Collateral Damage Is People

Greetings, friends,
The war marches on...it's good (and I'm NOT being sarcastic) to see the well-trained teenagers of our military make such short work of their opposition...too bad (and now I am being sarcastic) that they're a little trigger-happy. But who cares if a bunch of women and children get smoked, because Iraq is gonna be free, eh? One wonders...free for whom? If it's anything like the governments we helped establish in Haiti, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Pakistan, Iran, Nicaragua, Angola, Chile, Guatemala and South Korea in the name of "freedom", I have my doubts.

I've enclosed a picture that will make some of you feel better. At least we know what we're up against. Viva California!

And also some words of wisdom (thanks, Karen):

"The greatest threat to our world and its peace comes from those who want war, who prepare for it, and who, by holding out vague promises of future peace or by instilling fear of foreign aggression, try to make us accomplices to their plans."-- Hermann Hesse

In addition to my "blog" of these screeds at http://home.earthlink.net/~jsmog/blog.html you can enjoy the full frontal truth at my friend Monde's site:
http://www.involution.org/rattler/
Although I don't read many blogs myself (you're basically just rummaging through everyone else's rants,) this one also deserves notice (just look at the web address):
http://www.antisocial-bitch.com/blog/

For those of you who like a little truth now and again from your government, read on:
War Could Last Months, Officers Say
By Thomas E. Ricks
Despite the rapid advance of Army and Marine forces across Iraq over the past week, some senior U.S. military officers are now convinced that the war is likely to last months and will require considerably more combat power than is now on hand there and in Kuwait, senior defense officials said yesterday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33955-2003Mar26.html

And Richard Perle tells the Guardian, "Thank god for the death of the UN.":
http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/efaz/docmain.asp?doc={C5A35AC8-4A5D-4B22-A888-63807D085403}&rub={B1311FCC-FBFB-11D2-B228-00105A9CAF88}#

In contrast, here's an article that the more conspiracy-minded among you will enjoy...it's perfect fodder for cocktail party conversation. It compares the rise and strategy of George Bush rather closely to Adolf Hitler. Yikes!
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

It seems that no one can avoid these tough times, not even poor Marilyn Manson (thanks, Geri):
http://www.theonion.com/onion3703/marilyn_mason.html

And is anyone shocked that Rumsfeld put the finger on Syria and Iran? Guess who's next, and who knows it:
Immigrants here fear Iran is next
With the attacks on Iraq and buildup of North Korea's nuclear weapons in the headlines, some in the local Iranian community fear Iran, the only other country named in President Bush's "Axis of Evil," will be the next target.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/114027_wirannext25.shtml
and:
Pentagon to blacklist companies investing in Iran

Perhaps they should take the Iraq War quiz (this is brilliant, and best of all, it's footnoted, so if anyone says HOW DO YOU KNOW! you can throw an MLA-approved citation in their face):

