the headline "Mail
Is Chronically Late In Iraq", on the 6/24 "O'Reilly
Factor", Colonel Mark Storer inadvertently exposed the logic
underlying the current military adventure in Iraq. Specifically,
he referred to Iraq as a "theater" in the overall Operation
of course, lacked the pluck to ask the Colonel what the other
theaters in the Operation were. The question was never intended
to be asked, giving validation to those who upbraided former LaRouchite
Laurent Murawiec in August, 2002 for asserting, among other things,
that as part of the "Grand strategy for the Middle East",
that "Iraq is the tactical pivot", Saudi Arabia "the
strategic pivot", and Egypt "the prize."
the time, folks like Slate's Jack
Shafer laid into Murawiec for hailing from "extreme
foreign policy territory". Shafer's contemporaneous article,
which provides helpfully the unexpurgated Power Point presentation
Murawiec gave to the Defense Policy Board the month before, also
takes issue with the Richard
Perle associate describing Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of
evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle
the advantage of hindsight, however, we can see the tactical advantage
of having a shadowy figure like Murawiec flanking Richard Perle,
Michael Ledeen, and the other hawks of 2002 to the "right"
on the issue of Middle Eastern subjugation. And we can also see
that Murawiec, for all
the heat he took last summer, may have been given the unenviable
task of stating what US Policy would end up being in the region
[talks of "cakewalks" from bigger names notwithstanding].
did Murawiec really say that was so controversial? His Power Point
presentation made some points that no one in the mainstream media
seemed much willing to refute at the time. "The Arab world
has been in a systemic crisis for the last 200 years", wrote
the former Executive Intelligence Review scribe, due to
its "Lack of Inner Resources to deal with the modern world."
he right? It depends on how one defines "inner resources",
of course. Certainly, the region hasn't successfully resisted
Western influence in any significant way, as Edward
Said has spent a lifetime arguing. According to Said and many
other Arab intellectuals, the typical leader of a Middle Eastern
country is overly beholden to the US. On some level, folks like
Murawiec are justified in asserting, prima facie, that the Arab
world lacked sufficient inner resources to overthrow the yoke
of western oppression.
times, Murawiec on the Middle East approaches the "moral
clarity" of Bill Bennett discussing the Drug War. Quotes
from the Power Point, considered in succession, read like Fox
News crawlers: "All Arab states are either failing states
or threatened to fail. . . violence is politics, politics is violence.
. . Saudi Arabia is central to the self-destruction of the Arab
world and the chief vector of the Arab crisis and its outwardly-directed
aggression. The Saudis are active at every level of the terror
chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier,
from ideologist to cheerleader. Saudi Arabia supports our enemies
and attacks our allies."
those quotes have the power to shock. But it could be argued that,
in tone and deed, they go no farther than best-selling neoconservative
author Michael Ledeen did in a September 2001 piece for National
Online. "Creative destruction is our middle name. We
do it automatically, and that is precisely why the tyrants hate
us, and are driven to attack us."
were, and are, solutions to the problems posed by the tyrants
in Ledeen's reckoning. Ledeen argued that Bush should "give
full support to this democratic resistance movement, and encourage
the downtrodden and long suffering Iraqi people to join Chalabi
and win their freedom." For Iran, Ledeen claimed that "the
mullahs could not survive a free election". The NRO mainstay
referred to Osama bin Laden as "phantasmagorical", by
way of justifying the then-imminent invasion of Afghanistan "to
export the Democratic revolution". Events have conspired
against us, in Ledeen's read, "forcing us to take up our
have taken up that revolutionary burden and then some. Furthermore,
there seems to be scant hope for the near future. Recent polling
by the Washington
Post suggests that, while 72% of Americans are concerned
about the length of the peacekeeping mission in Iraq, a full 56%
would support taking military action against the Tehran government.
Democratic revolution? You're soaking in it!