White man's burden - the vision of the neocons
'The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical.'

'That [neocon] doctrine maintains that the problem with the Middle East is the absence of democracy and of freedom. It follows that the only way to block people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to disseminate democracy and freedom. To change radically the cultural and political dynamics that creates such people. And the way to fight the chaos is to create a new world order that will be based on freedom and human rights - and to be ready to use force in order to consolidate this new world. So that, really, is what the war is about. It is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to create a new Middle East.'

'Since that day [9/11], the Americans have understood that if they allow the Arab world to proceed in its evil ways - suppression, economic ruin, sowing despair - it will continue to produce more and more bin Ladens. America thus reached the conclusion that it has no choice: it has to take on itself the project of rebuilding the Arab world.'

Translated from neocon into English, this means that the traditional Anglo-American Middle East doctrine of the 'Arab facade' of Western-aligned Middle East governments is recognised to be failing and in danger of complete collapse; and so the answer is direct military intervention in an attempt to ensure Middle East govenments remain closely aligned with US interests.This is what neocons mean by 'democracy' in the Middle East: Prussian militarism, occupation and neo-colonialism. The danger of course with military invasion and intervention is that it will only intensify the hostility of the Arab world to America and stimulate the spread and growth of the call for the Americans to leave the region completely, voluntarily if they like but in coffins and body bags if they have to. Its the same problem that America has had throughout the Third World since the Second World War - militarily strong but politically weak, only accentuated now in the Middle East to a greater degree than ever. Collapse of American power and control is inevitable, although it may take years or decades.

In typical propagandistic style, the 'alternative' to the neocon vision in this article is given by none other than Thomas Friedman, the notorious New York Times Zionist and apologist for imperialism. However Friedman's doubts about the Iraq war do reflect the unease in upper levels of the American elite that the adventure could go wrong.

White man's burden - the vision of the neocons
'The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical.'

'That [neocon] doctrine maintains that the problem with the Middle East is the absence of democracy and of freedom. It follows that the only way to block people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to disseminate democracy and freedom. To change radically the cultural and political dynamics that creates such people. And the way to fight the chaos is to create a new world order that will be based on freedom and human rights - and to be ready to use force in order to consolidate this new world. So that, really, is what the war is about. It is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to create a new Middle East.'

'Since that day [9/11], the Americans have understood that if they allow the Arab world to proceed in its evil ways - suppression, economic ruin, sowing despair - it will continue to produce more and more bin Ladens. America thus reached the conclusion that it has no choice: it has to take on itself the project of rebuilding the Arab world.'

Translated from neocon into English, this means that the traditional Anglo-American Middle East doctrine of the 'Arab facade' of Western-aligned Middle East governments is recognised to be failing and in danger of complete collapse; and so the answer is direct military intervention in an attempt to ensure Middle East govenments remain closely aligned with US interests.This is what neocons mean by 'democracy' in the Middle East: Prussian militarism, occupation and neo-colonialism. The danger of course with military invasion and intervention is that it will only intensify the hostility of the Arab world to America and stimulate the spread and growth of the call for the Americans to leave the region completely, voluntarily if they like but in coffins and body bags if they have to. Its the same problem that America has had throughout the Third World since the Second World War - militarily strong but politically weak, only accentuated now in the Middle East to a greater degree than ever. Collapse of American power and control is inevitable, although it may take years or decades.

In typical propagandistic style, the 'alternative' to the neocon vision in this article is given by none other than Thomas Friedman, the notorious New York Times Zionist and apologist for imperialism. However Friedman's doubts about the Iraq war do reflect the unease in upper levels of the American elite that the adventure could go wrong.