The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew J. Bacevich Archive
Our Man in Riyadh
Abizaid of Arabia
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

What does President Trump’s recent nomination of retired Army General John Abizaid to become the next U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia signify? Next to nothing — and arguably quite a lot.

Abizaid’s proposed appointment is both a non-event and an opportunity not to be wasted. It means next to nothing in this sense: while once upon a time, American diplomats abroad wielded real clout — Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams offer prominent examples — that time is long past. Should he receive Senate confirmation, Ambassador Abizaid will not actually shape U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia. At most, he will convey policy, while keeping officials back in Washington apprised regarding conditions in the Kingdom. “Conditions” in this context will mean the opinions, attitudes, whims, and mood of one particular individual: Mohammed bin Salman. MBS, as he is known, is the Saudi crown prince and the Kingdom’s de facto absolute ruler. By no means incidentally, he is also that country’s assassin-in-chief as well as the perpetrator of atrocities in a vicious war that he launched in neighboring Yemen in 2015.

Implicit in Abizaid’s job description will be a requirement to cozy up to MBS. “Cozy up” in this context implies finding ways to befriend, influence, and seduce; that is, seeking to replicate in Riyadh the achievements in Washington of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who from 1983 to 2005 served as Saudi ambassador to the United States.

With plenty of money to spread around, Bandar charmed — which in this context means suborned — the Washington establishment, while ingratiating himself with successive presidents and various other power brokers. With his fondness for nicknames, George W. Bush dubbed him “Bandar Bush,” informally designating the Saudi prince a member of his own dynastic clan.

After 9/11, the Saudi envoy made the most of those connections, deflecting attention away from the role Saudis had played in the events of that day while fingering Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as the true font of Islamist terrorism. Bush came around to endorsing Bandar’s view — although he may not have needed much urging. So while Bandar may not rank alongside the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz among the architects of the ensuing Iraq War, he certainly deserves honorable mention.

That Abizaid will come anywhere close to replicating Bandar’s notable (or nefarious) achievements seems unlikely. For starters, at age 67, he may not want to spend the next 20 years or so in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, sucking up to the Kingdom’s royals. At least as significantly, he lacks Bandar’s bankroll. However much dough Abizaid may have raked in via his consulting firm since leaving the Army a decade ago, it doesn’t qualify as real money in Saudi circles, where a billion dollars is a mere rounding error. The mega-rich do not sell themselves cheaply, unless perhaps your surname is Trump.

So the substantive implications of Abizaid’s appointment for U.S.-Saudi relations will likely be negligible. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner will undoubtedly continue to wield greater influence over MBS than Ambassador Abizaid — or at least will fancy that he is doing so.

Long (and Wrong) War

In another sense, however, Abizaid’s appointment to this post (vacant since Donald Trump became president) could mean quite a lot. It offers an ideal opportunity to take stock of the “Long War.”

Now that phrase “Long War” is one that presidents, national security advisors, defense secretaries, and their minions assiduously avoid. Yet, in military circles, it long ago superseded the Global War on Terrorism as an umbrella term describing what U.S. forces have been doing across the Greater Middle East all these many years.

Already by 2005, for example, hawkish analysts employed by a conservative Washington think tank were marketing their recipe for Winning the Long War. And that was just for starters. For more than a decade now, the Long War Journal has been offering authoritative analysis of U.S. military operations across the Greater Middle East and Africa. In the meantime, West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center churns out monographs with titles like Fighting the Long War. Always quick to recognize another golden goose of government contracts, the RAND Corporation weighed in with Unfolding the Future of the Long War. After publishing a lengthy essay in the New York Times Magazine called “My Long War,” correspondent Dexter Filkins went a step further and titled his book The Forever War. (And for creative types, Voices from the Long War invites Iraq and Afghan War vets to reflect on their experiences before a theatrical audience.)

