Neocons: Notorious Revisionists

Many neocons need historical revisionism like other living creatures need oxygen. Revisionism is the fulcrum of their analyses. In fact referring to someone as a neocon revisionist is redundant. Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton demonstrates his recent revisionism is worthy of his neocon brethren. He published an editorial in The New York Times repeating the neocon revisionist lie that ISIS and Sunni jihadism is a product of the Assad regime's actions and Iran's influence in Iraq. Their revisionism features grand narratives lack empirical evidence. With each discovery debunking their revisionism they and Bolton show a tendency to revise...more...and more.

Bolton's editorial showcases a neocon's use of erudite sounding prose to spew more revisionist rhetoric. He argues thus:

Today’s reality is that Iraq and Syria as we have known them are gone. The Islamic State has carved out a new entity from the post-Ottoman Empire settlement, mobilizing Sunni opposition to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and the Iran-dominated government of Iraq. Also emerging, after years of effort, is a de facto independent Kurdistan. If, in this context, defeating the Islamic State means restoring to power Mr. Assad in Syria and Iran’s puppets in Iraq, that outcome is neither feasible nor desirable. Rather than striving to recreate the post-World War I map, Washington should recognize the new geopolitics. The best alternative to the Islamic State in northeastern Syria and western Iraq is a new, independent Sunni state.” [1]

 And,

As for Iraq, Russia and Iran want the Sunni territories returned to Baghdad’s control, reinforcing Iran’s regional influence. They may wish for the same in Kurdistan, but they lack the capability there. Sunnis today support the Islamic State for many of the same reasons they once supported Al Qaeda in Iraq — as a bulwark against being ruled by Tehran via Baghdad. Telling these Sunni people that their reward for rising against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq will be to put them back in thrall to Mr. Assad and his ilk, or to Shiite-dominated Baghdad, will simply intensify their support for the jihadists. Why would they switch sides? This is why, after destroying the Islamic State, America should pursue the far-reaching goal of creating a new Sunni state. Though difficult in the near term, over time this is more conducive to regional order and stability [2] 

Neocon ethos include their appointing themselves spokesman for entire groups, nations, sects, etc. In this case Bolton's serves as the unsolicited spokesman for the Sunnis in Syria. He assures us that a Sunni-based non-ISIS separatist movement exists hoping to topple Assad. Our asking that he qualify that statement with empirical evidence results in his layering more apriori claims on his grand narrative.

Bolton also claims that Sunnis in Iraq support Al-Quaeda in a desperate attempt to preempt Iran's growing influence. Did Iran invade Iraq in 2003 and thereafter cause 1 million deaths?

By what instrument or observable expression can measure Iraqi Sunnis en masse embracing Al-Quaeda as an expedient move to combat Iranian encroachment? Bolton and his neocons provide no evidence other than reporting each other.

One neocon constant is their conflating any Shiite existence with proof of Iran's influence. To the degree that Iran has influence we should ask...so what? Who, again, invaded Iraq? Did Iran create ISIS? No, but Turkey and Saudi Arabia supports them. Bolton doesn't care because his neocon distorted mind obsesses over Iran's influence in the Middle East. Why? Because Iran simply exists somewhat outside the orbit of U.S. hegemony.

Bolton neglects to mention that Iraqi Sunnis embrace of Al-quaeda results partly from George W. Bush's administration policy shift that began in 2007. This policy shift prompted deliberate actions to engineer Sunni/Shiite sectarian conflict. And, equally important though neglected, is that Iraq's insurgents opposing U.S. opposition were mostly Sunni. [3] Seymour Hersh reported in 2007 of this policy shift exploiting the Sunni-Shiite divide in order to maintain their hegemony in the region:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. [4]

Critics could have dismissed Hersh's analysis in 2007 as baseless and speculative. Subsequent events confirm Hersh's reporting and undermine neocons' obsessive claims that Assad is responsible for the rise of ISIS. Other information leaked in primary sources weaken neocons ideologically-corrupted analysis of the conditions in Syria.

In addition to Hersh's claims based often on anonymous sources which compromises his credibility with some critics, a U.S. diplomatic cable delivered in 2006 posted on the internet by Wikileaks indicates the U.S. seeking opportunities to destabilize Syria:

We believe Bashar's weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists This cable summarizes  our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising. [5]

William Roebuck, charge d'affaires at the US embassy in Damascus, prepared this cable in 2006 which was five years before the Arab Spring "igniting" in Syria in 2011. Roebuck states that "transiting Islamist extremists" pose a potential threat, but he also states the U.S. government can take actions to exploit Assad's weaknesses. This cable's language states Assad is "vulnerable" but it is not clear that masses of Syrians themselves sought regime change. But, the U.S. sought regime change as its preferred policy anyway. This fact implies their at least party culpable for the ensuing deaths of 250,000 and refugee crisis.

Another of Bolton's and necons' obsessions is constantly characterizing Iran as a threat to stability in the region. Thus, this threat justifies any measures taken to limit Iran's influence. But, how strong of a threat did Iran present to Syria's Sunni population? Roebuck's additional information included in a diplomatic cable claims this threat is exaggerated but should be exploited to weaken Syria-Iran relations:

PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE (sic): There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though often exaggerated (sic), such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business.

