The Rise and Rise of Neocons
By Israel Shamir
(Review of Stephen Sniegoski’s The Transparent Cabal)
A much needed if scary book is about to be published by I.H.S. Press, the same
people who published The Neoconned! Stephen Sniegoski follows the
Rise and Rise of the Neocons, of the people who created Bin Laden, bombed
Belgrade, gave you the Iraqi War and the Patriot Act; the people who boasted:
“Creative destruction is our middle name”.
Sniegoski reveals the hidden origins of this warlike sect that hijacked
the only superpower. Read this book because the Neocons are here to stay. Maybe
they will have different names, or use somewhat different arguments, but the end
of their rule is not to be expected any time soon. “The
conjectures about their impending demise were completely off base. Far from
being headed for the political graveyard, neoconservatives are poised to become
even more powerful” says Sniegoski, quoting Jacob Heilbrunn.
Who are they? Neocons are mainly Jewish turncoats, who parted ways with the Left
and became right-wing pro-Israel zealots because they felt
that the Left was “bad for the Jews”. Despite some token Gentile presence, the
movement has been Jewish inspired, Jewish-oriented, and Jewish-dominated. They
are a leading party of Organised American Jewry, of sorts. Once, they were
Democrats, until Ronald Reagan with his virulent hatred of communism and
Soviet Russia (“Now we shall bomb Moscow”) hired them to win the ideological
Cold War. The Neocons, the red-diaper babies, switched sides, betrayed the
ideals of their fathers, and brought down the Left movement that got used to
rely upon Jews.
“While traditional conservatives welcomed neoconservatives as
allies in their fight against Soviet Communism and domestic liberalism, the
Neocons in effect acted as a Trojan Horse within conservatism: they managed to
secure dominant positions in the conservative political and intellectual
movement, and as soon as they gained power they purged those traditional
conservatives who opposed their agenda.” The old conservatives who
invited them in the first place, were pushed out by the aggressive newcomers,
and became irrelevant “Palaeo-Cons”.
Indeed, whoever tried to win a war while relying on Jewish help, he came to
regret it – even if the war was won. If one needed a proof for this old adage,
Stephen Sniegoski’s book supplies it.
President George Bush Sr. went to his war in Iraq using their abilities to
mobilize the public opinion and make the Americans to support the war. He
thought he could continue his own way after achieving victory, and refused to
give Israel $10 b they demanded unless they stop their settlement activity. That
was his mistake. While at power, the Neocons created their networks and
infiltrated all levels of control. Stephen Sniegoski discloses that Neocons are
not “seven or eight individuals” as per Seymour Hirsh, not even “some twenty
five Jews”, as per Tom Friedman, but vastly spread networks of pundits, media,
politicians, think tanks. When they decided that the president is not useful for
them anymore, they brought Bush the Senior low by activating the networks
against him. “And the George H. W. Bush who emerged from the Gulf War with an
astronomical 90 percent approval rating went down to a humiliating election
Stephen Sniegoski tells in detail about their connection to Israel, about their
“Securing the Realm” war plan, where the ‘Realm’ in question is the Jewish
state, while ‘securing’ should be done by and at the expense of the Americans.
The reader will be surprised to learn why they chose Iraq as their first target.
They claimed Iraq is the source of imminent and clear danger to Israel and even
to the US, but Sniegoski proves that they chose Iraq because they considered it
weak. In their war plan, they correctly surmised that Iraq can be broken into
ethnic religious warring communities with relative ease. They also correctly
assessed military and social weakness of Iraq and that is why they chose to
attack the poor country.
It would be an error to think that the Neocons are just doing
Israel’s asking. They are keen on war and strife everywhere. They admitted it
cheerfully: “we are a warlike people and we love war. . . . What we hate is not
casualties, but losing.”
Naturally, the “warlike people” in question are not Americans in general, but
the Neocons’ own community, American Jews. Provided they and their sons hardly
ever serve in the army, they may love war and disregard casualties with cavalier
Their first war was in Afghanistan. “The Neocons supported
the provision of extensive military aid to the militant Islamic Afghan “freedom
fighters” in their armed struggle against the Soviet occupation. The military
aid, which had begun in the Carter administration, had been very limited.
Richard Perle played a pivotal role in equipping the “freedom fighters” with the
all-important shoulder-borne Stinger missiles, which proved to be lethal to the
previously invincible Soviet helicopter gunships.
Ironically, the neoconservatives now portray these very same Muslims that they
helped to militarize as a deadly terrorist threat to America and the world.”
Their next war was far from the Middle East, in the Balkans.
They supported bombing of Serbia, but that was not enough for the “warlike
people”. They demanded to send ground troops to fight the Serbs. “Members of the
interventionist Balkan Action Committee, which advocated NATO ground troops for
Kosovo, included such prominent neoconservative mainstays as Richard Perle,
Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Max M. Kampelman, Morton Abramowitz, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Other announced proponents of a tougher war included Eliot Cohen, Elliott Abrams,
John Bolton, Bill Kristol, William Kagan, and Norman Podhoretz.
Now they are all for smashing Iran, but destruction of
the Saudi Arabia is on their plans, too. “In August 2002,
Max Singer presented a paper to the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment in which
he once again urged the dismemberment of Saudi Arabia.
The July/August 2002 issue of Commentary contained an article titled “Our
Enemies, the Saudis” by Victor Davis Hanson who claimed “that the Saudi
subversives were already in the process of taking over the United States itself”
and called “to spark disequilibrium, if not outright chaos” in Saudi Arabia. The
leading neoconservative expert on Saudi Arabia was Stephen Schwartz, who posited
a Saudi/Wahhabist conspiracy to take over all of Islam and spread terror
throughout the entire world.”
While these things are generally known to reading audience, and can be found in
recent The Rise of the Neocons,
by Jacob Heilbrunn, Sniegoski is at his scariest when he (correctly)
explains the inevitability of Neocons’ program. They will get what they want for
their powerbase – wealthy Jews and media lords – keeps all the options under
control. Do you think that the problem is Bush the Dumb and Cheney the Vicious?
Think again. Sniegoski takes us back to year 2000, when the Americans could have
chosen John McCain.
“For those who blame Bush and Cheney for the war on Iraq, a
significant hypothetical question is: How would a President John McCain have
responded to the September 11 attacks? Given his willingness to make war on a
country (Serbia) that did not threaten America in the least, his advocacy of
forcible regime change in Iraq, and his staunch support for the actual attack on
Iraq in 2003 (and his later hawkishness on Iran),
there is no reason to think that a President McCain would have avoided a war on
Iraq. In fact, he likely would have pursued a belligerent approach to Iraq even
if a major terrorist attack on the United States had not taken place.
Moreover, Senator John McCain, Bush’s Republican rival in the
primaries, was the favourite candidate for many leading neoconservatives in
2000. As Franklin Foer, editor of the liberal New Republic put it:
“Jewish neoconservatives have fallen hard for John McCain. It's not just
unabashed swooner William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. McCain
has also won over such leading neocon lights as David Brooks, the entire
Podhoretz family, The Wall Street Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz,
and columnist Charles Krauthammer”.
Democrats would lead the US to the same war, with the same
(or different) Neocons. Albert Gore and Joe Lieberman were even more pro-Israeli
and pro-war than Bush and Cheney. This repeated in 2004. “Even though the
Democratic grassroots were heavily anti-war, the presidential election of 2004
offered little choice regarding Iraq, since John Kerry, the Democratic nominee,
advocated virtually the same policy.
In essence, the Kerry foreign policy would be neo-conservatism without
neoconservatives, or at least without the same neoconservatives.”
One of the reasons for this inevitability is the Jewish media
lords’ control over the US discourse. Sniegoski notes that “Murdoch’s News
Corporation is the largest English-language news group in the world. In 2004,
it consisted of more than 175 newspapers (40 million papers sold each week) and
35 television stations. During the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all
175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialized in favour of the war.” Yes,
Sniegoski notes that there are many Jews against the war, but alas, they do not
Francis Foer, “The neocons wake up: Arguing the GOP,” New Republic,
March 20, 2000, p. 13.