The Cartesian saying: “I think, therefore I Am.” has its
Neocon counterpart: “We don't know, therefore we must destroy.” This was the
theme that kept cropping up during the Neocon virtual monopoly of the debate on
the subject matter even after it was proven that Iraq did not possess weapons
of mass destruction. It all happened right after the invasion of Iraq by
American troops and their allies in 2003.
Twelve years later, Charles Krauthammer tells the world what
the idea was about in the first place. He reveals its heretofore hidden secrets
in his latest column: “A new strategy for Iraq
and Syria ,”
published on June 18, 2015 in the Washington Post. The idea is encapsulated in
the first paragraph: “It's time to rethink Iraq
and Syria
… the Sykes-Picot map is defunct.” Why is that? Because the fait accompli has
been accomplished: “in Mesopotamia ,
balkanization is the only way to go … it has already happened and will not be
reversed.”
This is the Jewish way of doing things. It is how the Jews
begged for a tiny enclave where they promised to live a quiet life, but then
gobbled up all of Palestine … establishing a fait accompli they say cannot be
reversed. It is also how they sought refuge in America to escape mistreatment
in Europe, but then gobbled up all strategic positions in government, culture
and finance … destroying the long established American order and replacing it
with their concept of what ought to be.
And that's not the only component that's driving the Jewish
way of doing things. Another component is that the Jews never place a limit on
how far they will push something. Unless and until they are stopped by an
outside force, they keep pushing their luck till they crash into what breaks
them and breaks their allies – at times even destroys the entire surroundings.
This is what Charles Krauthammer is advocating; saying so over several
paragraphs which – when condensed – sound as follows:
“What to do? Redirect our efforts to friendly forces …
beginning with the Kurds … This week, more Kurdish success. Syrian Kurds
captured the strategic town of Tal
Abyad … from which to operate against the Bashar
al-Assad regime … More good news comes from another battle line. The free
Syrian Army drove the Syrian government out … Iraq is now gone. Our objective
right now is to ensure the fall of the Assad regime.”
But this will do to Syria
what was done to Iraq .
The aftermath of toppling the regime of the latter being the chaos we now see
in the region, toppling another regime will only double the chaos – or worse.
Why advocate this insanity? Well, Krauthammer had already answered that
question in a column he wrote four weeks ago; one whose theme is the politics
of Republican presidential nomination. It all started innocently but then got
out of hand and mushroomed into something bigger.
In fact, it was not meant to be a gotcha question but a
genuine inquiry that carried profound ramifications for the future of America 's relation with the nations of the Middle East and possibly the world. It is that the
question: “Would you have invaded Iraq in 2003 if you had known then what we
know now?” was turned into a gotcha question by the fact that each of the
frontrunners for the nomination to the presidency of America in the Republican
Party tripped over it, thus demonstrating how disastrous was George W. Bush's
decision to invade Iraq and occupy it.
And so, to take the edge off the spectacle that resulted,
Charles Krauthammer wrote “You want hypotheticals? Here's one,” a column that was
published on May 21, 2015 in the Washington Post. His thesis stood on two legs.
The first was to rehash what had been said previously by people like himself –
which is that W. Bush did the right thing by occupying Iraq . As to the
chaos we see in the region today, it is not due to the Bush occupation but to
Obama ending it, says the columnist.
But because this view was shot down by arguments to the
effect that America could no
longer afford to occupy foreign lands for an indefinite period of time … let alone
lands where a Vietnam
style guerrilla war will most certainly be mounted against her, Krauthammer
found it necessary to give his thesis a second leg on which to stand. To do so,
he attacked the very premise of the question: “Would you have invaded Iraq in 2003 if
you had known then what we know now?”
He says the question contradicts itself. How is that? Here
is his answer: “Had we known there were no weapons of mass destruction, the
very question would not have arisen … No WMD, no hypothetical to answer in the
first place.” What? What's that? What time frame is he talking about? “Had we
known” refers to 2003. “No hypothetical to answer” refers to 2015. Where is the
contradiction here? A predicate does not even exist for the contradiction to
arise. Hence, we must conclude that Krauthammer employed a trick by which to
confuse the audience while sounding wise and knowledgeable. It's a cheap trick;
a very Jewish cheap trick.
But what did the Neocons recommend that W. Bush do in their
collective state of ignorance? They said to him: “We don't know, therefore you
must destroy.” He took that to heart and ordered the military to shock, awe and
destroy Iraq .
The military did just that, and the rest is history ... a sordid history at
that.