Monday, August 30, 2004
We admit that we have been secretly wondering when former Pentagon analyst Karen Kwiatkowski would break her silence about l'affaire Franklin, but we knew that M.D. of the Zemblan Liberation Front would alert us when she did. And he did. And damned if KK isn't trying to out-tinfoil us all, only from the right flank:
The story of spies in the Pentagon will percolate, no doubt. I have no answers, but perhaps the questions themselves will help explain what is going on in the current administration, and the administration that is sure to come.
Was the release of Larry’s name at this time politically motivated? And was that to hurt the Bush presidency or to save it, as Laura Rozen muses, with a "controlled burn"?
Why would Larry need to give draft documents on policy anywhere in the Middle East to AIPAC, when all the big decisions are already coordinated between Israel and the U.S. at far higher levels?
Why is Larry the result of FBI investigational success instead of the names of the Pentagon senior operatives who shared classified information with Ahmad Chalabi regarding American success in reading coded Tehran communications, specifically now as neoconservatives rage for war in Iran? Or instead of the names of senior White House operatives who revealed and destroyed the U.S. security mission of Valerie Plame?
Are there any advantages gained in front-page stories on a "spy for Israel" who is not one of the usual suspects? You know, a person with no business dealings dependent upon American (and Israeli) decisions, a person without an openly pro-Israel ideology or someone who was never known as a passionate advocate of U.S. power to promote Israel’s security and economic viability? A career-constrained professional rather than fly-by-night political appointees who have written widely and acted most consistently to advance the interests of Israel in American policy towards the Middle East? Qui bono? [Kwiatkowski's misspelling; the Latin phrase she's groping for is cui bono, "to whose benefit" -- S.]
Could it be, as so wisely noted by Chris Manion recently, that it is time for the neoconservatives to come home?
The neoconservative harvest has been plucked from the energies and wealth of an unsuspecting American public – a permanent and costly occupation of Iraq’s oil production infrastructure, a ringing of unnecessary military bases from Bosnia and Kosovo, to Uzbekistan to Afghanistan to Iraq, and the domestic acceptance of a siege mentality of national defense reminiscent of Machiavelli’s lesser princes, or perhaps the current political state of Israel.
The challenge may be simply to properly preserve the harvest – and what better way than to usher in a presidency that will do what Bush can never do – legitimize and normalize American militaristic hegemony, at least for several more years. As Gabriel Kolko writes,Democrats' greater finesse in justifying these policies is therefore more dangerous because they will be made to seem more credible and keep alive alliances that only reinforce the U.S.' refusal to acknowledge the limits of its power. In the longer run, Kerry's pursuit of these aggressive goals will lead eventually to a renewal of the dissolution of alliances, but in the short-run he will attempt to rebuild them and European leaders will find it considerably more difficult to refuse his demands than if Bush stays in power – and that is to be deplored.Dangerous, radically un-American, Machiavellian. It must be exciting these days to be a neoconservative, looking forward to the continued progress under a Kerry Presidency. But to preserve the harvest, sacrifice is required.