…by Jonas E. Alexis
Last year, when reports began to declare that Iraq was virtually in ruin, Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a neoconservative think tank, got caught with his pants down arguing that the reports were actually inaccurate.
In the same year, neoconservative copperhead John R. Bolton of the same institution declared that it was a sheer myth that “Iraq is worse off now than under Saddam,” that “Bush lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,” etc.
Now Bolton is not that dumb. There is no doubt that he has been paid a chunk of money to pummel nonsense like this.
In fact, the AEA—the place where Bush actually proposed in 2003 that the Iraq war was about freedom and democracy—has been involved in covert activities in the past, such as offering scientists thousands upon thousands of dollars to say things that the organization liked. Before the Iraq war,
“[Paul] Wolfowitz asked the American Enterprise Institute to put together a study group on terrorism. The resulting report—which, bizarrely for the product of a private think tank, was labeled ‘secret’ and hand delivered to selected cabinet members—conflated diverse lines of conflict in the Middle East and wound up focusing on Iraq because it was considered a more tractable target than Saudi Arabia, Iran or Egypt.
“Saddam Hussein was deemed vulnerable, and the Ba’athist ideology of his regime was described as ‘an Arab form of fascism transplanted to Iraq.’”
Just recently, the terrorists who sacked Mosul bragged that they had already executed 1,700 Iraqi government soldiers, “posting gruesome photos to support their claims.”
Things got even worse for the Zionists/neoconservatives when Iran offered to help fight those terrorists. The U.S. seems to be willing to talk to Iran on this issue, but Max Boot of Commentary quickly diffused that move by saying that Iran has ulterior motives and that they do not really want to fight terrorism.
In other words, Boot continues to invent weird things about Iran. Keep also in mind that it was Boot who wanted America to intervene in Syria by supporting Syrian terrorists such as the Syrian rebels.
The interesting fact is that those same rebels are now quickly moving to other territories such as Mosul! Boot supported those terrorists in Syria, but he is asking the U.S. government to help fight them in Iraq! What kind of sense does that make?
Danielle Pletka of the AEI finally realized that something wrong is going on in Iraq. She has recently said that “Iraq is not yet lost, but the victory that the United States, our allies and our Iraqi friends achieved at such high cost is now at risk.”
A few days ago, Gordon Lubold of Foreign Policy wrote that “Iraq is falling apart, and there’s little Washington can do about it.” Journalist Peter Bergen calls this “Bush’s toxic legacy in Iraq.”
Tony Blair actually agrees that “The whole of the Middle East is under threat,” but he does not have at least one iota of moral courage to declare that he indeed was influential in screwing the Middle East up.
Instead of making an honest apology to the thousands of people whose lives he had helped destroy, Blair declared that “Then we need a comprehensive plan for the Middle East that correctly learns the lessons of the past decade.”
That “comprehensive plan” involves an aggressive expansion, “including air strikes and drones as used in Libya.”
Blair moved on to propound a colossal lie and then whine that
“Assad, who actually kills his people on a vast scale including with chemical weapons, is left in power.
“So what does all this mean? How do we make sense of it? I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it.”
Blair certainly has a different definition of being humble. For him, it seems to mean that one should never admit that he was wrong, even if he creates a mess that will have economic and political ramifications for years to come.
Bob Dreyfuss of The Nation declared that “Iraq’s nightmare gets worse,” and that the Iraq war itself “destroyed virtually all of Iraq’s institutions and created a power vacuum that led directly to an ethnic and sectarian civil war…” Paul Craig Roberts has recently said the same thing.
Last month, Dreyfuss continues,
“799 Iraqis died as the result of suicide bombings, car bombs, targeted assassinations, tit-for-tat killings and other civil war–like violence, according to the United Nations—and that data doesn’t even include Anbar province.”
In other words, one has to be willfully blind—and here I am hasting to say dumb on purpose—to propound the idea that Iraq was a free country after the invasion.