> Iraq War Quiz
> by Stephen R. Shalom
>
> 1. The anti-war movement supports our troops by urging that they be brought home immediately so they neither kill nor get killed in a unjust war. How has the Bush administration shown its support for our troops?
>
> a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut $25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years.
>
> b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from impact aid programs which provide school funding for children of military personnel.
>
> c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans.
>
> d. All of the above.
>
>
> 2. The anti-war movement believes that patriotism means urging our country to do what is right. How do Bush administration officials define patriotism?
>
> a. Patriotism means emulating Dick Cheney, who serves as Vice-President while receiving $100,000-$1,000,000 a year from Halliburton, the multi-billion dollar company which is already lining up for major contracts in post-war Iraq.
>
> b. Patriotism means emulating Richard Perle, the warhawk who serves as head of the Defense Intelligence Board while at the same time meeting with Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi on behalf of Trireme, a company of which he is a managing partner, involved in security and military technologies, and while agreeing to work as a paid lobbyist for Global Crossing, a telecommunications giant seeking a major Pentagon contract.
>
> c. Patriotism means emulating George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Lewis Libby, and others who enthusiastically supported the Vietnam War while avoiding serving in it and who now are sending others to kill and be killed in Iraq.
>
> d. All of the above.
>
>
> 3. The Bush administration has accused Saddam Hussein of lying regarding his weapons of mass destruction. Which of the following might be considered less than truthful?
>
> a. Constant claims by the Bush administration that there was documentary evidence linking Iraq to attempted uranium purchases in Niger, despite the fact that the documents were forgeries and CIA analysts doubted their authenticity.
>
> b. A British intelligence report on Iraq's security services that was in fact plagiarized, with selected modifications, from a student article.
>
> c. The frequent citation of the incriminating testimony of Iraqi defector Hussein Kamel, while suppressing that part of the testimony in which Kamel stated that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed following the 1991 Gulf War.
>
> d. All of the above.
>
>
> 4. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher stormed out of a press conference when the assembled reporters broke into laughter after he declared that the U.S. would never try to bribe members of the UN. What should Fleisher have said to defend himself?
>
> a. It wasn't just bribery; we also ordered the bugging of the home and office phones and emails of the UN ambassadors of Security Council member states that were undecided on war.
>
> b. Oh, come on! We've been doing this for years. In 1990 when Yemen voted against authorizing war with Iraq, the U.S. ambassador declared "That will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast."
>
> c. Why do you think the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act makes one of the conditions for an African country to receive preferential access to U.S. markets that it "not engage in activities that undermine United States national security or foreign policy interests"?
>
> d. All of the above.
>
>
> 5. George Bush has declared that "we have no fight with the Iraqi people." What could he have cited as supporting evidence?
>
> a. U.S. maintenance of 12 years of crippling sanctions that strengthened Saddam Hussein while contributing to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
>
> b. The fact that "coalition" forces have indicated that they will use cluster bombs in Iraq, despite warnings from human rights groups that "The use of cluster munitions in Iraq will endanger civilians for years to come."
>
> c. By pointing to the analogy of Afghanistan, which the U.S. pledged not to forget about when the war was over, and for which the current Bush administration foreign aid budget request included not one cent in aid.
>
> d. All of the above.
>
>
> 6. The Bush administration has touted the many nations that are part of the "coalition of the willing." Which of the following statements about this coalition is true?
>
> a. In most of the coalition countries polls show that a majority, often an overwhelming majority, of the people oppose the war.
>
> b. More than ten of the members of the coalition of the willing are actually a coalition of the unwilling - unwilling to reveal their names.
>
> c. Coalition members - most of whose contributions to the war are negligible or even zero - constitute less than a quarter of the countries in the UN and contain less than 20% of the world's population.
>
> d. All of the above.
>
>
> 7. The war on Iraq is said to be part of the "war on terrorism." Which of the following is true?
>
> a. A senior American counterintelligence official said: "An American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and other groups....And it is a very effective tool."
>
> b. An American official, based in Europe, said Iraq had become "a battle cry, in a way," for Al Qaeda recruiters.
>
> c. France's leading counter-terrorism judge said: "Bin Laden's strategy has always been to demonstrate to the Islamic community that the West, and especially the U.S., is starting a global war against Muslims. An attack on Iraq might confirm this vision for many Muslims. I am very worried about the next wave of recruits."
>
> d. All of the above.
>
>
> 8. The Bush administration says it is waging war to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Which of the following is true?
>
> a. The United States has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, viewed worldwide as the litmus test for seriousness about nuclear disarmament.
>
> b. The United States has insisted on a reservation to the Chemical Weapons Convention allowing the U.S. President the right to refuse an inspection of U.S. facilities on national security grounds, and blocked efforts to improve compliance with the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.
>
> c. Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified on Feb. 11, 2003, "The long-term trends with respect to WMD and missile proliferation are bleak. States seek these capabilities for regional purposes, or to provide a hedge to deter or offset U.S. military superiority."
>
> d. All of the above.
>
>
> 9. The Bush administration says it wants to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. Which of the following is true?
>
> a. If there were democracy in Saudi Arabia today, backing for the U.S. war effort would be the first thing to go, given the country's "increasingly anti-American population deeply opposed to the war."
>
> b. The United States subverted some of the few democratic governments in the Middle East (Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953), and has backed undemocratic regimes in the region ever since.
>
> c. The United States supported the crushing of anti-Saddam Hussein revolts in Iraq in 1991.
>
> d. All of the above.
>
>
> 10. Colin Powell cited as evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link an audiotape from bin Laden in which he called Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party regime "infidels." Which of the following is more compelling evidence?
>
