« The Constituency That Counts | Main | "Mugged by Reality" »

14 March 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Got A Watch

Give the Col. full credit for saying in public what others fear to say in private.

Review AIPAC's track record for the past few years - steadfast support of Bush and his invasion policies. Then reflect where that line of thinking has led America. The conclusion: the best thing for America to do in every situation is the exact opposite of what AIPAC would want done. But that is not going to happen anytime soon, so the future course for the Israeli Province of America looks particularily bleak.

Factor in the imminent application of the economic hard limits to empire: the USA cannot afford its colonial empire anymore, so the empire will contract. The depth of the contraction is in the hands of foreigners, who hold all the economic cards.

This leads to a future time where the USA 's power is diminished to purely miltary stick and no carrot, where Israel loses the ability of its powerful patron and supplier of economic aid to influence events other than by threat of direct military intervention. Since military intervention costs vast sums of money, which won't be available to an economically impoverished America, even the military stick loses it's potency unless the use of missiles with WMD or other strategic weapons are on the table.

In the end, AIPAC is a significant factor in the coming severe shrinkage of American miltary and econimic power, and hastens the day when Israel will face hostile neighbors alone without the umbrella of American cover overhead.

So, anyone who supports AIPAC, Bush/Republicans and Israel on their present courses towards inevitable decline is in actuality working to self-defeat themselves, while helping to carry out Osama's master plan - embroil America in foreign wars causing loss of power and influence, withdrawal from foreign military adventures and draining the economy down to a state of weakness. Al-qaida looks to be heading for decisive victory in the "War on Terror" thanks to all the help thoughtfully provided by "useful idiots".

I see low probability of any other outcome unless present irrational courses are reversed. Chances of that - slim to none at present, Democrat or Republican.

"If there is one thing impressive about the US, it is its endless supply of really stupid people." Exactly. People who rise to become "leaders" and get on weekend talk-shows where their profound ignorance is exhibited to the world.

Burgette Mobley

My God, what a bloody mess! And, worse, NOBODY seems to know how to get us out of this bloody mess. In point of fact, I'm no sure there is a way out. At least none that does not require a humiliating loss of face. And an acceptance of responsibilty for the unnecessary deaths of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands)people. Neither of those things are going to happen, because America is not emotionaly capable of it. They are trying to find a way to make our country come out looking like the "hero", because America demands it. While horse manure may make for beautiful roses, there is no beautiful blossom growing out of this turd.

I had never heard that saying before but it certainly rings true. And explains a lot. And scares the hell out of me.


The saddest thing after Vietnam is that the concept “Americans and Israelis killing Arabs in their homes in a war of attrition will result in victory” is still alive and isn’t challenged by Democrats or the “liberal” media.


I was reminded of the America, remembered by DeWitt Grey, ("the republic that used to stand for the rule of law") while watching the funeral services for President Ford at the National Cathedral. Until 2001, I was proud to be a citizen of this country



your immediate field promotion to 4 star status with a nomination for your 5th star is in order.

all who read the blog, ATTENTION, a general officer IS in the building! SHARP CRISP salutes ARE in order!

pat, you're the man! :)

Cold War Zoomie

Reading the last two blog posts and, more importantly their responses, has been time spent in another episode of Bizzarro World. It appears a retired Spec Ops/Intel Colonel's website has become the haven for anti-war liberals. If I had to guess Col. Lang’s political affiliation, I would rank him a true-blue Libertarian.

For the sake of total disclosure, I veer left of center in my politics here in the States after spending a long time in Europe. (Over there, I’m fairly far to the right!) And I lean anti-Iraq war although I’m not anti-war in general – I thought from day one it was a mistake. But I think it’s a sad state of affairs in this country when we “Lefties” are so hungry for unvarnished, straight-forward, clear-headed analysis that is centered on finding the truth that Col. Lang is drawing us dirty, smelly hippies to him in droves.

I have a question for you Col. Lang, if you can answer it in this forum. What really are our chances of winning something that resembles a victory in Iraq? I am vacillating back and forth between a belief that we must recognize the cold hard facts pointing to defeat and remembering that, as a nation, we can take a Hell of a lot more punishment than we’re taking in Iraq. Hell, we even tend to prosper after fighting much worse wars than this, with our own Civil War coming to mind. We rebound, we overcome. But by the same token, all the empires have fallen before us and maybe it’s our turn to over-extend ourselves and bite the dust.

