Who Are the Puppet Masters?

There was a very interesting comment in an article by Michael Matt that I referenced in a recent post. In discussing the (non-) impact of who wins the presidential election on our foreign policy, he said:

“As for the war in Iraq and wherever else the Neocons in their madness wish to invade next, this is another matter. But Obama and McCain will both do what they’re told when it comes to America’s wars—we have little say in that because they have little say in that. And if you doubt that this is so then you’ve been drinking as much Kool-Aid as Sean Hannity. We’re way beyond that in this country.”

Remember now, this was an article in which Matt advocated voting for McCain! But that was based on domestic policy, i.e. abortion. When it comes to foreign policy, he realizes that it makes no difference who we vote for, since the decision is totally out of the hands of any elected official. But if that is the case – and I agree that it is – then who _does_ make these decisions? Who _does_ “run the country” when it comes to foreign policy, if not the president – the head of the executive branch -- or Congress, which has the exclusive power to declare war (unless they vote to give it away to someone else, which they do on a regular basis).

Now, one can say, right off the bat, that one of the more prominent domestic influences on our foreign policy, at least during the Bush administration, has been the “Neocons”, and their stated agenda usually revolves around something called “spreading democracy”, AKA Wilsonism. Their _unstated_ agenda is to expand the American Empire and increase American power and influence world-wide, regardless of the form of government other countries wind up with in the process. That's on the “idea” side.

On the more practical side, we find that large corporations, both national and international, and especially the war industries, can always be found to favor expanding the American Empire, preferably by force of arms in the case of the war industries, but always by economic force. (Look at the threats our senior military leaders have been reduced to using against the Iraqis to pressure them into signing the "accord" -- we'll take our (economic) dolls and go home!) Political influence is just a means to an end for these folks.

But getting back on the political side, we also have the “Israeli question”, and no foreign policy is even going to make the first cut unless it includes unquestioning, unwavering “support” (whatever that means – and it can be made to mean almost anything) of Israel. This, of course, is a political issue because, from an economic point of view, our support of Israel makes no sense whatsoever. (They don't even have any oil, for gosh sakes! What kind of Near Eastern country winds up with no oil?) It's also a political issue because, despite the mythological “wall of separation between church and state”, the Evangelicals have had a stranglehold on American foreign policy ever since Bush was inaugurated. And the politics of dealing with the Evangelicals is a two-edged sword – they will provide energetic support verging on fanaticism if they think you're on their side, but will do everything they can to destroy you if they think you're against them. (In this, one might say they provide a nice counterweight to the mainstream media and organizations like ACORN, etc. But read on.)

The next question might be, surely the Neocons will be rounded up and thrown out of Washington the minute Obama takes office. Right? Wrong, says Leon Hadar in the latest “Chronicles”. He feels that the Neocons are just too entrenched, and that they are not being sufficiently blamed for the Iraq debacle. And I might add that they will, at most, simply do what they did during the Clinton hiatus – retire to their various Beltway think tanks, wait out the leftist storm, than come racing back into the White House next time around. Plus, Hadar points out that since both major parties believe in American military and economic intervention virtually anywhere in the world, and since the Neocons are the ones who have perfected, and who tirelessly promote, this concept, that they will be needed as “an intellectual caste whose members help legitimize the political elite's power at home and abroad.” Thus, both McCain and Obama are likely to want to defend Georgia against Russia... which up until less than 20 years ago would have been like Russia promising to defend the _state_ of Georgia against the rest of the U.S. Leftist outfits like ACORN, on the other hand, are concerned almost exclusively with domestic policy these days. Otherwise, we'd be having “peace marches” all the time the way we had during Vietnam, but where are they? No, the American left has been rendered impotent in the foreign policy era, mainly by the simple fact of the Cold War having ended, and the Soviet Union having broken up (and the Chinese becoming better capitalists than we ever were). Without a strong foreign entity with which to align themselves, the American left really has no interest in anything outside our borders – a fact which has surely pleased the Neocons no end, since they could now move in and fill the vacuum.

Now let's have a look at a slightly different perspective, namely the conventional wisdom coming out of Iran. According to an on-line MSNBC article, typical Iranians:

“... didn’t think it mattered who became the next president because they believe U.S foreign policy is predetermined in a negative way toward Iran and that America will do anything it needs to in order to keep Israel happy. 'The American people have no choice in these elections, the decision will be made by a powerful Jewish cartel,' said Hamid Nagat, a businessman. 'If a presidential candidate does not stand behind Israel like a mountain, they will never get voted into office,' said Salah Mohamadi, a student in his first year of university. Majid, an accountant who gave only his first name, said that the difference of opinion between Iran and the U.S. over Israel was really at the heart of the differences between the two countries. 'It does not matter if it’s McCain or Obama because whoever becomes president, their first priority is going to be Israel – and we don’t recognize Israel as a country, so we will always be at odds,' he said.”