> a. An FBI official told the New York Times: "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there."
>
> b. According to a classified British intelligence report seen by BBC News, "There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network."
>
> c. According to Rohan Gunaratna, author of Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror, "Since U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in October 2001, I have examined several tens of thousands of documents recovered from Al Qaeda and Taliban sources. In addition to listening to 240 tapes taken from Al Qaeda's central registry, I debriefed several Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. I could find no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
>
> d. All of the above.
>
> Answers and Sources
>
> 1. d (a) Cong. Lane Evans, "Veterans Programs Slashed by House Republicans," Press Release, 3/13/03, http://www.veterans.house.gov/democratic/press/108th/3-13-03budget.htm. (b) Brian Faler, "Educators Angry Over Proposed Cut in Aid; Many Children in Military Families Would Feel Impact," Washington Post, 3/19/03, p. A29. (c) See Veterans' for Common Sense, letter to George W. Bush, 3/20/03 http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/print.asp?id=563; Melissa B. Robinson, "Hospitals Face Budget Crunch," Associated Press, 7/31/02; Jason Tait, "Veterans angered by marketing ban," Eagle-Tribune (Lawrence, MA), 8/2/02, http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20020802/FP_003.htm
>
> 2. d (a) Warren Vieth and Elizabeth Douglass, " Ousting Hussein could open the door for U.S. and British firms. French, Russian and Chinese rivals would lose their edge," Los Angeles Times, 3/12/03, p. I:1; Robert Bryce and Julian Borger, "Halliburton: Cheney is still paid by Pentagon contractor, Bush deputy gets Dollars 1m from firm with Iraq oil deal," Guardian (London), 3/12/03, p. 5 (which notes that Halliburton "would not say how much the payments are; the obligatory disclosure statement filled by all top government officials says only that they are in the range of" $100,000 and $1 million. (b) Seymour M. Hersh, "Lunch with the Chairman," New Yorker, 3/16/03; Stephen Labaton, "Pentagon Adviser Is Also Advising Global Crossing," NYT, 3/21/03, p. C1. Perle is to be paid $725,000 for his lobbying effort, including $600,000 if his lobbying is successful. (c) New Hampshire Gazette, "The Chickenhawks," http://nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html.
>
> 3. d (a) See the evidence collected in Cong. Henry Waxman's letter to George W. Bush, 3/17/03, http://www.house.gov/waxman/text/admin_iraq_march_17_let.htm. (b) See Glen Rangwala's report, http://traprockpeace.org/britishdossier.html. (c) See Glen Rangwala's report, http://traprockpeace.org/kamel.html.
>
> 4. d (a) Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy, and Peter Beaumont, The Observer (London), 3/2/03. (b) Quoted in Phyllis Bennis, Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN, New York: Olive Branch, 1996, p. 33. (c) Sarah Anderson, Phyllis Bennis, and John Cavanagh, Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced?: How The Bush Administration Influences Allies in Its War on Iraq, Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies, 2/26/03, p. 4.
>
> 5. d (a) For background, see Anthony Arnove, ed., Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War, Cambridge: South End Press, updated ed. 2003. (b) Paul Waugh, "Labour MPs Attack Hoon After He Reveals That British Forces Will Use Cluster Bombs," Independent, 3/21/03, p. 4; Human Rights Watch, Press Release, 3/18/03: "Persian Gulf: U.S. Cluster Bomb Duds A Threat; Warning Against Use of Cluster Bombs in Iraq." (c) Zvi Bar'el, "Flaws in the Afghan Model," Ha'aretz, 3/14/03, http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?ite mNo=272884.
>
> 6. d (a) See, for example, the revealing comment of Secretary of State Powell: "We need to knock down this idea that nobody is on our side. So many nations recognize this danger [of Iraq's weapons]. And they do it in the face of public opposition." Quoted in Steven R. Weisman With Felicity Barringer, "Urgent Diplomacy Fails To Gain U.S. 9 Votes In The U.N." NYT, 3/10/03, p. A1) (b) U.S. Dept. of State, Daily Press Briefing, Richard Boucher, Washington, DC, 3/18/03. (c) Country list: White House, Statement of Support from Coalition, 3/25/03, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030325-8.html; population calculated from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2001, Washington, DC: 2001, table 1327. Total includes USA. The White House list includes countries whose leaders have done no more than state their support for the United States, and the listing changes from day to day, with some countries being added and some removed.
>
> 7. d (a) Don Van Natta Jr. and Desmond Butler, "Anger On Iraq Seen As New Qaeda Recruiting Tool," NYT, 3/16/03, p. I:1. (b) Van Natta and Butler, NYT, 3/16/03. (c) Van Natta and Butler, NYT, 3/16/03.
>
> 8. d (a) Colum Lynch, "U.S. Boycotts Nuclear Test Ban Meeting; Some Delegates at U.N. Session Upset at Latest Snub of Pact Bush Won't Back," Washington Post, 11/12/02, p. A6. (b) Amy E. Smithson, "U.S. Implementation of the CWC," in Jonathan B. Tucker, The Chemical Weapons Convention: Implementation Challenges and Solutions, Monterey Institute, April 2001, pp. 23-29, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/tuckcwc.htm; Jonathan Tucker, "The Fifth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention," Feb. 2002, http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_7b.html. (c) Testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, excerpted at http://traprockpeace.org/usefulquotesoniraq.html.
>
> 9. d (a) Craig S. Smith, "Saudi Arabia Seems Calm But, Many Say, Is Seething," NYT, 3/24/03, p. B13. In fact, "Though the Saudi government officially denies it, the bombing campaign is being directed from Saudi Arabia - something that few Saudis realize." (b) On Syria, see Douglas Little, ACold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945 1958,@ Middle East Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, Winter 1990, pp. 55 57. On Iran, see Mark J. Gasiorowski, "The 1953 Coup D'Etat in Iran," International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 19, Aug. 1987, pp. 261-86. (c) Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, New York: HarperPerennial. 1999, chap. 1.
>
> 10. d (re audiotape, see David Johnston, "Top U.S. Officials Press Case Linking Iraq To Al Qaeda," NYT, 2/12/03, p. A1; Mohamad Bazzi, "U.S. says bin Laden tape urging Iraqis to attack appears real," Newsday, 2/12/03, p. A5. (a) James Risen and David Johnston, "Split at C.I.A. and F.B.I. On Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda," NYT, 2/2/03, p. I:13. (b) "Leaked Report Rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda Link," BBC News, 2/5/03. (c) Rohan Gunaratna, "Iraq and Al Qaeda: No Evidence of Alliance," International Herald Tribune, 2/19/03.
>
> Interpreting Your Score
>
> 9-10 Correct: Excellent. Contact United for Peace and Justice, http://www.unitedforpeace.org/, and work to fight the war and the system that produced it.
>
> 6-8 Correct: Fair. You've been watching a few too many former generals and government officials who provide the "expert" commentary for the mainstream media. Read the alternative media!
>
> 3-5 Correct: Poor. Don't feel bad. George W. Bush only got a C- in International Relations at College.
>
> 0-2 Correct: Failing. You have a bright future as an "embedded" journalist.