I just finished reading “Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy” by Ian Toll. He tells the story of how our little, crappy Navy started in the 1790s was so bothersome to the Brits that it helped end the War of 1812. And the Royal Navy had over 600 ships! Now I’m reading “1776” by David McCullough. We all know how that “insurgency” turned out. Add the most rudimentary understanding of the British experience in Iraq right after WWI and I can’t help but wonder if the roles have reversed for us 230 years after we beat the most powerful military and naval forces on the planet.

Then again, it really does sound like violence is declining in Baghdad regardless of how little I trust our government. And we haven’t even started putting our resources to the task like we have in the past.

Where is thing going?


Chris Marlowe

Martin van Creveld, an Israeli military historian, has said that the US invasion of Iraq is the most stupid military act since the Romans lost three legions in what is now Germany in 9AD.


Just as a point of interest, van Creveld is not very popular in Israel (and even less so in the US), because he believes that Israel is not viable in the long run. It's hard to accuse him of anti-semitism because he's Israeli, so the media prefers not to mention him.

Burgette Mobley:
I would encourage you to view a 1976 movie, Network. There is a speech in which the Peter Finch character is on the receiving end of a speech about how the world REALLY works. Watch it.

Got A Watch:
Umm...Those really stupid people on the talk shows know what they are doing. Take Tim Russert. He calls himself a journalist, but is really VP Cheney's press spokesman. He is paid 5M a year to be a "journalist" by NBC. NBC is owned by General Electric, which is a REALLY big US defense contractor. (Weapons manufacture is the only part of their business which they have not moved to China; if they could, they would, but they can't.)

Get the picture?

Ain't American democracy great! Answer: "It is if you're Tim Russert!"



They are all scum.

They are all bought and paid for.


Uri Avnery, the Israeli peace activist gives good insight

"that both versions are right: the American dog wags its Israeli tail, and the Israeli tail wags the American dog. "



There's a related scandal that's been under the radar for a while: In June, the espionage trial of former high-level AIPAC staffers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman in the Larry Franklin affair is scheduled to begin, after many delays and attempts to quash the proceedings.

Facing up to 10 years in federal prison, up against detailed, well-documented federal charges based on wiretaps, videos and the testimony of self-confessed spy and Pentagon contact Franklin, fired and denounced by their former colleagues and current leaders of AIPAC, Rosen and Weissman are striking back with unexpected vehemence.

The defense attorneys are expected to argue that receiving information from administration officials was something the two were paid and encouraged to do and something AIPAC routinely does (Forward, December 23,2005). In other words, Rosen and Weissman will say that pumping top US government officials for confidential memos and handing them over to Israeli officials was a common practice among AIPAC operatives.

...Franklin was a top Pentagon analyst on Iran, with access to all the executive branch deliberations on Iran. AIPAC lobbying and information gathering was aggressively directed toward pushing the Israeli agenda on a US-Iranian confrontation against strong opposition in the State Department, CIA, military intelligence and field commanders.

These grafs are from an excellent article on the matter: James Petras: AIPAC onTrial

Perhaps the rush to make war on Iran is an effort to 'beat the clock' before the full weight of this scandal is brought out into the light.

michael savoca

Colonel Lang I must acknowledge that, for the most part, you are absolutely right. There are a lot of democrats and republicans who are both scum. When it comes to AIPAC most wither in the face of their lobbying influence. But on other counts, from time to time there are differences between the two major parties. And there are politicians out there, on both sides of the aisle, who occasional transcend their party line and hue to a higher principal.

But on the issue of going to war against Iraq. I would appreciate you indulgence in allowing me to point out that 23 senators had the insight, courage and maybe even luck to have taken a stand, and voted correctly against giving this President that blank check to apply military power at will and against whom ever he may will. I recall about Twenty-two of the 23 who said “Nay” to President Bush were democrats. The true hero of the lot was, in my opinion, the republican, Lincoln Chafee. He paid for his defiance with the loss of his public office.

