In his Mar. 2 Viewpoint "The Neocon Obsession," David Mitchell protests that the neoconservatives he has been studying are blamed for too much. He implies that since they are so hard to define (and are not all Leo Strauss disciples), targeting them as a group may be unfair. Mainly, he challenges those who blame them for Bush's last election victory.
I wouldn't blame neocons for that, although I would note the close relationship between Karl Rove and neocon Michael Ledeen, his foreign policy advisor, and read Irving Kristol's manifesto outlining the neocons' strategy for exploiting Christian fundamentalism, "The Neoconservative Persuasion" (2003).
The bigger issue Mitchell touches upon is the Iraq War. But he merely suggests it would be "misguided" for people "disillusioned" with the war to blame the neocons. He does not mention those who have been opposed to the neocons and their warmongering from before the war.
As someone who had no illusions about Iraq from which to be disabused, I would say that the disillusioned can appropriately blame the neocons for dishing out the disinformation they once swallowed.
To be specific, Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz advocated for an attack on Iraq immediately after Sept. 11, supported by Cheney and his chief of staff "Scooter" Libby.
Wolfowitz, chief architect of the war, was charged with producing the justification for it. His pragmatic approach to the task is indicated by his comment that "for bureaucratic reasons," administration officials "settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Wolfowitz worked with Libby, the number-two man in the VP's office and his former student and prot?©g?©. Together with their bosses, they formed what Colin Powell later called a "little government," sidelining the State Department.
Richard Clarke, Bush's former top anti-terrorism advisor, and others have documented that immediately after Sept. 11, in a "very intimidating way," Bush demanded evidence for a link to Iraq. Wolfowitz was infuriated when the CIA could not produce evidence for either that or WMD.
While British intelligence reported that Washington was "fixing intelligence around the policy," Wolfowitz's deputy Douglas Feith set up an "Office of Special Plans," intended to supply the needed "intelligence." It was headed by Abram Shulsky, coauthor of "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence" (which argues that "deception is the norm in political life") and was stacked with neocons.
The scariest "intelligence" came via Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, whom the CIA believed to be a liar. Chalabi was close to Richard Perle, Defense Policy Board chair, who was actively agitating for war and spreading false reports. The office also hired Michael Ledeen, who had been deeply involved in the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, working with Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar.
With the knowledge of Condi Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, the two met again in Europe several times after Sept. 11. Both are suspected by Italy's Parliament of authoring the Niger uranium forgeries. Those, remember, were vetted through the Office of Special Plans, making their way into the president's January 2003 speech. This office supplied disinformation found in official reports and in the press. Think of the Libby-Judith Miller connection.
Meanwhile Cheney/Libby made highly unusual trips to the Pentagon to pressure CIA analysts into building a case for war. Even as the lies became evident in late 2003, they sought to maintain illusions. Libby reportedly urged Cheney to insist on a Saddam-al-Qaeda link long after that story had been discredited. Both seem to have been livid when Joseph Wilson revealed that U.S. intelligence knew in January 2003 that Iraq had not sought uranium from Niger. Libby has since been brought down by the Plame Affair. Does this shed any light on the neocon war blame issue?
These men - along with war-planners Abrams, Wurmser, Rhode, Bolton and Cambone - are almost all self-described neoconservatives. Some might not read Strauss, but act like Straussians. Strauss feared democracy, having seen what befell Weimar Germany. He believed that society should be headed by the "wise," who understand who the enemies are and what must be done, even though the masses may not understand and resist difficult choices.
Working through leaders who may not be wise, but can win the trust of the masses, the wise use nationalism, religion and "noble lies" to get the job done. How did Wolfowitz put it? "The one reason everyone could agree on." (As the prewar lies became clear months into the occupation, Wolfowitz dismissed the missing WMD as a mere "historical detail" and suggested we look at all the progress in Iraq as he left the administration to head the World Bank.)
Ledeen, in a work sympathetic to fascism, has written, "In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to "enter into evil."
"Ordinary people," he wrote, "are rotten" and can only "achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led." In 2001 he called for a "vast revolutionary war" against "our enemies in the Middle East."
"[W]e must remind them daily that we Americans are in a rage... We will not be sated until we have had the blood of every miserable little tyrant in the Middle East...," he wrote.
In March 2003, when 60 U.S. troops had died in Iraq, he declared, "I think the level of casualties is secondary. I mean... all the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war." On an Iran attack, he's been begging, "Faster, please!"
Ledeen is a foreign policy advisor to Karl Rove ("Bush's brain"). "Any time you've got a good idea," Rove has told him, "tell me."
These neocons are real, dangerous and active in the world. They believe in "noble lies." They want to attack Iran and are working hard to build their case. They ought to be carefully studied.
Gary Leupp is a professor of history and an adjunct professor of comparative religion at Tufts University.