In response to my previous questioning of media accountability, here's a list of numbers to call this week and demand unbiased reporting (PS If you join "Working Assets Long Distance", you can call the numbers in the DC area for free) (thanks, Irene):
We, a coalition of peace groups, encourage you to join the focused mass phone-in to the TV News bosses. Every day for the next three weeks call the national news chiefs listed below (also separately call their national and local newsrooms). As war proceeds, ask for:
Balanced coverage including images, interviews and reports of civilian casualties and other war impacts.
Equal time for anti-war experts and worldwide leaders and coverage of the many events beyond the rallies, including military families and members who oppose the war.
Prominent challenges to the Administrations credibility. The broadcast media needs to hear that they have no credibility because they have not reported the false claims and lies already exposed by the print media. (Factual details below)
For the next three weeks we urge you to call one Network each day on the following schedule (addresses are further below): Call the news chief and or the news director or, if you can't get through, call the switchboard and ask for the newsroom. Even better, call them both. Keep the calls pouring in to the newsrooms. Calls are greatly more effective than emails and moderately more effective than faxes.

Monday: ABC NEWS CHIEF David Westin. 212.456.6200. fax: 212.456.4292.. NEWS DRECTOR Mimi Gurbst. 212 456 4050 fax.212 456 2795 ABC SWITCHBOARD (ASK FOR NEWSROOM) 212.456-7777. NEWSROOM fax 212.456.2795