But where, you might wonder, did that dour phrase originate? As it happens, General Abizaid himself coined it back in 2004 when he was still an active duty four-star and head of U.S. Central Command, the regional headquarters principally charged with waging that conflict. In other words, just a year after the U.S. invaded Iraq and President George W. Bush posed under a White House-produced “Mission Accomplished” banner, with administration officials and their neoconservative boosters looking forward to many more “Iraqi Freedom”-style victories to come, the senior officer presiding over that war went on record to indicate that victory wasn’t going to happen anytime soon. Oops.

And so it has come to pass. The Long War has now lasted twice as long as the average length of marriages in the United States, with no end in sight. Whether intuitively or after careful study, General Abizaid had divined something important indeed.

Crucially, however, his critique went beyond the question of duration. Abizaid also departed from the administration’s line in describing the actual nature of the problem at hand. “Terrorists” per se were not the enemy, he insisted at the time. The issue was much bigger than any one organization such as al-Qaeda. The real threat facing the United States came from what he called “Salafist jihadists,” radicalized Sunni Muslims committed by whatever means necessary to propagating a strict and puritanical form of Islam around the world. To promote their cause, Salafists eagerly embraced violence.

Back in 2004, when Abizaid was venturing heretical thoughts, the United States had gotten itself all tangled up in a nasty scuffle in Iraq. A year earlier, the U.S. had invaded that country to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Now the Iraqi dictator was indubitably a bad actor. At least some of the charges that George W. Bush and his subordinates, amplified by a neoconservative chorus, lodged against him were true. Yet Saddam was the inverse of a Salafist.

Indeed, even before plunging into Iraq, looking beyond an expected easy win over Saddam, George W. Bush had identified Iran as a key member of an “Axis of Evil” and implicitly next in line for liberation. Sixteen years later, members of the Trump administration still hanker to have it out with the ayatollahs governing Shiite-majority Iran. Yet, as was the case with Saddam, those ayatollahs are anything but Salafists.

Now, it’s worth noting that Abizaid was not some dime-a-dozen four-star. He speaks Arabic, won a fellowship to study in Jordan, and earned a graduate degree in Middle East Studies at Harvard. If the post-9/11 American officer corps had in its ranks an equivalent of Lawrence of Arabia, he was it, even if without T.E. Lawrence’s (or Peter O’Toole’s) charisma and flair for self-promotion. Nonetheless, with Abizaid suggesting, in effect, that the Iraq War was “the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time against the wrong enemy,” just about no one in Washington was willing to listen.

That once-familiar quotation dates from 1951, when General Omar Bradley warned against extending the then-ongoing Korean War into China. Bradley’s counsel carried considerable weight — and limiting the scope of the Korean War made it possible to end that conflict in 1953.

Abizaid’s counsel turned out to carry next to no weight at all. So the Long War just keeps getting longer, even as its strategic rationale becomes ever more difficult to discern.

The Real Enemy

Posit, for the sake of discussion, that back in 2004 Abizaid was onto something — as indeed he was. Who then, in this Long War of ours, is our adversary? Who is in league with those Salafi jihadists? Who underwrites their cause?

The answer to those questions is not exactly a mystery. It’s the Saudi royal family. Were it not for Saudi Arabia’s role in promoting militant Salafism over the course of several decades, it would pose no bigger problem than Cliven Bundy’s bickering with the Bureau of Land Management.

To put it another way, while the Long War has found U.S. troops fighting the wrong enemy for years on end in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, the nexus of the problem remains Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have provided billions to fund madrassas and mosques, spreading Salafism to the far reaches of the Islamic world. Next to oil, violent jihadism is Saudi Arabia’s principal export. Indeed, the former funds the latter.

Those Saudi efforts have borne fruit of a poisonous character. Recall that Osama bin Laden was a Saudi. So, too, were 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001. These facts are not incidental, even if — to expand on Donald Rumsfeld’s famous typology of known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns — Washington treats them as knowns we prefer to pretend we don’t know.

