says, it could lead to the
collapse of the Saudi regime, perhaps to pro-al-Qaeda
radicals. "In that event, we would have to extend the
war to the Arabian peninsula, at the very least to the
oil-producing regions."
"I've stopped saying that Saudi Arabia will be taken
over by Osama bin Laden or by a bin Laden clone if we
go into Iraq," says Akins. "I'm now convinced that's
exactly what [the neoconservatives] want. And then we
take it over."
Iraq, too, could shatter into at least three pieces,
which would be based on the three erstwhile Ottoman
Empire provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra that were
cobbled together to compose the state eight decades
ago. That could conceivably leave a Hashemite kingdom
in control of largely Sunni central Iraq, a Shia state
in the south (possibly linked to Iran, informally) and
some sort of Kurdish entity in the north -- either
independent or, as is more likely, under the control
of the Turkish army. Turkey, a reluctant player in
George W. Bush's crusade, fears an independent
Kurdistan and would love to get its hands on Iraq's
northern oil fields around the city of Kirkuk.
The final key component for these map-redrawing,
would-be Lawrences of Arabia is the toppling of
Assad's regime and the breakup of Syria. Perle himself
proposed exactly that in a 1996 document prepared for
the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies (IASPS), an Israeli think tank. The plan,
titled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing
the Realm," was originally prepared as a working paper
to advise then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of
Israel. It called on Israel to work with Turkey and
Jordan to "contain, destabilize and roll-back" various
states in the region, overthrow Saddam Hussein in
Iraq, press Jordan to restore a scion of its Hashemite
dynasty to the Iraqi throne and, above all, launch
military assaults against Lebanon and Syria as a
"prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East
[to] threaten Syria's territorial integrity." Joining
Perle in writing the IASPS paper were Douglas Feith
and Wurmser, now senior officials in Bush's
national-security apparatus.
Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for a
New American Century (PNAC), worries only that the
Bush administration, including Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, might
not have the guts to see its plan all the way through
once Hussein is toppled. "It's going to be no small
thing for the United States to follow through on its
stated strategic policy in the region," he says. But
Schmitt believes that President Bush is fully
committed, having been deeply affected by the events
of September 11. Schmitt roundly endorses the vision
put forward by Kaplan and Kristol in The War Over
Iraq, which was sponsored by the PNAC. "It's really
our book," says Schmitt.
Six years ago, in its founding statement of
principles, PNAC called for a radical change in U.S.
foreign and defense policy, with a beefed-up military
budget and a more muscular stance abroad, challenging
hostile regimes and assuming "American global
leadership." Signers of that statement included
Cheney; Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz; Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs Peter W. Rodman;
Elliott Abrams, the Near East and North African
affairs director at the National Security Council;
Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi
opposition; I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff;
and Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.), the president's brother.
The PNAC statement foreshadowed the outline of the
president's 2002 national-security strategy.
Scenarios for sweeping changes in the Middle East,
imposed by U.S armed forces, were once thought
fanciful -- even ridiculous -- but they are now taken
seriously given the incalculable impact of an invasion
of Iraq. Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador
to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, worries about
everything that could go wrong. "It's a war to turn
the kaleidoscope, by people who know nothing about the
Middle East," he says. "And there's no way to know how
the pieces will fall." Perle and Co., says Freeman,
are seeking a Middle East dominated by an alliance
between the United States and Israel, backed by
overwhelming military force. "It's machtpolitik, might
makes right," he says. Asked about the comparison
between Iraq and Hiroshima, Freeman adds, "There is no
question that the Richard Perles of the world see
shock and awe as a means to establish a position of
supremacy that others fear to challenge."
But Freeman, who is now president of the Middle East
Policy Council, thinks it will be a disaster. "This
outdoes anything in the march of folly catalog," he
says. "It's the lemmings going over the cliff."
[E N D]
Walter F. Mueller
"The truth is back in business"
CLICK HERE FORAMERICAN PIE AND THE ARMAGEDDON PROPHECY HOME PAGE
CLICK HERE FORTHE MYSTERY OF THE SEVEN THUNDERS
CLICK HERE FOR THE GENETIC CODE IS THE GENESIS WORD IN THE BOOK OF LIFE
CLICK HERE FOR THE SUN SHALL BE DARKENED AND THE MOON SHALL BE TURNED TO BLOOD!
CLICK HERE FOR THE SONG OF THE LAMB
CLICK HERE FORTHE LAMB, THE TEN HORNS, AND THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST
CLICK HERE FOR BEHOLD! AND HE HAD A NAME WRITTEN THAT NO MAN KNEW BUT HE HIMSELF
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:46:16 -0800 (PST)
From: "Walter Mueller"
NOTE! After reading and learning the American Pie Bible study project I suggest that you read and learn the following Bible study projects, and learn them in the order that they are listed. The links to them are immediatly below. If you don't
study them in the order that they are listed, you may become confused.
Last Update: 06/16/2007