Tuesday: MSNBC AND NBC.
MSNBC NEWS CHIEF Mark Effron. 201.583.510. fax: 201.583.5199 mark.effron@msnbc.com.
NEWS DIRECTOR Alison Hawley. 201 583 5155. fax. 201 583 5512
MSNBC SWITCHBOARD (ASK FOR NEWSROOM) 201.583.5000 fax: 201.583.5590
NBC NEWS CHIEF Neil Shapiro. 212.664.4773. fax: 212.664.2264 neal.shapiro@nbc.com. NEWS DIRECTOR Thomas Ferraro 201 583 5231 fax. 201 583 5222
NBC SWITCHBOARD (ASK FOR NEWSROOM) 212.664.4444. fax: 201.583.5453

Wednesday: CBS
NEWS CHIEF Andrew Hayward. 212.975.7825. fax: 212.975.7429. mg3@cbsnews.com
NEWS DIRECTOR Marty Gill 212 975 6121 fax. 212 975 4114
CBS SWITCHBOARD (ASK FOR NEWSROOM) 212.975.4321 fax: 212.975.1893

Thursday: CNN
NEWS CHIEF Walter Isaacson. 404.827.5111. fax: 404.827.4215. walter.isaacson@cnn.com
NEWS DIRECTOR Kim Bondy. 404 827 1500. fax. 404 827 1099
CNN SWITCHBOARD (ASK FOR NEWSROOM). 404.827.1500. cnnfutures@cnn.com

PBS FACTUAL PROGRAMMING CHIEF Sandy Heberer 703.739.5036.
NEWS CHIEF SANDY SOWERS 703-998-2150 newshour@pbs.org
PBS SWITCHBOARD (ASK FOR NEWSROOM) 703.998.2600.

Friday: FOX
NEWS CHIEF: John Moody. 212.301.8560. fax: 212.398.8726. john.moody@foxnews.com
NEWS DIRECTOR Kathleen Ardleigh 212 3013186 fax. 212 301 3300
FOX SWITCHBOARD (ASK FOR NEWSROOM) 212.575.4670. fax: 212.301.8274

Finally, a sobering analysis of what's coming down the pipe after the fall of Iraq...unless we keep in the streets and do something about it (thanks, Anton.) For those of my friends who think that Bush is a fool, I say to you, he put all these people in power within six months of taking office, and therefore changed the course of American policy far more quickly than nearly any American president in history:

The American Prospect
April, 2003
Just the Beginning: Is Iraq the opening salvo in a war to remake the world?
BY ROBERT DREYFUSS; ROBERT DREYFUSS is a Prospect senior correspondent.