So from the outset, in the conflict that the United States dates from September 2001, our ostensible ally has been the principal source of the problem. In the Long War, Saudi Arabia represents what military theorists like to call the center of gravity, defined as “the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act” to the enemy. When it comes to Salafist jihadism, Saudi Arabia fits that definition to a T.

So there is more than a little poetic justice — or is it irony? — in General Abizaid’s proposed posting to Riyadh. The one senior military officer who early on demonstrated an inkling of understanding of the Long War’s true nature now prepares to take up an assignment in what is, in essence, the very center of the enemy’s camp. It’s as if President Lincoln had dispatched Ulysses S. Grant to Richmond, Virginia, in 1864 as his liaison to Jefferson Davis.

Which brings us to the opportunity referred to at the outset of this essay. The opportunity is not Abizaid’s. He can look forward to a frustrating and probably pointless assignment. Yet Trump’s nomination of Abizaid presents an opportunity to the U.S. senators charged with approving his appointment. While we can take it for granted that Abizaid will be confirmed, the processof confirmation offers the Senate, and especially members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a chance to take stock of this Long War of ours and, in particular, to assess how Saudi Arabia fits into the struggle.

Who better to reflect on these matters than John Abizaid? Imagine the questions:

General, can you describe this Long War of ours? What is its nature? What is it all about?

Are we winning? How can we tell?

How much longer should Americans expect it to last?

What are we up against? Give us a sense of the enemy’s intentions, capabilities, and prospects.

With MBS in charge, is Saudi Arabia part of the solution or part of the problem?

Take all the time you need, sir. Be candid. We’re interested in your opinion.

After the embarrassment of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the Senate is badly in need of refurbishing its reputation. The Abizaid nomination provides a ready-made chance to do just that. Let’s see if the “world’s greatest deliberative body” rises to the occasion. Just don’t hold your breath.

Andrew Bacevich is a regular contributor to TomDispatch. His new book is Twilight of the American Century, published by the University of Notre Dame Press.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
36 Comments to "Our Man in Riyadh"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Monkhouse says:

    Agreed that the House of Saud and the salafist jihadis are to blame for so much that has happened in the ME since long before 9/11. And that the Long War is always projected as “defense” against the nefarious “terrorists” who are objects of the GWOT. But, dude, all the terrorists in the world still don’t have anything that amounts to a real army, navy, and – how ridiculous can it be? – an air force. The Long War has never really amounted to anything more than a cover story and a smoke screen.

    That’s because, as we have been informed of late, the real enemy is Russia. And China. And everything else that counts in the Long Great Game of four-dimensional chess must necessarily conform to the strategy that ultimately is about “containment” of those two competitors for global power. This is not just my own opinion. It has come down from on-high, in statements conveyed by the highest ranks of military authority. News flash: The “enemy” is no longer the “terrorists” – if it ever was. The plan’s best advocate may have been Paul Wolfowitz, whose “doctrine” was “no peer competitors” – forever. That’s the Long War for ya.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  2. As usual, the analysis falls short.
    Saddaam was an agent of the USA. They kept him in power. The Q8 excursion was arranged with USA. It meant that conscripts were sent into Q8. The Guard, loyal to SH, were retained to eliminate others. Shia peasants who had received mil training were slaughtered by the West. GHWB then incited revolt in the south of Iraq and those who rose were massacred by the RG.
    The genuine invasion of Iraq was caused by the death of SH.Bill C had done a service by delaying the destruction of the WTC. SH’s son in law fled to USA to tell before the world descended on Iraq. The look alike was tried. No sound remember? He did not sound like SH.

    Mission Accomplished. World Fooled!

    Yes SH had WMDs, but the Israeli’s stole them!