Now, I'm not claiming that the Iranian man on the street is the most objective person on earth with regard to Israel, or with American policy vis-a-vis the Near East. But he does, after all, live there, unlike any of the foaming-at-the-mouth Pat Robertson types who can't wait to nuke Tehran. And I don't believe Iranians are all mind-numbed robots simply parroting the latest outbursts from Ahmadinejad. I think they think what they think, and say what they say, because they see what they see. And what they see is that Israel is fighting a proxy war with the rest of the Near East – i.e. with the “Arab world”, and by extension the Moslem world -- and that the U.S. is the proxy. Now, how this bizarre and topsy-turvy situation arose is another matter which I won't trouble to go into here. Suffice it to say that this is the viewpoint of the Iranians, who believe themselves – with just cause! -- to be the next place to wind up in the crosshairs of American foreign policy.

So we have Michael Matt, on the one hand, referring to a mysterious someone, or something, that is making all the foreign policy decisions, no matter who is president. And we have the Iranians claiming that it's all about Israel, first, last, and always. It's not hard to equate the “powerful Jewish cartel” with organizations such as AIPAC and with Israel's roving ambassador Joe Lieberman. And is it really true that no candidate who doesn't support Israel can be voted into office? It might be more accurate to say they can never be nominated... but then is that true? There's no way of knowing, because it's never been tried. Sarah Palin, for example, was already a hard-core "Christian Zionist" when she was picked by McCain -- but just in case, she dropped off radar for a while within 24 hours after she was picked so that her brainwashing could be topped off by AIPAC and Lieberman.

In any case, when you look at the things that are likely to change as a result of the election – especially in the likely event Obama wins – among the things that should _not_ be on that list are (1) our foreign policy in the Near East; (2) the influence of the Neocons; and (3) preferential treatment for Israel. One thing that might change is the visible presence, and influence, of the Evangelicals. But I don't think they could have tipped the balance all by themselves over the past few years, without the help of the Neocons. For one thing, the Evangelicals are very clear on the “what” -- i.e. what they want our foreign policy to accomplish, namely the perpetuation of Israel on the one hand, and the acceleration of the “end times” on the other, unto the Battle of Armageddon and all of its attendant features. (The fact that said battle may well include the destruction of Israel doesn't strike them as problematic – the idea is to keep Israel alive so that it may be properly destroyed, i.e. as a legitimate part of “salvation history” and not just because some Palestinians have a grudge.) What they are not so clear on is the “how” -- and that's where the Neocons come in. They are the master manipulators of public opinion, and also stand at the crossroads where the executive and legislative branches, the military, and the mainstream media meet. They also have academic and scholarly “credentials”, unlike the typical Evangelical, and don't seem, as individuals, all that hungry for power for its own sake – it's more like they are all enlisted in the same crusade and if some don't survive, it was nonetheless worth the effort (which is why, e.g., none of them is bothered in the least by the fact that George Bush's administration will go down in infamy as one of the worst ever).

I would say that, in the most general sense, the Iraqi catastrophe is the result of a “perfect storm” representing a convergence of interests of the Neocons, the Evangelicals, business interests, and Israel. They are all profiting from this war in some sense, regardless of the toll it is taking on the American economy overall, and on ordinary Americans. They are also profiting, as I said above, regardless of the toll it is taking on Bush, his administration, and the Republican Party. Do you think that the Republicans going down in crushing defeat next week is going to “punish” the Neocons, or the Evangelicals, or the war industries, or Israel? Not a bit of it. They will simply set their sights on Obama (they already have, in fact) and before you know it, it will be back to business (or whatever) as usual, with Obama the new patsy/scapegoat/chump/fall guy. How's he going to feel in a year or two when he looks in the mirror and sees George W. Bush? “Not good” is my guess.

And, by the way, the next sound you will hear after Obama's inauguration will be the sound of his countless leftist supporters taking to the streets once they realize they've been had when it comes to getting out of Iraq. (It will be not unlike the reaction of conservatives every time a Republican does squat about Roe v. Wade -- except with Molotov cocktails added to the mix.) In fact, with any luck we'll see a reprise of what happened to the Democrats and LBJ after he massively escalated the war in Vietnam, after campaigning against Goldwater who was portrayed as a dangerous psycho because of his anti-communist positions. Me, I can hardly wait for the 2012 race.