Yet to rescue himself from political oblivion, Rubin has recently declared that “Historians will judge the wisdom of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein…”
Destroying a country is wisdom? Let us hear from Chris Maume of the British newspaper The Independent. Having lived in the country for many years, he writes that “it was better to live under Saddam.” Maume continues,
“Iraq, it seems, is about to descend once more into anarchy and chaos, but it wasn’t like that when I worked there in 1983 and ’84, and again in ’86. When the US and Britain led the invasion in 2003, for what turned out to be no good reason, I found myself wondering whether the removal of Saddam Hussain was all it was cracked up to be.
“And that question has come back into my head this week. Did the lives of most ordinary Iraqis get better? I don’t think so. And now they’re about to get a whole lot worse.
“There was universal health care in Iraq, and universal education. Few people were well off but nobody, as far as I could tell, starved.
“Baghdad was noisy and mucky and full of building sites, but it was bustling and thriving. There wasn’t a huge amount in the shops, but people had all they needed to get by.
“If you were Kurdish, or a dissident, life wasn’t like that, and I’m not suggesting for a second that we should forget their suffering. But by and large, life was OK in Saddam’s dictatorship.
“It was a secular state, and Sunnis and Shias seemed to bump along together; there were plenty of Christians, and even a few Jews left (though they had experienced persecution).
“So Iraq, when I was there, was a fully functioning state in which it was possible to live a fulfilled life. I’m aware that what I’m saying may be the equivalent of observing that Hitler made the trains run on time.
“But I wonder how many Iraqis today – particularly those in flight, with nothing but their children and a few hastily gathered possessions – look back on the Saddam years.”
Of course, saying things like that are not compatible with the neoconservative blood pressure. Tom Wilson of Commentary took his neoconservative sledge hammer and began to pummel the idea that Maume has whitewashed
“the poverty suffered by most Iraqis compared to the obscene wealth enjoyed by the Saddam’s ruling clan…
“Whatever one thinks of what has gone on in Iraq post-Saddam, nowhere in the piece does Maume give the impression that in an ideal world the Iraqis should enjoy democracy, freedom, or human rights.”
Maume’s article, continues Wilson, “reads as a defense of autocracy.”
We can ignore Wilson for the moment because he has been living in the Talmudic la-la land for decades and there is nothing we can do about it. But the questions which ought to be addressed are quite simple.
How long are we going to be in the Middle East? Well, it depends on what the neoconservatives say. And what if more invasions mean more terrorists?
Well, more soldiers need to be sent in the region. What if they began to die like chickens? Well, send more, stupid! We need more governmental surveillance, more drone bases and black sites in places like Kabul, Pakistan.
What if we don’t have enough money to support all these wars?
Well, tell the Federal Reserve to print money out of thin air, which essentially means that the American taxpayers will continue to pay the price, which means that your sons and daughters will be suffocated in the abyss of debt until they give up the ghost, which means that the U.S. population will continue to decline, which means that poverty will continue to skyrocket, and which means that the dreadful few will continue to exert enormous power over the average American. Oh, keep in mind that the U.S. debt has already reach the $16 trillion mark.
For example, Max Boot argued that “Public apathy presents a potential opportunity” for people like him, “making it possible to prolong ‘indefinitely’ conflicts in which citizens are not invested.”
If the average American actually knows what the neoconservatives are doing, nearly all of them would be up in arms tomorrow and demand that those neoconservatives be dethroned from their political positions. Here’s one piece of evidence.
When the Jihadists sacked the northern Iraq city of Mosul last week, they quickly have “become the richest terror group ever after looting 500 billion Iraqi dinars – the equivalent of $429m (£256m) – from Mosul’s central bank.”
I am willing to bet that part of that money has been the work of the American government, which means that possibly your hard labor and tax money have been making terrorist groups rich. I hope I am just dreaming here.
But let us hypothetically assume that this is actually true. What would the neoconservatives say to the average American and decent people in the Middle East who have already lost their livelihood because of those endless and meaningless wars?
Whether the neoconservatives like it or not, they cannot escape the fact that they are indirectly igniting terrorism in the Middle East, inciting hatred toward decent Americans, and pursuing essentially Talmudic ideology, which is really diabolical in nature.