    • Agree: Alfred
  3. To retain a respectable status, Mr. Bacevich skipped over the hard evidence that Prince Bandar directly funded the 9-11 terrorists (aka patsies) while all were in the USA, per the FBI:

    From my blog:

    Jul 17, 2016 – The 28 Pages

    After years of controversy, the House Intelligence Committee declassified part of their December 2002 report on the 9-11 attacks, which shows direct Saudi involvement in supporting the 9-11 attackers. This major story has been ignored by most of our corporate media. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said: “This information does not change the assessment of the US government that there’s no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals funded al-Qaida.” The BBC reported the story, but assures us it proves no high level links to the Saudi government.

    The House Committee report states that Saudi Ambassador to the USA and a close friend of the Bush family, Prince Bandar, and his wife sent the 9-11 attackers thousands of dollars on several occasions; but I guess the BBC does not consider him high-level, or their reporters didn’t bother to read the 28 pages. BBC readers will not know these facts because the BBC report failed to provide a link to the 28 pages.

    ____________________

    My blog has a link to the us.gov hard evidence:

    https://intelligence.house.gov/committee-report/intel-committee-publishes-declassified-%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%C5%9328-pages%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%C2%9D

    But I now see it has been scrubbed:

    Bad Request – Invalid URL

    HTTP Error 400. The request URL is invalid.

    This can be found elsewhere on the internet. His wife wired them money directly, but not news in the USA.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  4. Gene says:

    Bacevich should rewrite: After 9/11, the Israeli envoy made the most of those connections, deflecting attention away from the role The Israelis had played in the events of that day while fingering Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as the true font of Islamist terrorism.

    The hard evidence to substantiate the role played by Israel is overwhelming.

    • Agree: anarchyst, Druid
  5. @Carlton Meyer

    Unless you are saying that Prince Bandar may have been deliberatey involved in setting up the events of 9/11 you are just waffling to get attention. And if you are saying that you are spouting obvious BS.

    • Replies: @dimples
    , @Anon
  6. After 9/11, the Saudi envoy made the most of those connections, deflecting attention away from the role Saudis had played in the events of that day

    Here I stopped reading.
    If this man represents somehow average USA intellect the country indeed is doomed.

    • Replies: @Druid
    , @Anon
  7. onebornfree says: • Website

    Andrew J. Bacevich says:

    “….General, can you describe this Long War of ours? What is its nature? What is it all about?

    Are we winning? How can we tell?

    How much longer should Americans expect it to last?

    What are we up against? ….”

    “…..What would be the criteria for removing our remaining troops from the Iraqi, Syrian, and more general Middle Eastern conflicts? Or, for that matter, from Afghanistan, where we have been trapped for more than 17 long years of still open-ended occupation?

    If the answer to that question is that only when each of these countries is a healthy pro-American democracy, and Islamist terrorism has ceased to be an “enduring” threat to the West, then the answer, as the old Bob Mankoff joke has it, is “How about never — is never good for you?”……”:

    See: “The Pentagon’s “Never Ending War” Scam“:
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2019/01/onebornfrees-special-scam-alerts-no-82.html

    Regards, onebornfree

  8. swamped says:

    “After the embarrassment of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the Senate is badly in need of refurbishing its reputation. The Abizaid nomination provides a ready-made chance to do just that. Let’s see if the “world’s greatest deliberative body” rises to the occasion”…unfortunately, it was the Kavanaugh hearings that provided the ready-made opportunity for aspiring presidential candidates in the Senate to show off how politically correct or not they are; and provided the garish, and slightly risque, kind of gossipy hearings to excite the interest of the shallow American public. Assuming Gen. Abizaid didn’t engage in some unpardonable crime like pinching a classmate’s behind when he was in high school, the confirmation hearings should be a pretty dull, rubber-stamping affair of scant public interest. The sleazy Senate and the pathetic public will always sink to a recriminating occasion, but rising to a refurbishing occasion is bad for ratings.

  9. Renoman says:

    The only Country more disrespected than Israel, just a pair of Turds.

