In Part II of this series of articles, the influence on the White House by the Neocons is reflected in the number of high ranking officials who are supporters of Leo Strauss and zionism. These two ideologies promote the power elite, and the pro-militaristic approach to foreign policy especially in regards to Israel’s security in the Middle East. In this article, I will deal with the impact of this influence on America and it’s foreign policy, but first, we need to better understand the connection between the Neocons and zionism.

In order to connect the dots between the Neocon agenda and zionism, you first have to get to know the key players. First there is Douglas Feith, Feith is a self-proclaimed Zionist – not a Labor Zionist, but a right-wing Zionist close to the Likud party and the Zionist Organization of America. He is well known for his participation in a 1996 study – along with other neoconservative big wigs Richard Perle and David Wurmser. This study organized by the Israel-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, urged scrapping the then-ongoing peace process. The study, titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” advised Prime Minister-elect Benjamin Netanyahu “to work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll back” regional threats, help overthrow Hussein, and strike “Syrian military targets in Lebanon” and possibly in Syria proper.

Three of the six authors, Perle, Wurmser, and Feith, of the report in the Bush II administration, helped set the Middle East strategy, including strong support for Sharon’s hardline policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perle chaired the DOD’s Defense Policy Board, Feith became undersecretary of defense for policy, and Wurmser became Vice President Cheney’s top Middle East adviser after leaving the State Department where he worked under Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton .

It was not until a new Likud government was formed under Ariel Sharon, and when Feith and other Zionists such as Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams , and Michael Rubin, together with militarists such as Rumsfeld and Cheney, took over control of Middle East policy during the Bush II administration. They advocated that Israel, supported by the United States, make a “clean break” from the Oslo framework which was a swap of land for peace. Instead they promoted “peace now” which basically stated that Israel reassert their claim to land to which they have clung to for 2000 years as legitimate and noble. This is otherwise known as “peace through strength” which was the militaristic strategy outlined in the PNAC letters to Clinton and Bush II mentioned in Part II of this series of articles.

Feith also had served as chairman of the board of directors of the Center for Security Policy which is a policy institute promoting higher military budgets, missile defense systems, space weapons programs, and hardline policies in the Middle East and East Asia. CSP was founded in 1988 by another fellow Neocon, Frank Gaffney, who like Feith, was a former DOD official in the Reagan administration. Feith helped Gaffney organize CSP’s large advisory board, which includes leading neocons, arms lobbyists, and the leading congressional members linked to the military-industrial complex. Feith has also served as an adviser to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, whose purpose is to foster closer working relationships among the Israeli military, the U.S. military, the Pentagon, and military contractors in both countries.




So, what does all this mean? With the inroads of Feith and his other Neocon collaborators, and the opportunistic event of 9/11, they were able to build a reliance on military power for economic, territorial and geopolitical gains. With this unencumbered militaristic agenda and through its justifications for its war on terror, there evolved a large standing military and private military-contractor apparatus that has been unprecedented in the history of the U.S. What has been the result is an enormous military-industrial complex that has as its bed partners, the U.S. Congress, the mainstream news media, major right-wing think tanks and defense contractor lobbyists.

What has been the most alarming about this “parasitic militarism” as described by Walter C. Uhler, an independent scholar and freelance writer and President of the Russian-American International Studies Association, is that it breeds “an unprecedented reliance on the predatory market forces and profit incentives that drive commercial defense contractors. Thus, in the past, arms production was dictated by war requirements, not the market or profit imperatives of arms manufacturers”.

Thus, Uhler goes on to say the U.S. defense contractors not only market their newly proposed weapons and highly skilled (and expensive) trained fighting forces, but they also promote and market new and improved weapons to counter the ‘perceived threats’ from enemies. In addition, “they make political contributions to congressmen who vote for their weapons programs, fund militaristic think tanks and employ workers, most of whom have a vested interest — and, thus, vote accordingly”. And, Uhler further points out that at one point George W.’s administration employed 32 major policy makers who had significant ties to the defense industry.

So, what has been the impact of all this “parasitic militarism”? We currently deploy nearly 1.5 million military personnel in 6,000 domestic bases and 702 overseas bases in 130 countries, and about a dozen carrier task forces in the oceans and seas of the world and, on top of that, Bush recently prodded Congress into increasing the military’s already bloated size and budget. With the U.S. defense budget constituting 50 percent of the world’s total annual spending on defense, it really makes you wonder why we need an even bigger one.

In reading these statistics, does it make you wonder why other countries don’t have military bases in the U.S.? Hmmm…interesting question.

You can draw your own conclusions to what has happened to America as a result of the Neocons and zionist influence, but I feel if you were to ask anyone on the street of any American city today if they feel safer with all the show of U.S. military strength and power, I dare to guess that they will say no. So, why are we doing it, and why do we continue to support those leaders who advocate the agendas of a few elite who seized power by default due to the reign of terror unleashed by 9/11, and a President who won’t let us forget it?

First, we need to answer this question. Then we need to educate ourselves on what is happening behind the scenes and put a stop to those who are leading this wonderful country down a path of destruction. I encourage you to read as much as you can on this subject and start making some noise with your congressmen. We do have an effect as witnessed by the 2006 elections, but don’t wait until another election. Make your voice heard now, before it’s too late.