The neoconservatives would certainly object to the term “diabolical,” but that is because they are not as honest and straightforward as Saul Alinsky, who unambiguously acknowledged that his ideology sprung from Lucifer.
Alinsky indirectly expanded on a similar idea in 1972 during a Playboy interview this way: “Let’s say that if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.”
If the neoconservatives do not like that assessment, then let us continue to discuss current events.
The New York Times itself had an article entitled, “Iraq in Peril.” Virtually all the major media outlets started to say the same thing. Some have even called it “Iraq War III.” Daniel R. Repetris of the National Interest writes,
“Last year was the deadliest for Iraqi civilians since 2007, when the height of sectarian civil war convulsing the country was nearing its end. Since January of this year, civilians have been massacred in overwhelming numbers in Baghdad with ease, and Iraqi security forces have been unable to stop it.
“A porous and largely irrelevant Iraqi-Syrian border, and the prevalence of jihadist organizations in northern and eastern Syria have not helped either.”
Robert W. Merry of the same magazine lamented that
“The chaos in post-Saddam Iraq unleashed by the American invasion of 2003 is reaching crisis proportions. Now the country’s second-largest city and primary oil center, Mosul, has been overrun by Sunni militants.
“According to the New York Times, the city has fallen primarily into the hands of an insurgency group called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria—“one of the most extreme groups,” according to the paper. Local officials were saying many of the Sunni fighters were jihadists who had swept in from the porous border between Iraq and Syria.
“Islamist militants already had gained dominance over the city of Falluja and parts of neighboring Ramadi, in Anbar province. Now they are in position to leverage resources captured in Mosul to strengthen their positions in Anbar and extend their influence to other parts of the country.”
Merry moved on to write,
“What went wrong?
“The central problem was ideology—the idea that America was special, that our governmental norms and practices could and should be exported abroad, that we had a right and duty to destroy regimes, based upon the slightest pretext of national interest or none at all, that failed to live up to our standards.
“That’s what drove the American-led expeditionary force into Iraq; that’s what led to President Obama’s decision to employ military resources to upend Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi; that’s what is driving the call for American intervention in Syria to overthrow Bashar al-Assad.”
Merry’s article is indeed informative and a good step forward. What he ends up saying indirectly is that the neoconservative dream has never worked in the Middle East.
Afghanistan was a failure, and former CIA official Paul R. Pillar has been saying that we are witnessing the same neoconservative game in Syria. Michael Hart of the National Interest posited the idea that once the U.S. leaves Afghanistan, it “won’t bear much resemblance to the Western vision that fueled the intervention in the first place.”
Dimitri K. Simes of the same magazine declared back in 2005, “As most Americans would be shocked to learn, the United States played a major role in unleashing the global Islamic jihad now focused on our country.”
Yet as a person who has written for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, the National Review, etc., Merry, like Hart and others, could never tell us who the big elephant in the room is.
They all fail to tell us is that the West, left to herself, would not have instigated the war. It was a Jewish war and the West is not only paying the bill with economic suffering, but it also instigated a deep-seated hatred of much of the countries in the West as well.
What are the parallel lines here? Well, it is beginning to look like the Zionist chickens are coming home to roost. After supporting the Jihadists in Syria, those terrorist groups are currently showing their true colors. The New York Times itself has reported,
“Like a trailer for a summer blockbuster, the video begins with loud music and the words ‘Coming Soon.’ But instead of superheroes or comedians on screen, there are images of a burning American flag and a jetliner hitting the World Trade Center, and the words: ‘Join the Caravan of Jihad and Martyrdom.’
“As the music fades away, the blurred face of a man appears. He makes a direct appeal to Americans to join the fight. The video ends with footage of a United States passport being burned. Men are heard laughing and shouting an Arabic phrase about God’s greatness.
“Although the recruitment video has circulated among extremist groups for some days, intelligence analysts now believe the man with the blurred face is a 22-year-old from Florida who blew himself up last month in a suicide attack on Syrian government forces that killed 37, according to senior American government officials.