I admit my partiality to seeing the house and the senate in the hands of opposite parties. And the contributing bloggers above who indicate it may be time to curtail, at least modestly, the war powers act, have my support.

W. Patrick Lang


Libertarian constitutionalist. pl


To those of you who read this, please read it carefully.

The foreign policy of the United States is in the hands of a small group of people whose first allegiance is to a foreign power.

This group is able to exert their influence through financial pressure on elected individuals.

It turns out that the financial power this group possesses also comes from their willingness to place the interests of foreign powers above that of the United States.

Observe: in the past five years the euro has appreciated over 50% against the dollar, the yen has appreciated under 14%, and the yuan has appreciated not at all.

China, Japan, and the European nations are nations of savers. But China and Japan are industrial powerhouses with extremely cheap labor. Their currencies should have appreciated at least as much as the euro, probably much more.

But they didn't.

Focus on the yen. The so-called "yen carry trade" in which Americans borrow yen and invest in higher-yielding American obligations is based squarely on the relatively low value of the yen.

The "yen carry trade" has enriched beyond measure the individuals who are controlling our foreign policy. It is based on a completely artificial currency manipulation by the Japanese to maintain their manufacturing stranglehold over the United States.

So, our foreign policy is in the hands of individuals whose first allegiance is to a foreign power who have achieved that power by selling the interests of the United States to another foreign power.

This does not bode well for the United States. Successful parasites do not kill the host. Let us hope that these individuals know that and at least honor it to a sufficient extent to preserve our nation.


Colonel Lang, you are a true master of brevity.


Thanks Chris Marlowe for introducing van Creveld, the Israeli military historian and expert in LIC, low intensity conflict.

he poses the question

"The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. "

However, Israel (and perhaphs the U.S.) has solved that public relations problem. The enemy is simply demonized as a "terrorist." Period. Even when they strike purely military targets. they are still terrorists.

It even now appears that Olmert-Peretz-Halutz planned to wipe out the entire infrastructure of Lebanon but were "restrained" by Bush who was "friendly" to the Seniora goverment. In spite of the barbaric bombing, the Israelis still had overwehlming popular American support against the "terrorists."

Clifford Kiracofe

Per Petras book: There is a growing and useful literature concerning the structural problem, the "pro-Israel" Lobby, and its impact on the American body politic and foreign policy.

An excellent study with useful data on the Lobby's influence over Congress is contained in Seth P. Tillman, The United States and the Middle East (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981). Professor Tillman served on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the 1970s and saw many things from the inside...as I did when serving on that Committee in the 1980s and early 1990s.

I can recommend for those interested: Edward Tivnan, The Lobby. Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1987) and J.J. Goldberg, Jewish Power. Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley 1996).

Historical context is also useful. For an excellent study of the Rothschild penetration of United States politics in the 19th century through their financial agent August Belmont (1813-1890), see: Irving Katz, August Belmont. a political biography (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968). Belmont was once Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Professor Katz's treatment is sympathetic and has an excellent bibliography.

Dr. Clifford Kiracofe


It is just not the matter of Ziocon money swaying politicians. It is a matter of leadership in politics and in all facets of the the culture.

Consider this: 13 Jewish Senators and 30 congressmen.

They are all not of one mind and indeed some of them are fiercely anti-war.

Clifford Kiracofe

Per AIPAC meeting: see Salon article by Gregory Levey, "Inside America's Powerful Israel Lobby"

All the usuals at the extravaganza including the fire and brimstone Christian Zionist set. This bizarre but effective penetration of US culture was implemented back in 1859-1872 through the preaching of a defrocked Anglican priest: John Nelson Darby. Google his name and check out the results. He invented the heresy of "Dispensationalism" a core belief of perhaps 20-30 million delusional American "Christians." Tidy voting bloc for Karl Rove etal.

Onward and upward.

Dr. Clifford Kiracofe


I'm a little wary of any theory involving "secret Jews" whispering in the Presidents ear.

This is an old American meme long favored as an explanation of seemingly unthinkable reality of Presidential fallibility. Even FDR was painted as a shill of the chosen people.

