September 17, 2005
Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, an ivory tower professor and
associate director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict
Research out of Harvard, believes it is time to talk with Osama bin
Laden and al-Qaeda. "How can the war be brought to an end? Neither side
can defeat the other," Mohamedou writes for the Boston Globe.
"The United States will not be able to overpower a diffuse,
ever-mutating, organized international militancy movement, whose
struggle enjoys the rear-guard sympathy of large numbers of Muslims….
Though dismissed widely, the best strategy for the United States may
well be to acknowledge and address the collective reasons in which Al
Qaeda anchors its acts of force. Al Qaeda has been true to its word in
announcing and implementing its strategy for over a decade. It is
likely to be true to its word in the future and cease hostilities
against the United States, and indeed bring an end to the war it
declared in 1996 and in 1998, in return for some degree of satisfaction
regarding its grievances."
Of course, "al-Qaeda" has but one
"grievance," as elucidated by the now dead Osama bin Laden, and that is
for the United States to get out of Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the
Muslim world. It’s a reasonable demand, even for a dead CIA operative,
but not one that will be considered by the United States, under the
rule of the neocons, as it moves in the opposite direction, invading
Middle Eastern and Asian countries and planning to invade (or bomb)
Mohamedou is barking up the wrong tree—in fact, he
is barking up a tree planted by the CIA, Pakistan’s ISI, and the
British MI6. It’s a tree well protected and watered, as the "al-Qaeda"
myth needs to be cultivated and grafted elsewhere (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
and his Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, now merged with "al-Qaeda" in
Iraq, a sort of franchise to legitimize the occupation, is a prime
example). For Mohamedou, there is an Osama and "al-Qaeda" to ring up
and schedule a meeting with and settle differences. Indeed, before
Osama checked out due to renal failure, such a meeting may have
pointlessly occurred, but it would have been an entirely incestuous
affair—the Pentagon or the neocon members of the Bush administration
meeting with CIA-ISI-MI6 spawned operatives and a brood of fanatical
patsies and deluded fellow travelers brainwashed in ISI-controlled
Meanwhile, the less hot-headed and not so
obviously murderous faction of the neolibs, as represented by the
"liberal" globalist George Soros, is now pushing to reconsider the
neocon "war on terrorism" in favor of a more moderate (or less
transparent) approach. "We are the most powerful nation on earth,"
Soros declared in a full-page advertisement
in the War Street Journal recently. "No external enemy can defeat us.
We can lose our preeminent position only by our own mistakes and
misconceptions. The 'war on terror’ has been a tragic misconception.
Only by forging a new consensus on fighting the terrorists can we
correct our mistakes and regain our preeminent position in the world."
other words, the Bushian "war on terror" is alienating milquetoast
neolibs, or those who do not subscribe to the neocon worldview of
globalism with its back-to-back invasions and embarrassing public
relations disasters. Soros, as a Hungarian-born Jewish-American
currency speculator—and, through his Quantum Fund, a facilitator of the
Latin American drug trade (neoliberal globalism and the international
banking "industry" depend on such mega-profitable and tax-free rackets
to augment their ill-gotten gains)—would rather overthrow pesky and
recalcitrant nations (for instance, Venezuela) through less visible,
more covert behind-the-scenes activity. Soros, through his Open Society
Institute, would rather subvert elections—as he did in Georgia by
lavishly funding members of the anti-Shevardnadze Otpor (Resistance)
movement (see Georgia revolt carried mark of Soros,
Globe and Mail)—and paint a thin veneer of legitimacy over rigged
elections, something the neocons don’t have the patience to do. Soros
did much the same in Ukraine when he poured millions into the campaign
against Viktor Yanukovych in favor of Viktor Yushchenko, a central
banker with ties to "Old Europe" and the globalist European Union scam.
Soros and the milquetoast, behind-the-scenes neolibs don’t
want to talk with al-Qaeda—instead, they want to basically ignore them
and "foster democratic development" in the Middle East. In other words,
rig elections and put into power a new crop of autocrats who are media
savvy, unlike Bush’s buddy Karimov of Uzbekistan, who has a penchant
for boiling his political opponents to death, and none too discreetly.
The sine qua non of Soros neoliberalism is the velvet glove stretched
over the iron fist and is essentially no different than the exposed
neocon iron fist dripping with the blood and gore of countless victims.
Soros neoliberalism desires the same thing neocon neoliberalism
desires—"market discipline" and "laissez-faire, capital market driven,
privatization and trade arrangements," that is to say a free-wheeling
ability to enter countries and "privatize" (i.e., steal) natural
resources and impoverish local populations in the process. Soros wants
to do this through rigged elections; the neocons—due to impertinence, a
blustery chicken hawk machismo, and adherence to the Machiavellian
tenets of their demented philosopher, Leo Strauss (building on the
"insights" of the Nazi Carl Schmitt),
would rather invade and subdue "markets" through massive and
unrelenting bloodshed as fantasized by the neo-fascist Mussolini
admirer Michael Ledeen.
Ultimately, the Soros version of
neoliberalism will prevail due to the unavoidable fact the neocons are
essentially self-destructive nihilists destined for the dust bin of
history (but not before they kill thousands, possibly millions of
people—note Dick Cheney’s
enthusiasm for the use of nukes against Iran and other nations). It is
said Bill Clinton was indifferent to the "growing threat" of al-Qaeda
and there was of course a good reason for this: "al-Qaeda" was never a
"threat" until the neocons capitalized on their highly exaggerated
potential as a scary bogeyman. Prior to the neocon ascension,
"al-Qaeda" was a small outfit of latter-day mujahideen, used for small
operations in the Balkans and Chechnya. It was not the world-class
terrorist threat manufactured by the Straussian neocons, who, due to
their Hobbesian-Machiavellian orientation, understand there must be a
threat in order for the leader to assume unprecedented power. However,
as more pragmatic neolibs understand, the same result—prying open
"markets," in other words unchecked thievery—can be accomplished under
the gloss of "democracy."