Both the local Egyptian and Saudi missions here (as well as prominent Syrian Sunni religious leaders) are giving increasing attention to the matter and we should coordinate more closely with their governments on ways to better publicize and focus regional attention on the issue (sic) [6] 

This U.S. diplomat's assessment acknowledges that fears of Iranian's subversive influence are exaggerated. But, he still urges the U.S. to cooperate with two foreign missions to increase fears of such influence within Syria. Given his admission that such fears are exaggerated, this implies the U.S. still fomented discord along sectarian lines to weaken Syria-Iran relations. For some reason Bolton and the neocons don't address this information either.

The U.S. government didn't base their decision-making using facts on the ground in Syria. Instead, they chose to distort reality to promote their own hegemony and also the interests of the Saudi monarchy whose geopolitical objective, like the U.S., is to limit Iran's influence.  Consequently, their mutual interests here explains the U.S. indulging Saudi's exaggerations and falsehoods about the threat of Iran's influence in the region. In 2009 another diplomatic cable sent from the U.S. embassy in Saudi Arabia summarizes a March 15, 2009 meeting of then US counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan and US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Ford Fraker with Prince Murqin bin Abdulaziz al-Saud:

PERSIAN MEDDLING: Prince Muqrin described Iran as "all over the place now." The "Shiite crescent is becoming a full moon," encompassing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait and Yemen among Iran's targets. In the Kingdom, he said "we have the problems in Medina and Eastern Province." When asked if he saw Iran's hand in last month's Medina Riots (reftels), he strongly affirmed his belief that they were "definitely" Iranian supported. (Comment: Muqrin's view was not necessarily supported by post's Saudi Shi'a sources [sic}.) [7]

U.S. diplomats do not corroborate Saudi's claims of Iranian omnipresent subversion. Facts don't matter because the U.S. believes pushing the anti-Iranian narrative here better serves its interests.

Bolton neglects to consider the impact of the arrival in Iraq of both John Negroponte and retired Colonel James Steele whose creation of death squads named "counterinsurgency." The application of counterinsurgency in this case is referred to as "The Salvador Option." [8]. As cited in Wikileaks, "The New York Times" described this option thereby foreshadowing the next phase in the U.S. military occupation in Iraq:

The template for Iraq today is not Vietnam, with which it has often been compared, but El Salvador, where a right-wing government backed by the United States fought a leftist insurgency in a 12-year war beginning in 1980. The cost was high — more than 70,000 people were killed, most of them civilians, in a country with a population of just six million. Most of the killing and torturing was done by the army and the right-wing death squads affiliated with it. According to an Amnesty International report in 2001, violations committed by the army and associated groups included ‘‘extrajudicial executions, other unlawful killings, ‘disappearances’ and torture. . . . Whole villages were targeted by the armed forces and their inhabitants massacred.’’ As part of President Reagan’s policy of supporting anti-Communist forces, hundreds of millions of dollars in United States aid was funneled to the Salvadoran Army, and a team of 55 Special Forces advisers, led for several years by Jim Steele, trained front-line battalions that were accused of significant human rights abuses. [9]

Given their history in El Salvador that created death squads, the subsequent unleashing of death squads in Iraq warrants asking if the ensuing increase of bloodshed jeopardized prospects for peace more than the effects of Iranian influence.

Bolton and neocons' discussions presuppose the Middle East are inanimate objects that can be shifted in accordance with the most desired geopolitical arrangement. They design their geopolitical map, and then begin moving pieces as needed. Hence their persistent plans to conceive new grand orders: Sikes-Pikot, Yinon Plan, Clean Break, Project for New American Century  (PNAC), Bolton criticizes the straw man advocating a Middle East governed by Arab dictators. Is Bolton's vision a transcendent plan absent the tragic results afflicting the region today? No it is not. He offers the same neocon vision to construct a region wherein all actions are subordinated to the constant marginalization of Iran.

Will our impartially analyzing Iraq's conditions inasmuch as possible reveal Iran poses a greater threat than Saudi Arabia????? Bolton's and neocons' alleged expert analysis is exposed as propaganda constructed of anti-Assad hysteria and exaggerated fears of Iranian influence. Such propaganda serves the U.S. agenda to protect its hegemony in the region, which is predicated on weakening Syria-Iran relations. Before we indulge their revisionism of the factors contributing to the presence of Al-Quaeda and ISIS in the region as transient phenomenon, we should recall a media image attempting to show the potential of Al-Quaeda's most notorious freedom fighter to restore peace to an area stained by a decade long bloody war:

1. Black, Christopher. "NATO Attack on Russian Air Forces: Reasons and Consequences." NEO New Eastern Outlook. Nov 26, 2015. http://m.journal-neo.org/2015/11/26/nato-attack-on-russian-air-forces-reasons-and-consequences/

2. Ibid.

3. Hersh, Seymour. "The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" The New Yorker. March 05, 2007.  http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

4. Ibid.

5. Naiman, Robert. The Wikileaks Files: The World According to the US Empire. introduction by Julian Assange. Verso UK: London: and US: Brooklyn , NY. Kindle version location 4540-4548 of 10692.

6. Ibid. location 4556-4564.

7. Ibid. location 4587-96 of 10692.

8. Assange, Julian. Investigative Editor. "U.S. Special Forces counterinsurgency manual analysis." October 08, 2008. Wikileaks. https://wikileaks.org/wiki/McCain%27s_real_Petraeus_doctrine

9. Ibid.