  10. Recall that … was a Saudi. So, too, were 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001.

    Gimme a break.

    When I saw Bacevich’s name, I wasted no time reading. However, with that one statement, his credibility just dropped to zero. Just another unthinking garbage peddler, (I’m in a gnerous mood this AM), it seems.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  11. To retain a respectable status, Mr. Bacevich skipped over the hard evidence that Prince Bandar directly funded the 9-11 terrorists (aka patsies) while all were in the US.

    While I have no hard evidence to either confirm or deny any of that, I commend you for the likely accurate use of the term,”patsies.” I highly suspect that they were little more than actors in a false flag drama and think it would be more accurate to label them “alleged terrorists.” No?

  12. 911 was done by Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state and the WTC buildings were destroyed by particle beam weapons and a total 0f 7 WTC buildings were destroyed, 3/4/5/6 and the twin towers were destroyed by DEWs and WTC 7 was destroyed by conventional explosives, and the pentagon was a prewired internal explosion.

    No planes were used and holograms of planes were used and the Saudis were used as a distraction and the Israelis and the rest of the deep state got away with it and the U.S. was plunged into 17 years of war for Zionist Israel and the Zionist NWO!

    On the pentagram see April Gallops video on youtube, she was working at the pentagram on 911 in the area of the explosion and walked out through the hole and never saw any signs of a plane or a missile!

    911 was a Zionist hit job on America!

  13. dimples says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    That is what Mr Meyer is saying. Bandar was deliberately involved in setting up the events of 911. Unless you are a follower of the absurd belief that ‘Saudi Arabia did 911’, then the most rational explanation is that he was doing it on behalf of the deep state US/Israeli plotters. The Saudis were effectively the handlers for the fake hijackers. Bandar blundered somewhat by not having enough cutouts to make US govt claims that he was innocent totally believable.

  14. MLK says:

    With MBS in charge, is Saudi Arabia part of the solution or part of the problem?

    This is exactly the wrong question to ask. It’s a testament to how thoroughly a Regime Change mindset has disastrously taken hold that even seeming critics like you are captured by it.

    The Real Enemy . . . militant Salafism

    Your use “enemy,” let alone “The Real Enemy” is depressingly telling. Particularly for pissant jihadis who we’ve variously funded and armed over the years.

    Saudi Arabia is in the midst of a generational shift in its ruling factions.

    How did our Regime Change Libya work out? Or Obama/Hillary’s Morsi/MB gambit in Egypt?

    The American foreign policy establishment is highly selective in who it deems beyond the pale (e.g. assassin in chief; perpetrator of atrocities).

    What does President Trump’s recent nomination of retired Army General John Abizaid to become the next U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia signify? That the President is focused on stabilizing the Middle East and our position in it. It means that the Saudis must reverse their military and strategic openings to Russia/China.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  15. @DESERT FOX

    Particle beam weapons and holograms.
    Why these science fiction phenomena for what can be excellently explained by well known means ?

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  16. RobinG says:
    @jacques sheete

    So, what do you make of Phil Giraldi recommending him for a cabinet position?

    My choices would be Andrew Bacevich or Jim Webb (who unfortunately has a “thing” about China but is otherwise first class)

    Syria Withdrawal Enrages the Chickenhawks, comment #396

  17. @jilles dykstra

    Check the site drjudywood.com, she is a scientist and explains how the WTC buildings were taken down by DEWs ie direct energy weapons and watch her videos on youtube.

    On the pentagram , see April Gallops video on youtube on what happened at the pentagram on 911!

  18. wagelaborer says: • Website

    Yes, Saudi Arabia has funded militant Salafist jihadists for many years. Why? And what was the sin that MBS committed that caused the month-long brouhaha about the corpseless ”murder” of Jamal Khasshoggi? It could have been his backing off of the Aramco IPO, for sure. Could have been his inclination to raise the price of oil.

