Neocons and the Permanent State (Part 2)

US Marines at the 2nd battle of Fallujah

Neocons and the Permanent State (Part 2)

by Ilana Mercer

“How does America change if our intelligence agencies were more accurate in their assessment of Saddam Hussein’s chemical and nuclear weapons programs?” The question was posed, just the other day, in “Make America Competent Again,” by David French, at the Dispatch, a neoconservative website. The tract is an agony aunt’s meander that calls for shoring-up competency in state and civil society.

But first: dissecting, deconstructing and exposing the neoconservative mindset and machinations matters. The reason is this: thanks to President Trump, neoconservatives are not exactly having a moment—they’re down in the doldrums. But they’ll be back. For neocons and liberal interventionists make up the Permanent State. The ideology the likes of which David French, formerly of National Review, and his ilk promote—foreign-policy bellicosity, endless immigration, mindless consumerism, racial shaming, “canceling” of deviationists and conformity to an American identity that’s been melted away in vats of multiculturalism—is in our country’s bone marrow, by now.

Therefore, the fighting words in response to French’s framing of the invasion of Iraq as a mere glitch in intelligence are these: no creedal neoconservative should be able to get away with the claim that a problem of criminality is really just a problem of competency.

You’d think that a military man like Mr. French would know that fixing problems rests on defining them with precision. Recasting state corruption and war crimes as incompetence cures neither state crimes nor incompetence.

America’s war on Iraq was a war crime, plain and simple. It was a reflexive collaboration between elements in a vast, by now familiar, intelligence bureaucracy, comprised of neoconservative and liberal interventionists, whose aim was to help The Powers that Be pulverize a country, Iraq, for the purpose of making it over in the image of America.

Contra Mr. French, the war on Iraq cannot be reduced to systemic incompetence. Anyone who doggedly tracked and documented the ramp up to war, as this column did, can attest that the United States bullied its way to war, monomaniacally.

Legions of experts, credible ones, categorically rejected the contention that there were WMD in Iraq. They were silenced; shut out by the malfunctioning American media, the politicians, their handlers and their followers—none of whom should be allowed to deflect from the intellectual and moral corruption it took to invade a Third World country, whose military prowess was a fifth of what it was when hobbled during the Gulf War, which had no navy or air force and was no threat to American national security. Iraq had not attacked anyone in 12 years and was not poised to attack the U.S. or its neighbors.

Whether one examines the casus belli from the perspective of Catholic “Just War Theory,” constitutional authority or natural law—the war on Iraq was a failure of morals, ethics and constitutional fidelity. To attack Iraq was to launch a purely offensive, non-defensive war. This flouts the Christian duty to do no harm to one’s neighbors. It flouts the Jewish teachings, which instruct Jews to robustly and actively seek justice. It flouts “Just War Theory,” developed by great Christian minds like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. It flouts the libertarian axiom, which prohibits aggression against non-aggressors.

And it flouted what the Founding Fathers provided: a limited, constitutional republican government, by definition, doesn’t, cannot, and must never pursue what the likes of Mr. French and the neoconservative power elite still advocate: a 21st-century Manifest Destiny.The fact that it does, can, and is still intent on spreading global (failing) democracy by death and destruction (Iran is next) indicates how limitless, unconstitutional, and dictatorial the American Permanent State truly is.

As is their wont, the nation’s pundits never stopped licking their chops for that war. And they’ll salivate just the same should the U.S. have its way with Iran.

So, what does it say about those who supported conquering and occupying a sovereign member of the international community? Simply this: whether it is committed by a group operating within or without the law—inside or outside the state—a crime is a crime. And turning Iraq from rogue state to failed state, and in the process killing and displacing multitudes: that was a war crime, executed with as much competency as criminals can muster.

Mr. French and his ideological compadres must not get away with dismissing George W Bush’s bacchanalia of blood as a momentary lapse of competence.


And see Neocons and the Permanent State (Part I)

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. Latest on YouTube: “How Democracy Made Us Dumb.

This entry was posted in Current Affairs and Comment, QR Home and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Neocons and the Permanent State (Part 2)

  1. Frank Dolby says:

    Ilana, the wars in the Middle East, North Africa and Afghanistan waged in this century have, as far as I can deduce, been about two things i.e. oil or Israel or both.
    The French were foremost in their lust for Libya’s oil. Even Afghanistan, I have been told, has vast mineral resources that the West does not want to fall into the hands of Russia or China. And there was also something about an oil pipeline but I am not quite sure where that was going from or to. You did not mention Syria. I had heard that the aim was to build a pipeline from the Gulf States to Turkey and on to Europe to counter the Russian gas pipelines but Assad was not playing ball being an ally of Russia and enemy of Saudi Arabia. Hence the creation of ISIS and friends.

    The Donald confuses us all with his contradictory statements and moves but I give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming this is all the result of his battle with the Deep State, the neocons or whoever to make his wishes prevail over theirs. I think he genuinely did want to bring the troops home from Syria but then somebody whispered in his ear, “but we are sitting on their oil Mr President”. So he told us that the US was staying because of the oil. Was this to tell the world what the Deep State was up to or did he, too, want the US to have the oil? It is difficult to know. All I do know is that we are all sick to death of their wars. Then there is the military industrial complex and all those arms manufacturers. Whoever is president they seem to keep the arms money rolling in. So Donald, whether wishing to or not, tears up the nuclear weapons treaty to give a boost to those same manufacturers and plays with fire in the process. As for Israel, I am still not quite sure what his game is. I return to my reference to his indebtedness to the New York backers of Israel.

    During my childhood in the 1950s and youth in the 1960s we lived with an optimism that World War 2 was now the war to end all wars and peace would finally come. Sadly, this was not to be for the simple reason that we did not realise how great American paranoia with regard to the rest of the world was. Unlike we Europeans, they had never had to come to an accommodation with their neighbours, everybody seems to be a potential enemy to them to be crushed. Neither did we realise to what extent war meant megabucks for so many. Follow the money. And these rich and powerful, as I have already alluded to, seem to be able to manipulate or bribe the political classes to make war for their benefit and to get them to dragoon the ordinary man and woman into fighting for them. Here in the town where I live is a war memorial to those who died in the Boer War. This is a war about which I am always conflicted and I always feel sorry for the Boers. British troops sailed for South Africa singing “Dolly Grey I must leave you”, fighting for Queen and country when they were really fighting for the gold for the few and the diamonds for Mr Oppenheimer. Swords into ploughshares, perhaps one day but God alone knows when.

  2. David Ashton says:

    At present western industries need oil and therefore secure supplies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.