For months Americans have been told that the United States is going to war against Iraq in order to disarm Saddam Hussein, remove him from power, eliminate Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and prevent Baghdad from blackmailing its neighbors or aiding terrorist groups. But the Bush administration's hawks, especially the neoconservatives who provide the driving force for war, see the conflict with Iraq as much more than that. It is a signal event, designed to create cataclysmic shock waves throughout the region and around the world, ushering in a new era of American imperial power. It is also likely to bring the United States into conflict with several states in the Middle East. Those who think that U.S. armed forces can complete a tidy war in Iraq, without the battle spreading beyond Iraq's borders, are likely to be mistaken. "I think we're going to be obliged to fight a regional war, whether we want to or not," says Michael Ledeen, a former U.S. national-security official and a key strategist among the ascendant flock of neoconservative hawks, many of whom have taken up perches inside the U.S. government. Asserting that the war against Iraq can't be contained, Ledeen says that the very logic of the global war on terrorism will drive the United States to confront an expanding network of enemies in the region. "As soon as we land in Iraq, we're going to face the whole terrorist network," he says, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and a collection of militant splinter groups backed by nations -- Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia -- that he calls "the terror masters."

"It may turn out to be a war to remake the world," says Ledeen.

In the Middle East, impending "regime change" in Iraq is just the first step in a wholesale reordering of the entire region, according to neoconservatives -- who've begun almost gleefully referring to themselves as a "cabal." Like dominoes, the regimes in the region -- first Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon and the PLO, and finally Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia -- are slated to capitulate, collapse or face U.S. military action. To those states, says cabal ringleader Richard Perle, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory committee, "We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.'" In the aftermath, several of those states, including Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, may end up as dismantled, unstable shards in the form of mini-states that resemble Yugoslavia's piecemeal wreckage. And despite the Wilsonian rhetoric from the president and his advisers about bringing democracy to the Middle East, at bottom it's clear that their version of democracy might have to be imposed by force of arms.

And not just in the Middle East. Three-thousand U.S. soldiers are slated to arrive in the Philippines, opening yet another new front in the war on terrorism, and North Korea is finally in the administration's sights. On the horizon could be Latin America, where the Bush administration endorsed a failed regime change in Venezuela last year, and where new left-leaning challenges are emerging in Brazil, Ecuador and elsewhere. Like the bombing of Hiroshima, which stunned the Japanese into surrender in 1945 and served notice to the rest of the world that the United States possessed unparalleled power it would not hesitate to use, the war against Iraq has a similar purpose. "It's like the bully in a playground," says Ian Lustick, a University of Pennsylvania professor of political science and author of Unsettled States, Disputed Lands. "You beat up somebody, and everybody else behaves."

Over and over again, in speeches, articles and white papers, the neoconservatives have made it plain that the war against Iraq is intended to demonstrate Washington's resolve to implement President Bush's new national-security strategy, announced last fall -- even if doing so means overthrowing the entire post -- World War II structure of treaties and alliances, including NATO and the United Nations. In their book, The War Over Iraq, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Lawrence F. Kaplan of The New Republic write, "The mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end there...we stand at the cusp of a new historical era...this is a decisive moment...it is so clearly about more than Iraq. It is about more even than the future of the Middle East and the war on terror. It is about what sort of role the United States intends to play in the twenty-first century."

INVADING IRAQ, OCCUPYING ITS CAPITAL AND ITS OIL fields, and seizing control of its Shia Islamic holy places can only have a devastating and highly destabilizing impact on the entire region, from Egypt to central Asia and Pakistan. "We are all targeted," Syrian President Bashar Assad told an Arab summit meeting, called to discuss Iraq, on March 1. "We are all in danger."