    But let’s not forget that he incoveniently pointed out that the Saudi funding of the jidhadists was done at the bequest of the Americans. The Saudis helped fund the Muhahadeen in Afghanistan in the 80s, but they also helped fund the Contras who attacked Nicaragua in the 80s. Now why would they do that, unless the US requested it? And they funded the ISIS Contras who attacked Syria in the last few years. Why? Why is it that the Saudis fund terrorists who conveniently attack US targets, instead of, say, Jordan or Israel?
    MBS said it, loud and clear, they did it at the bequest of the US, and shortly afterwards, he was accused of a gruesome murder, with gory details eagerly reported by every western media (the details changed daily….but, still). The Mighty Wurlitzer was turned onto him, and we were told that he had to go. He’s still there, but we shall see what fresh new accusations the new year brings.

    • Agree: RobinG
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  19. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Prince Bandar’s wife did send several thousand dollars to the terrorists who arrived in Los Angeles airport, went directly to nearby Culver City and met s contact st the big Culver City mosque and then to San Diego where they stayed a while.

    The Saudi’s claimed that the money sent to the terrorists was just the standard diplomat’s duty to help their nationals in foreign countries Most countries aren’t that generous to their traveling nationals. But most countries don’t have the money that Saudi does.

    Her sending the money was widely reported at the time.

  20. @wagelaborer

    Harold L Ickes at the end of 1944 made Saudi Arabia a USA colony.
    Saudi Arabia somehow resembles Israel, without USA support it cannot exist.
    But there is, still is, a big difference, the Saudi kings are just USA puppets, jews still have enormous influence in the USA.
    The other difference, Saudi Arabia has oil, Israel is just a nuisance.

  21. @MLK

    What does President Trump’s recent nomination of retired Army General John Abizaid to become the next U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia signify?

    Nothing, in my opinion.

  22. Abizaid may be classified as a white-Christian but he is anything but the White-Christian Omqr Bradley was. And yes, the times are different yet not that different that a Middle Eastern man of Christian faith albeit born in America would be paid a heed to, to save the republic from fools. A fool, for example, like Donald “know-it-all” Rumsfeld, who forgot the fourth axiom: Unknown Knowns. What a joke…

    But in as much as the Saudis are the biggest terrorists ever to be “unknown knowns”, what’s the Tribe’s influence on the former’s behavior? For all those who are familiar with the “known knowns” know that the Jew prefers the Muslim over the Christian, thus it begs the question as to how much aid is the “Tribe” giving it to their closest kith and kin, to spite the West? Until the fifth column is discovered, the Long War will continue…

  23. Z-man says:

    Mohammed bin Salman. MBS, as he is known, is the Saudi crown prince and the Kingdom’s de facto absolute ruler. By no means incidentally, he is also that country’s assassin-in-chief as well as the perpetrator of atrocities in a vicious war that he launched in neighboring Yemen in 2015.

    Good line.

    The Real Enemy..

    .. is The Zionist Entity.

  24. “While we can take it for granted that Abizaid will be confirmed, the process of confirmation offers the Senate, and especially members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a chance to take stock of this Long War of ours and, in particular, to assess how Saudi Arabia fits into the struggle.”

    That’s not going to happen because the Senate, and the House of Representatives, and most major political figures in the USA are bought and paid for by the Saudi’s current co-conspirator, Israel. Raising any serious questions about the “Long War” would very quickly reveal the roles of Israel and its Zionist lobby in this country (actually traitorous fifth column). For over six decades, Israel and the USA’s domestic Zionist traitors have used their financial clout and their control of the USA’s news, information and entertainment industries to make the US government their cat’s paw, expending trillions of dollars and supertankers of American blood to wreak havoc and destroy stability in southwest Asia, the Middle East, the Levant, and North Africa. This has benefited only Israel which seeks permanent regional instability to cement its ruthless, racist, regional hegemony. US interventions have only served to harm US interests. And Israel has “repaid” this coerced largess with such infamies as the unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty, suborning damaging spies like the infamous crackhead, Jonathan Pollard, and playing a major role in the holocaust of 9/11 2001.