“The man, Moner Mohammad Abusalha, who took his own life in a truck bombing mission, is one of roughly 100 Americans who have tried to travel to Syria to fight alongside Islamic extremists, or who have actually done so. American officials express deep concerns that the video may inspire others to follow his path.”
In a recent article, the New York Times has reported that rebels are actually roaming north of Baghdad, leaving thousands upon thousands of residents in panic.
But the New York Times once again did not point out that these are some of the people that the neoconservatives, and indeed the Zionist State of America, have been supporting in Syria from time immemorial.
In fact, the name of the terrorist cell is the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Who is responsible for this mess? Let us bring in Daniel Pipes once again.
“Western governments should respond by helping the rebels to prevent Assad from crushing them. The West should prevent either side in the civil war from emerging victorious by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict. This policy recommendation of ‘helping whichever side is losing’ sounds odd, I admit, but it is strategic.”
The plan “sounds odd” precisely because Pipes perceives that if Western countries abide by the rule of law, they would never accept it. It is “strategic” because it is neoconservative and Talmudic in its diabolical form.
But here is the kicker: Tony Blair has recently insulted everyone’s intelligence by saying that the reason that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has sacked Mosul is because the West did not aggressively take actions against Assad.
In other words, the West should have supported the ISIS in the first place, and that would have prevented them from invading Mosul!
Going back to Merry and others, they did not talk about the key players who unleashed the jihadists. But we know that that the neoconservative revolution is responsible for this. This has been largely ignored by intellectuals of various stripes because no one wants to lose his life or a (lucrative) career.
So many politicians end up talking about King Kong without mentioning the ape. We find this sad and pathetic situation in order areas as well.
For example, Dinesh D’Souza made it clear that one of the leading figures to argue that pornography is art was legal scholar and former president of the ACLU (from 1991-2008) Nadine Strossen, who wrote a book entitled Defending Pornography. (D’Souza never mentioned that Strossen is Jewish.) In the forward of the book, Wendy Karimer even proposed the idea that pornography should be permitted to children.
D’Souza is outraged that groups like the ACLU have been working tooth and nail to protect the extreme forms of pornography.
Yet instead of going deeper into the issue to document the key players’ roles in that particular issue and saying things like the ACLU is largely a Jewish organization, D’Souza ended up blaming them as liberal activists and leftists!
It is the same thing we find in books written by pundits such as Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro. None of these authors tell us that the Left was a Jewish intellectual movement as well. Russell Jacoby stated in The Last Intellectuals,
“The Jewish contribution to the Left in the United States during the twentieth century ranks the highest of any immigrant or ethnic group…
“American Jewry has provided socialist organizations and movements with a disproportionate number—sometimes approaching or surpassing a majority—of their leaders, activists, and supporters.”
We have repeatedly argued that the neoconservative ideology has dragged America into perpetual wars and now we are all paying the price. Russian leaders are certainly not blind. Recently, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared that
“the events that are taking place in Iraq are an illustration of a complete failure of the venture started by the US and the UK that allowed it to spiral out of control completely.
“We express our solidarity with the Iraqi authorities, the Iraqi people who should restore peace and security in their country, but the actions of our Western partners raise a lot of questions.”
The 500,000 Iraqis who recently fled Mosul have declared that they prefer the new militants to the government, which is another way of saying that the new government that the Zionist state had put in power was up to no good. The best way to get back to reality is to prosecute those who have deliberately lied about the wars.
The Iraq war alone has amounted to millions of deaths and a bill of six trillion dollars, making America “the greatest debtor nation in history.”
But, according to neocon Seth Mandel of Commentary, the United States needs to get more involved in both Iraq and Syria because terrorism is rampant in those regions.
