Customer Reviews


2 Reviews
5 star:
 (2)
4 star:    (0)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:    (0)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 
Most Helpful First | Newest First

10 of 11 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East,and the National Interest of Israel, 2 April 2009
By 
James Morris (USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: Transparent Cabal (Hardcover)
Book Review

The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East,and the National Interest of Israel
by Stephen J. Sniegoski

Reviewed by James Morris

With his PhD training his history, Stephen J. Sniegoski has provided
exceptional documentation to illustrate the neocon/Israeli involvement in
shaping Bush administration policy in the Middle East. He relies heavily on the very words of the neoconservatives and Israeli officials. To illustrate their influence, he provides commentary from mainstream sources. This was no hidden conspiracy. The title is an oxymoron since the book clearly illustrates that the neoconservative agenda was openly revealed to the public. However, few writers have had the courage to point this out, and even fewer have had the energy and diligence to connect all the dots.

One key point is how Sniegoski shows that members of the traditional foreign policy establishment and the oil interests-the preferred villains of such leftist anti-war commentators as Chomsky and Finkelstein-were hardly pushing for an aggressive Middle East policy. Prior to 9/11, the oil companies sought an end of the sanctions against the Iran and Iraq. Major opponents of the war on Iraq included Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisors. The military was anything but gung ho towards an attack on Iraq and had to be pushed in that direction by the Bush administration neocons. Similarly, the CIA also had to be pressured to come up with the bogus war propaganda. To disseminate the most fallacious war propaganda, the neocons had to create their own hard-core propaganda agency, the Office of Special Plans, under the direction of super-neocon Douglas Feith in the Defense Department. In 2006, the traditional foreign policy establishment dominated the congressionally-mandated "Iraq Study Group" (co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton), which sought to bring about peace in the Middle East through negotiations with such enemies of Israel as Iran and Syria. The neocon American Enterprise Institute would counter this move by proposing the "surge" in Iraq, which Bush would adopt in early 2007.

In summarizing the fundamental geostrategic difference between the
neoconservatives and the traditional foreign policy establishment, Sniegoski provides extensive documentation to show that the neocons sought to destabilize Israel's enemies (not simply Iraq, but also Iran, Syria, and ultimately Saudi Arabia) purportedly to establish "democracy." However, the neocon destabilization policy dovetailed with the long-time Likudnik policy goal of destabilizing and fragmenting Israel's enemies, with the goal of improving Israel's geostrategic position. In contrast, the traditional American foreign policy establishment sought to maintain stability in the Middle East in order to facilitate the flow of oil. Instability would threaten the flow of oil and the economy of the industrial nations which depended on oil.

As Sniegoski points out, it was the trauma of 9/11 that gave the neocons the opportunity to gain upper hand in the Bush administration. With their use of bogus intelligence, the neocons were able to skillfully convert a know-nothing president and a fearful and angry American public to support an attack on Iraq. As the anger and fear faded, the traditional establishment was able to reassert itself to the degree that the neocons and Israel have been unsuccessful in their effort to get the United States to attack Iran. But Sniegoski points out that the neocon element was never eliminated from the Bush administration.

This book has many other things to write about, which space does not allow. However, it should be pointed out that while the book deals with the Bush administration, the issues discussed retain a relevance today in the Obama era. The recent (March 2009) successful derailment of Chas Freeman's appointment to chair the National Intelligence Council clearly illustrates that the neoconservatives and other elements of the Israel Lobby still hold significant power in shaping American Middle East policy. It also illustrates the opposition to the neocon Middle East war policy from the traditional foreign policy establishment, which Freeman represents.

This book provides a good understanding of the motivation behind America's aggressive war policy in the Middle East, which is not in line with the national interests of the United States nor of the interests of humanity as a whole. It is a must read for all people concerned about the future of the globe.

----------------------------------------------------

Additional about the 'The Transparent Cabal' at the following URLs:

[...]

[...]

[...]
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars The Failure of American Government, 10 May 2013
This review is from: Transparent Cabal (Hardcover)
Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies.

The policy was adopted by the Israeli pro-settler right wing and Jewish activists in and around the Clinton and Bush administrations such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser (who all helped produce the original document). They identified as targets Iraq, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and were handed a golden opportunity after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre. Iraq was falsely presented as an Al Qaeda base and the media planted with stories about an imminent attack on the United States using WMD. Despite the CIA knowing all along that the WMD didn't exist, the US still invaded Iraq and the story was quietly and unbelievably changed to "building democracy".

As Sniegoski points out, the war has exceeded the cost of Vietnam and the same activists, now working through Hillary Clinton are looking for "incidents" in Iraq to trigger the next phase of the plan which is a US attack on Iran.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Only search this product's reviews