US foreign policy a lot worse than libertarians think
by Don Hank May 4, 2015
The blog Americans for a Free Republic recently ran an informative article relating to the origin and nature of Neoconservatism, showing that these people are anything but conservative and are in fact statists who advocate a strong central government and US hegemony in the world. Every American needs this information.
However, the article introduces the usual misconception about the wars that Neocons advocate. Thus they write of Neocon Frank Gaffney:
“Gaffney has been a longtime advocate of interventionist U.S. foreign policies, ever-increasing military budgets, and aggressive attacks upon the Islamic world.” [my emphasis]
This wording makes it seem as if the Neocons are anti-Muslim when they are really quite friendly toward the most violent Muslims. Since 1973, when Nixon-Kissinger entered into the petrodollar agreement with Saudi Arabia, all US military conflicts have been conducted almost exclusively to support Saudi foreign policy in exchange for the Saudis’ demanding payment for oil in US dollars. This propped up the dollar artificially but, shamefully, made mercenaries of the US military, unbeknownst to the American people. The most vital point that we all miss is that US attacks were selective upon the Shiite world and secularist regimes in the Middle East, not upon the Sunni world and hence, not upon the Muslim world per se, as is habitually repeated. (Even though Saddam was a Sunni, he was first and foremost a secularist, which rankled the Saudis).
The Saudis are mainly Sunni Wahhabis, the most violent and intolerant sect (anti-Christian, for example) in the world. This notion that the Neocons are anti-Muslim is simplistic and will lead to tragic mistakes in foreign policy if translated into practice. In fact it already has.
You are aware that the Neocons, including most Democrats and Republicans (notably John McCain and Lindsay Graham) seem to harbor a visceral hatred of Syria and Iran.
Syria is in the hands of a Shiite (specifically Alawite, a Shiite subsect), Bashar al-Assad, while Iran is Shiite majority. For the sake of reference, there are 600 Christian churches in Iran vs none in Saudi Arabia. The Neocons do not attack the Saudis or other Sunni non-secular regimes. They attack Shiites and secular regimes as stated above, which is why they are intent on ousting Assad and bombing Iran. After centuries of dhimmitude, Israel also feels obliged to follow the Saudis’ lead, in order to gain a certain immunity from terror attacks, and you will have noted that ISIS has so far pursued a hands-off policy toward Israel. If Israel attacks Iran, with US Neocons’ blessings, that will give them points with the Saudis.
In the case of Kosovo, Neocon-led US forces attacked a Christian (Russian orthodox, or Pravoslavny) regime and carved out a Muslim state from it, and the Saudis funneled money into this new state, showing that here again, there was zero American interest in this war but considerable Saudi interest. Again, as incredible as it seems, the US was acting purely as mercenaries. There is no other plausible explanation. In fact, a Spanish forensic team sent by the UN to Kosovo after the war found that the “genocide” on which the war was justified had never happened.
Thus the US elites are not attacking Islam. They are attacking Saudi Arabia’s enemies and thereby supporting Sunni Wahhabism — in exchange not for oil but for petrodollar support. This is far worse than simply attacking the Muslim world, as theorized by most critics of Neocon policies. The theory that US attacks are anti-Muslim is widely held by libertarians but is a tragic misconception because it leads to policies that pander to and apologize to Muslims at large – which includes (Sunni, ie, Wahhabi) ISIS – when we should be apologizing primarily to the Shiites and to the victims of countries like Iraq and Libya, who lost their leaders, their political stability, security and infrastructure as a result of US mercenary intervention on the Saudis’ behalf – both US political parties are equally culpable.
Alternatively, this lumping together of all Muslims leads to a mindset toward Muslims as expressed by the conservative mantra: Kill them all and let Allah sort it out. This too supports the Neocons, who are thereby given tacit permission by conservatives to attack any Muslim country and hence to continue killing Saudi enemies as the sheeple doze in tacit acquiescence.
In summary, the US oligarchs support the most dangerous Muslims against the less violent and more tolerant ones.