“In light of the unfolding disaster in Iraq, which is linked to the unfolding disaster in Syria, which is part of a broader failure in the Middle East, which is only one part of an across-the-board failure in foreign policy, which is separate from the failures at home–including healthcare.gov and ObamaCare more broadly, chronically high unemployment, the stimulus and ‘shovel ready jobs,’ a historically weak economic recovery, the lowest workforce participation rate since the 1970s, increasing income inequality, and record poverty–the following needs to be said…The harm this man has done is immeasurable. And he still has more than two years left to go.”
Who is responsible for all that? Who is bleeding the Middle East until there is no more blood to be shared? When will people like Wehner take some responsibility for their own mess? And we need more soldiers to die for the neoconservatives? Ron Paul once again hit the nail on its head when he said,
“The neo-con ideology promotes endless war, but neo-cons fight their battles with the blood of others.
“From the comfortable, subsidized offices of magazines like the Weekly Standard, the neo-conservatives urge the United States to engage in endless war – to be fought by the victims of the ‘poverty draft’ from states where there are few jobs.
“Ironically, these young people cannot find more productive work because the Federal Reserve’s endless money printing to keep the war machine turning has destroyed our economy.
“The six trillion dollars that will be spent on the Iraq war are merely pieces of printed paper that further erode the dollar’s purchasing power now and well into the future. It is the inflation tax, which is the most regressive and cruel of all.”
Think about this for a moment. Suppose you lost 6 trillion dollars on a deal that was supposed to bring you more cash and liberty. Wouldn’t you think twice the next time you are on the brink of making the exact same deal? Michael Rubin actually understands this common sense principle, but he simply does not apply it to the neoconservative ideology. He writes,
“Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same actions repeatedly but expecting different results each time. Alas, without reconsidering the conventional wisdom upon which US policy has been based, the United States is destined to misread Iraq repeatedly.”
We lost at least 4,449 precious men and women in the Middle East, and “the best casualty estimates exceed 125,000, and the damage continues today, as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant chews through northern Iraq, ever closer to Baghdad.”
We will also lose six trillion dollars in Iraq alone. Thousands upon thousands of precious men and women have been crippled, maimed, and literally sexually abused. Thousands upon thousands of decent people in the Middle East have been literally evaporated from the pages of history by the neoconservative tsunami.
Shouldn’t decent Americans rise up and think twice when the neoconservatives are pushing us again? Shouldn’t decent Americans be alert when they hear the neoconservative sound blasting all over the radio, the media, in some academic circles, etc.?
Yet the sad part is that the United States plans to invest at least $5 billion to fight the so-called war on terror. We lost trillions upon trillions of dollars fighting the same thing, and what we are indirectly being told here is that we are losing the “war on terror” because we didn’t invest. If that is not dumb, I do not know what is.
Mandel and Rubin do have an ounce of common sense. They know or should know very well that both the Zionist/neoconservative state of America and Israel have continued to support terrorist groups and state such as the MEK, the Syrian rebels, and Saudi Arabia.
Even Robert S. Ford has recently come out and declared that we should continue to support the Syrian terrorists, though he called them “moderate opposition.”
But the fact is that terrorism, as the chart clearly shows, is the creation of the Zionist State. Right after the invasion, from 2003 until 2011, “Suicide bombers in Iraq have killed at least 12,000 civilians and 200 coalition soldiers, according to a study.”
But both Mandel and Rubin have to convince the American people that we are really fighting a war on terror because that is how their neoconservative plan can take place. They look for what physicist Denis Rancourt calls “comfortable lies” and spread those lies through the media.
In short, the Palestinians are locked in an intolerable situation: if their children do not get killed by the neoconservative ideology, then those children grow up to be infected by the gay and lesbian ideology as advanced by Jewish revolutionaries such as Sarah Schulman. As Gilad Atzmon has recently written:
“Recently I learned from Sarah Schulman, a NY Jewish Lesbian activist that in her search for funding for a young ‘Palestinian Queer’ USA tour, she was advised to approach George Soros’ Open Society institute. The following account may leave you flabbergasted, as it did me:
“A former ACT UP staffer who worked for the Open Society Institute, George Soros’ foundation, suggested that I file an application there for funding for the tour.