"They want to foment revolution in Iran and use that to isolate and possibly attack Syria in [Lebanon's] Bekaa Valley, and force Syria out," says former Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Edward S. Walker, now president of the Middle East Institute. "They want to pressure [Muammar] Quaddafi in Libya and they want to destabilize Saudi Arabia, because they believe instability there is better than continuing with the current situation. And out of this, they think, comes Pax Americana."

The more immediate impact of war against Iraq will occur in Iran, say many analysts, including both neoconservative and more impartial experts on the Middle East. As the next station along the "axis of evil," Iran holds power that's felt far and wide in the region. Oil-rich and occupying a large tract of geopolitical real estate, Iran is arguably the most strategically important country in its neighborhood. With its large Kurdish population, Iran has a stake in the future of Iraqi Kurdistan. As a Shia power, Iran has vast influence among the Shia majority in Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain, with the large Shia population in Saudi Arabia's oil-rich eastern province and among the warlords of western Afghanistan. And Iran's ties to the violent Hezbollah guerrillas, whose anti-American zeal can only be inflamed by the occupation of Iraq, will give the Bush administration all the reason it needs to expand the war on terrorism to Tehran.

The first step, neoconservatives say, will be for the United States to lend its support to opposition groups of Iranian exiles willing to enlist in the war on terrorism, much as the Iraqi National Congress served as the spearhead for American intervention in Iraq. And, just as the doddering ex-king of Afghanistan served as a rallying point for America's conquest of that landlocked, central Asian nation, the remnants of the late former shah of Iran's royal family could be rallied to the cause. Nostalgia for the last shah's son, Reza Pahlavi...has again risen," says Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer who, like Ledeen and Perle, is ensconced at the AEI. "We must be prepared, however, to take the battle more directly to the mullahs," says Gerecht, adding that the United States must consider strikes at both Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and allies in Lebanon. "In fact, we have only two meaningful options: Confront clerical Iran and its proxies militarily or ring it with an oil embargo."

Iran is not the only country where restoration of monarchy is being considered. Neoconservative strategists have also supported returning to power the Iraqi monarchy, which was toppled in 1958 by a combination of military officers and Iraqi communists. When the Ottoman Empire crumbled after World War I, British intelligence sponsored the rise of a little-known family called the Hashemites, whose origins lay in the Saudi region around Mecca and Medina. Two Hashemite brothers were installed on the thrones of Jordan and Iraq.

For nearly a year, the neocons have suggested that Jordan's Prince Hassan, the brother of the late King Hussein of Jordan and a blood relative of the Iraqi Hashemite family, might re-establish the Hashemites in Baghdad were Saddam Hussein to be removed. Among the neocons are Michael Rubin, a former AEI fellow, and David Wurmser, a Perle acolyte. Rubin in 2002 wrote an article for London's Daily Telegraph headlined, "If Iraqis want a king, Hassan of Jordan could be their man." Wurmser in 1999 wrote Tyranny's Ally, an AEI-published book devoted largely to the idea of restoring the Hashemite dynasty in Iraq. Today Rubin is a key Department of Defense official overseeing U.S. policy toward Iraq, and Wurmser is a high-ranking official working for Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, himself a leading neoconservative ideologue.

But if the neocons are toying with the idea of restoring monarchies in Iraq and Iran, they are also eyeing the destruction of the region's wealthiest and most important royal family of all: the Saudis. Since September 11, the hawks have launched an all-out verbal assault on the Saudi monarchy, accusing Riyadh of supporting Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization and charging that the Saudis are masterminding a worldwide network of mosques, schools and charity organizations that promote terrorism. It's a charge so breathtaking that those most familiar with Saudi Arabia are at a loss for words when asked about it. "The idea that the House of Saud is cooperating with al-Qaeda is absurd," says James Akins, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1970s and frequently travels to the Saudi capital as a consultant. "It's too dumb to be talked about."

