Today's Iraq is Exactly What Israeli Right-Wing Has Wanted, Motive for Mossad and 911Submitted by Sue4theBillofrights on Sat, 09/18/2010 - 18:29
I still don't know quite what to make of the allegations of Army War College instructor Dr. Alan Sabrosky, who says Mossad was a conspirator in 911, along with elements of our military-industrial complex, which profits obscenely from war. But I have learned to ask the question, "who benefits?"
911 enabled the invasion of Iraq, and although the result has been bad for us, it fits in with goals which have been openly stated for many years by the Israeli NeoCon intelligentsia. Whether Sabrosky is right or wrong, this much is uncanny and extensively documented.
In 1982 in the winter issue of Kivunim, a “A Journal for Judaism and Zionism,” published “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” by Oded Yinon, an Israeli scholar. Yinon suggests that the Arab States should be destroyed from within by exploiting their internal religious and ethnic tensions.
"Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel...Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."
Yinon's essay influenced a generation of Israeli and Israeli-American Neocon thinkers, and in 1996 an Israeli think tank, The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, published the widely-reported “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” intended as advice for Prime Minister Netanyahu, which stated:
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."
Who were the authors of this Israeli-funded publication aimed at advising Prime Minister Netanyahu? A Who's-Who of prominent dual American-Israeli citizens who would later run George Bush's foreign policy, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
During the Clinton administration, each of these figures was active in the Neoconservative think-tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which adopted the overthrow of Saddam as one of its key goals, and urged President Clinton to consider doing so by force. Among the signers of a letter to Clinton urging him to overthrow Saddam were Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, who all became high officials on the Bush foreign policy team. PNAC also, in a document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," lamented that many of its goals would be difficult to achieve "absent a new Pearl Harbor." Other members of PNAC were Dick Cheney, Josh Bolton, and Dov Zakheim.
It is inaccurate to view the invasion of Iraq as an unmitigated disaster, although this is what it has been to America. Viewed from another perspective, Israel's, the continuing low-intensity conflict, and civil war, which prevents the emergence of a strong central government has been a resounding success. Saddam won't be launching any more SCUDS at Tel Aviv.
Once one is convinced that 911 was a demolition, and that the official story is flatly impossible, the question can only turn to who and why. In any crime a good investigator turns to motive, means, and opportunity. Those who had long fervently wished for the deployment of American military power in order to remake the map of the Middle East, suddenly found themselves at the center of the American military-industrial complex, with the responsibility to defend American airspace and to defeat surprise attack.
If, as defenders of the official story say, air defenses were breached because they were looking "outward," beyond US borders, than why were no less than six war games scheduled on the morning of 911 involving terrorist attacks on US targets, some using airplanes as weapons, one of which was to have hit the National Reconnaissance Office in Chantilly, VA? Another exercise sent most of the US interceptor force into the skies over Canada, in Operation Northern Vigilance, on that terrible morning. The assertion that these kinds of attacks were not expected, nor planned for, cannot withstand scrutiny.
The Mossad to which Dr. Sabrosky refers is the Israeli intelligence agency. Its possible involvement in 911, in conjunction with members of the American military-industrial complex, need extend no further than a small, renegade faction of that agency, which would no more represent the Israeli people or even the rest of Mossad than the Iran-Contra gang represented the CIA or America. A television commentator attacking any speculation of Mossad involvement recently said that the charge is being made "without any evidence," conveniently ignoring the fact that most of the key forensic evidence, the WTC steel, was destroyed. That leaves circumstantial evidence, which is evidence nevertheless. She did not mention the USS Liberty, a Mossad operation in which 34 American sailors were killed, in order to sink the Liberty and blame it on Egypt, thus drawing the US into the Six Day War.
There was one problem: due to the heroism of the sailors on that ship, it did not sink, and some lived to tell the tale. It is the heroism of those sailors which is now our guiding light in the face of vicious smears contending that anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic. We will not back down and go under, just as those sailors would not.