I don't doubt AIPAC played a very significant role in Uncle Sam's current march of folly but they are just one interest group.

Truth is the momentum for the OIF had been building for a decade and an awful lot of powerful folks saw this war as a very good idea for fairly diverse reasons. The causes of this crazed stampede towards WWIII are deep and systemic and not simply the product of an alien parasite.

History suggests America has a robust ability to recover but this corruption runs deep in both houses and a radical intervention to save the republic may called for rather than the usual lawyerly games.

IF it chance your eye offend you,
Pluck it out, lad, and be sound:
’Twill hurt, but here are salves to friend you,
And many a balsam grows on ground.

And if your hand or foot offend you,
Cut it off, lad, and be whole;
But play the man, stand up and end you,
When your sickness is your soul.

A. E. Housman

W. Patrick Lang


"Whispering?" "in secret?"

Hardly. pl


At week's end it is reported that Pelosi will offer the redacted Iran portion of the resolution as a stand-alone bill for up or down vote.

According to the salon.com article, the AIPAC leadership at least was not as hawkish about an actual military strike against Iran so much as it was on severe and pervasive economic sanctions. American Jewry is not monolithic by any means, and neither is AIPAC evidently. Maybe it's not "anti-Semitic" to criticize the idea of pre-emptively striking Iran after all.

I suspect there are people in Israel and at AIPAC who are equally frightened of both Ahmadinejad and George Bush.

Clifford Kiracofe

Per some of the bellicose parasites: This is an interesting and useful Masters Thesis, Ryan Patrick McHargue "Neconservatism and Iraq" Florida State.

There is a growing body of serious academic literature on Neocons and foreign policy.

The Neocon intellectual network services larger "special interests," a melange to be sure. Neocons are quite out in the open about their policy concepts and have been for decades. Just read Commentary Magazine or the Weekly Standard, for example. No "secret whispers" for this crowd; who needs that sort of thing when you are on FOX News...etc.

The dark hysteria-filled Neocon mindset is indeed alien to the American tradition if one considers Neocon heroes such as Nietzsche, Jabotinsky, and Carl Schmitt "alien."

Dr. Clifford Kiracofe


I'd been reading:

Let's recall how the votes fell for a "A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.":

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133."

In the Senate a clear majority of Dems favored the war. In the house. A large minority of 81 Dems voted for the war in the House. Only a few Republicans dissented.


Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

And don't tell they were deceived by the OSP's Zionist smoke and mirrors; Hill's Clinton is a lot of things but she's not politically naive. These people weren't gullible shills, they represent numerous factions and had a raft of sensibly venal policy reasons to sign on for the project. They were eager to be convinced by the transparently flimsy neocon case. Many have since sprinted away from the wreckage.



Of the "sensibly venal policy reasons to sign on for the project", I believe that the most compelling reason of all for most of them was their fear of being labeled "soft on terrorism" in the 2002 election campaign.

Clifford Kiracofe

Per AIPAC extravaganza: A useful and important article from 1984 sheds light on The Lobby's ethnic and religious alliances for political purposes. Irving Kristol, "The Political Dilemma of American Jews," Commentary, Vol. 78, No.1, July 1984.

Kristol argues as follows, looking ahead to the November 1984 election and beyond:
1.Jewish money and votes backed the Civil Rights movement and many African-American candidates.
2.But Jesse Jackson and other African-American leaders are now anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. "The upshot is that the long alliance between Jewish and black organizations is coming apart," Kristol says.
3. Therefore American Jews need to find other political allies, another bloc. The rise of the Moral Majority and Christian Fundamentalist Right offers such an opportunity. Because such Christian Zionist groups are "vigorously pro-Israel" it makes sense to form a political alliance with them despite what Jews may think of their theology generally.
4. The United Nations is "above all, an organization bent on deligitimizing, even eventually destroying, the state of Israel," Kristol says.
5. Jews, Kristol laments (page 28), "cannot even bring themselves openly to support the indispensible precondition of the exercise of American influence on behalf of Jewish interests in the world: a large and powerful military establishment that can, if necessary, fight and win dirty, little (or not so little) wars in faraway places."

Dr. Clifford Kiracofe

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad