Before anyone answers that any cooky idiot can write what they want on these internets, pause to consider that this man works with former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney and other PNACers who make up the Center for Security Policy and have great stature within the neo-conservative moment (that is, the movement whose only fixed belief is Israel).
Here are some choice excerpts from the piece, which has been taken off the think tank site but is reproduced in full in this article:
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.
. . .
When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.
Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
I know the recent HBO-BBC production Rome is excellent and great fun, but really this is taking it a bit far.
The lesson to take from this, of course, is not that this is representative of how Americans see the mess of Iraq, but I do think it is telling of how neo-conservatives, with their single-minded obsession with Israeli dominion over the Middle East, care nothing for American institutions, democracy, or human life — never mind that of other people. You are known by the company you keep.
More looniness at Atkin’s website, OurCivilization.com, including that AIDS is not caused by HIV and that everything went downhill after the French revolution overthrew the old aristocracy. Sometimes I wonder if these guys exist just to make the crowd that’s advising Rudy Giuliani (now featuring the terrible trio of Podhoretz-Kramer-Pipes) look more reasonable.
Ils sont fous, ces Romains.
But seriously, someone I knew liked to wonder out loud what would have happened if the Great Depression had coincided with the rise of a serious fascist movement in the US, and bet that Americans would have been just as susceptible to a theocratic revolution as Iran in 1979 – it seemed laughable once, but no longer.
Wasn’t that the topic of that Philip Roth novel (or maybe it was John Updike, I can’t tell them apart) about Charles Lindbergh in the 1930s?
Yeah, Philip Roth The Plot Against America, I think, though the kind of fascist dystopia he imagined seemed to be modelled pretty much on Germany, anti-Semitism and all, and I don’t know if he incorporated Christian movements (Reconstructionism, etc) into the story. America being as religious as it was (and still is – about 40% regularly poll as saying they believe the Bible should have more influence on human laws), it might have been susceptible to an Iran-style revolutionary movement too, not just a fascist one.
That sort of domestic fascism would probably horrify most Americans today, but extend those ideas and values to the global stage (as in the classic “bomb ’em back to the stone age” cry) and many might open to the idea of America as a tough new Roman empire.
talk about hypotheticals all you want but we’ve maintained a democracy longer than any nation in the world and one bad president isn’t going to change that.
now you say something along the lines of ‘it’s only a matter of time’
and then i respond ‘that’s an unfair accusation to make, because in 1,2,5 or 10 years, the US still won’t be fascist and in all likelihood will be more democratic. and yet there will still be people like you who will still be making the same alarmist accusations.’
Edgar, the point was that nuts like the one described above are not random, powerless and inconsequential individuals, but can occupy influential positions. They might not destroy American democracy anytime soon, but their existence (and the fact that they get a hearing) is a worrying sign that America is not immune to the kind of loony politics seen elsewhere.