“When I did so it turned out that the person on the other end had known me from when we both attended Hunter [College] High School in New York in the 1970s. He forwarded the application to the Institutes’s office in Amman, Jordan, and I had an amazing one-hour conversation with Hanan Rabani, its director of the Women’s and Gender program for the Middle East region.
“Hanan told me that this tour would give great visibility to autonomous queer organizations in the region. That it would inspire queer Arabs—especially in Egypt and Iran…for that reason, she said, funding for the tour should come from the Amman office” (Sarah Schulman -Israel/Palestine and the Queer International p. 108).”
Perhaps it is time for decent Americans and decent people everywhere to rise against the Zionist state. The Zionist/neoconservative/neo-Bolshevik chickens have been roaming the earth unchecked and unchallenged for far too long. To cite again Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
“And thus, overcoming our temerity, let each man choose: will he remain a witting servant of the lies, or has the time come for him to stand straight as an honest man, worthy of the respect of his children and contemporarites?”
 Michael Rubin, “Is Iraq Falling Apart? Not So Fast,” American Enterprise Institute, May 16, 2013.
 John R. Bolton, “Was the Iraq War Worth Fighting?,” American Enterprise Institute, March 19, 2014. Incredibly, Tony Blair has recently declared that Hussein could have used weapons of mass destruction, even though he didn’t have one! Ian Birrell, “Tony Blair has moved beyond parody in his latest attempt to absolve himself,” The Independent, June 15, 2014.
 Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).
 Ian Sample, “Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Change,” Guardian, February 2, 2007.
 Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy, 27.
 Rod Nordland and Alissa J. Rubin, “Militants Claim Mass Execution of Iraqi Soldiers,” NY Times, June 15, 2014; see also Patrick Cockburn, “Iraq crisis: Isis forces kill dozens of soldiers in ‘mass execution’ as country slides towards sectarian war,” The Independent, June 16, 2014.
 Patrick Cockburn, “Iraq crisis: West must take up Tehran’s offer to block an Isis victory,” The Independent, June 15, 2014.
 “Iraq conflict: US considers talks with Iran,” BBC, June 16, 2014.
 Max Boot, “Getting Fooled by Iran in Iraq,” Commentary, June 15, 2014.
 For a recent development on this issue, see for example Gareth Porter, “How US Policy on Iran Came to Be Based on Fabricated Documents,” The Nation, June 9, 2014.
 Michael Doran and Max Boot, “5 Reasons to Intervene in Syria Now,” NY Times, September 26, 2012.
 Max Boot, “Obama’s Syria Policy Is a Deadly Mistake,” Financial Times, February 10, 2014.
 Quoted in Oren Dorell, “U.S. War Gains in Iraq Now Lost or Threatened,” USA Today, January 12, 2014.
 Gordon Lubold and John Hudson, “Iraq is Falling Apart, and There Is Little Washington Can Do About it,” Foreign Policy, June 12, 2014.
 Peter Bergen, “Bush’s Toxic Legacy in Iraq,” CNN, June 15, 2014.
 Tony Blair, “We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ caused this crisis. We haven’t,” The Independent, June 15, 2014.
 Patrick Wintour, Tracy McVeigh, and Mark Townsend, “Tony Blair: We Must Intervene in Iraq,” Guardian, June 15, 2014.
 Blair, “We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ caused this crisis. We haven’t,” The Independent, June 15, 2014
 Bob Dreyfuss, “Iraq’s Nightmare Gets Worse,” The Nation, June 10, 2014.
 Michael Rubin, “Time to Challenge US Assumptions About Terrorism, Security, and Iraq,” American Enterprise Institute, June 13, 2014.
 Chris Maume, “It Was Better to Live in Iraq Under Saddam,” The Independent, June 12, 2014.
 Tom Wilson, “Liberals Longing for Saddam,” Commentary, June 13, 2014.
 Peter Popham, “Secret state: Trevor Paglen documents the hidden world of governmental surveillance, from drone bases to ‘black sites,’” The Independent, June 15, 2014.