That doesn't stop the neoconservatives from doing so, however. In The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen cites Wurmser in charging that, just before 9-11, "Saudi intelligence had become difficult to distinguish from Al Qaeda." Countless other, similar accusations have been flung at the Saudis by neocons. Max Singer, co-founder of the Hudson Institute, has repeatedly suggested that the United States seek to dismantle the Saudi kingdom by encouraging breakaway republics in the oil-rich eastern province (which is heavily Shia) and in the western Hijaz. "After [Hussein] is removed, there will be an earthquake throughout the region," says Singer. "If this means the fall of the [Saudi] regime, so be it." And when Hussein goes, Ledeen says, it could lead to the collapse of the Saudi regime, perhaps to pro-al-Qaeda radicals. "In that event, we would have to extend the war to the Arabian peninsula, at the very least to the oil-producing regions."

"I've stopped saying that Saudi Arabia will be taken over by Osama bin Laden or by a bin Laden clone if we go into Iraq," says Akins. "I'm now convinced that's exactly what [the neoconservatives] want. And then we take it over."

Iraq, too, could shatter into at least three pieces, which would be based on the three erstwhile Ottoman Empire provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra that were cobbled together to compose the state eight decades ago. That could conceivably leave a Hashemite kingdom in control of largely Sunni central Iraq, a Shia state in the south (possibly linked to Iran, informally) and some sort of Kurdish entity in the north -- either independent or, as is more likely, under the control of the Turkish army. Turkey, a reluctant player in George W. Bush's crusade, fears an independent Kurdistan and would love to get its hands on Iraq's northern oil fields around the city of Kirkuk.

The final key component for these map-redrawing, would-be Lawrences of Arabia is the toppling of Assad's regime and the breakup of Syria. Perle himself proposed exactly that in a 1996 document prepared for the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), an Israeli think tank. The plan, titled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," was originally prepared as a working paper to advise then -- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. It called on Israel to work with Turkey and Jordan to "contain, destabilize and roll-back" various states in the region, overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, press Jordan to restore a scion of its Hashemite dynasty to the Iraqi throne and, above all, launch military assaults against Lebanon and Syria as a "prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East [to] threaten Syria's territorial integrity." Joining Perle in writing the IASPS paper were Douglas Feith and Wurmser, now senior officials in Bush's national-security apparatus.

GARY SCHMITT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PROJECT for a New American Century (PNAC), worries only that the Bush administration, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, might not have the guts to see its plan all the way through once Hussein is toppled. "It's going to be no small thing for the United States to follow through on its stated strategic policy in the region," he says. But Schmitt believes that President Bush is fully committed, having been deeply affected by the events of September 11. Schmitt roundly endorses the vision put forward by Kaplan and Kristol in The War Over Iraq, which was sponsored by the PNAC. "It's really our book," says Schmitt.

Six years ago, in its founding statement of principles, PNAC called for a radical change in U.S. foreign and defense policy, with a beefed-up military budget and a more muscular stance abroad, challenging hostile regimes and assuming "American global leadership." Signers of that statement included Cheney; Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Peter W. Rodman; Elliott Abrams, the Near East and North African affairs director at the National Security Council; Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition; I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff; and Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.), the president's brother. The PNAC statement foreshadowed the outline of the president's 2002 national-security strategy.

Scenarios for sweeping changes in the Middle East, imposed by U.S armed forces, were once thought fanciful -- even ridiculous -- but they are now taken seriously given the incalculable impact of an invasion of Iraq. Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, worries about everything that could go wrong. "It's a war to turn the kaleidoscope, by people who know nothing about the Middle East," he says. "And there's no way to know how the pieces will fall." Perle and Co., says Freeman, are seeking a Middle East dominated by an alliance between the United States and Israel, backed by overwhelming military force. "It's machtpolitik, might makes right," he says. Asked about the comparison between Iraq and Hiroshima, Freeman adds, "There is no question that the Richard Perles of the world see shock and awe as a means to establish a position of supremacy that others fear to challenge."

But Freeman, who is now president of the Middle East Policy Council, thinks it will be a disaster. "This outdoes anything in the march of folly catalog," he says. "It's the lemmings going over the cliff."