 Ashley Southal, “As Convention Opens, Debt Clock Ticks,” NY Times, August 27, 2012.
 Andrew Bacevich, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2013), 41.
 Jack Moore, “Mosul Seized: Jihadis Loot $429m from City’s Central Bank to Make Isis World’s Richest Terror Force,” International Business Times, June 11, 2014.
 Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals (New York: Vantage Books, 1972).
 “Iraq in Peril,” NY Times, June 12, 2014.
 See for example “Iraqis Flee Violence in Mosul,” Guardian, June 11, 2014; Nabih Bulos and Carol J. Williams, “Al Qaeda Splinter Group Gains More Grounds in Iraq,” LA Times, June 11, 2014; http://www.npr.org/2014/06/11/321053909/half-a-million-iraqis-flee-as-militants-move-south; Colin Freeman, “Al-Qaeda Seizes Iraq’s Third-Largest City as Terrified Residents Flee,” The Telegraph, June 10, 2014.
 Michael Knights, “Iraq War III Has Now Begun,” Foreign Policy, June 11, 2014.
 Daniel R. DePetris, “Beware of ISIS: The 2002 Iraq AUMF Is Alive and Well,” National Interest, June 13, 2014.
 Robert W. Merry, “The Faulty Foundations of American Exceptionalism,” National Interest, June 12, 2014.
 Paul R. Pillar, “Replaying Afghanistan in Syria,” National Interest, October 15, 2012.
 Michael Hart, “West’s Afghan Hopes Collide with Reality,” National Interest, February 28, 2012.
 Dimitri K. Simes, “Jihad, Unintended,” National Interest, December 1, 2005.
 Michael S. Schmidt, “Syria Suicide Bombing Puts U.S. Face on Jihad Video,” NY Times, June 14, 2014.
 Rod Nordland and Alissa J. Rubin, “Iraq Rebels Stall North of Baghdad as Residents Brace for a Siege,” NY Times, June 14, 2014.
 Daniel Pipes, “Support the Syrian Rebels?,” National Review, May 12, 2013.
 Robert Fisk, “Now we see how his doctrine turns enemies into ‘allies,’” The Independent, June 15, 2014; Jane Merrick, “Tony Blair: Syria conflict is to blame for current Iraq crisis,” The Independent, June 15, 2014.
 Dinesh D’Souza, The Enemy at Home: The cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 (New York: Broadway, 2008), 137-138.
 Arthur Liebman, Jews and the Left (Hoken, NJ: Wiley, 1979).
 Russell Jacoby, The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe (New York: Basic Books, 1987), 87.
 Tim Arango, “Iraqis Who Fled Mosul Say They Prefer Militants to Government,” NY Times, June 12, 2014.
 Flynt Leverett & Hillary Mann Leverett, Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic (New York: Henry Holt, 2013), 2.
 Seth Mandel, “Return of the War That Never Went Away,” Commentary, June 12, 1014.
 Max Boot, “Iraq Requires U.S. Action, Not Observation,” Commentary, January 13, 2014.
 Peter Wehner, “Obama Even Worse Than We Thought,” Commentary, January 13, 2014.
 Rubin, “Time to Challenge US Assumptions About Terrorism, Security, and Iraq.”
 Nicole Gaouette, “As Iraq Reels, War’s Fathers Mum,” Bloomberg, June 12, 2014.
 Michael B. Kelley, “The Iraq War Could Cost More Than $6 Trillion,” Business Insider, March 14, 2013; http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/iraq-war-anniversary-idUSL1N0C5FBN20130314.
 “Fighting Terrorism With More Money,” NY Times, June 15, 2014.
 For a recent development, see for example Simon Henderson, “The Battle for Iraq Is a Saudi War on Terror,” Foreign Policy, June 12, 2014.
 Robert S. Ford, “Arm Syria’s Opposition,” NY Times, June 10, 2014.
 Sarah Boseley, “Iraq Suicide Bomb Toll Revealed,” Guardian, September 2, 2011.
 Solzhenitsyn, The Solzhenitsyn Reader, 558.