    Good luck getting honest service from Israel’s 100 handmaids in the US Senate.

  25. knowns we prefer to pretend we don’t know

    This is gold. Very nice article.

  26. Forbes says:

    While many might be curious as to the retired general’s thoughts on the long war, military questions might be outside the scope of a diplomatic appointment.

    It’s provocative that Bacevich offers his choice of hypothetical questions, but the likelihood of Abizaid offering anything but a boiler plate reply that military policy is not part of his diplomatic assignment seems assured.

  27. @DESERT FOX

    building #7 wasn’t hit by a plane and just collapsed anyway. the jews did it for sure.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    , @Anon
  28. Makes you wonder when America is allied with Saudis and Israelis, the two most anti-Christ countries in the world, who really runs this country? Not good!

    U.S. Senate’s First Bill, in Midst of Shutdown, is a Bipartisan Defense of the Israeli Government from Boycotts
    https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/u-s-senates-first-bill-in-midst-of-shutdown-is-a-bipartisan-defense-of-the-israeli-government-from-boycotts/?com%E2%80%A6

    Press TV covers this topic well, has some good documentaries on our anti-Christ terrorist friends in the Middle East..

    This is a for part series on our Saudi terrorist allies, you can go to channel to see other two, they do some good videos on Syria and Israel too:

  29. APilgrim says:

    Retired 4-Star General John Philip Abizaid was raised Roman Catholic. His grandparents immigrated to California from Lebanon during the late 19th century. His father, a Navy machinist in World War II, raised him after Abizaid’s mother died of cancer.

    Abizaid’s military education includes the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point, New York (Class of 1973); Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced courses, Armed Forces Staff College, and a U.S. Army War College Senior Fellowship at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. In his civilian studies, he earned a Master of Arts degree in Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University, and was an Olmsted Scholar at the University of Jordan in Amman, Jordan.

    Abizaid retired from the military, as CENTCOM commander on May 1, 2007 after 34 years of service. As of 2007, Abizaid is employed as a fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He assumed the Distinguished Chair of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point in December 2007. Abizaid was appointed to the board of directors of RPM International on January 24, 2008, and also sits on the board of directors of the Defense Ventures Group. In 2008 he was selected as a Montgomery Fellow at Dartmouth College.

  30. Not only were 15 of the 19 hijackers Saudi, so were 6 out of the 7 dwarfs.

  31. Druid says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Totally agree, and surprised about this from this writer. 911 was clearly an inside job with Israel huge players. Along with MI complex, end-time psychos, Israel was the biggest beneficiaries of this terrorist attack

    • Replies: @APilgrim
  32. APilgrim says:
    @Druid

    You have knit a big blanket with a couple of loose threads. There are other explanations, than your assumptions.

    Here are your two (2) loose threads …

    FACT: There were other hijackers who chickened out on 911.

    FACT: There was obviously at least one other bomb placed at the World Trade Center, on 911, for 3 buildings to fall. Two passenger airlines did not cause 3 buildings to fall.

  33. Anon[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Before you finally join the ranks of UR commenters too near the omniscient deity to tolerate mere questioning mortals would you be so good as to explain why you think it false to say that Saudis had a role in the events of 9/11?

    That is, after all, the only logical interpretation of your words.

    And why, pray tell, did those words of the author stop you reading further?

  34. Anon[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @joeshittheragman

    Why would anyone bother to bring down WTC7 as part of a plan? Surely it could only make people suspicious who otherwise would accept the four planes highjacked by Arabs version of events?

  35. hrk says:

    Just looking through the comments, it seems this thread has attracted 911 truthers that believe in the most insane theories. The laser theory is the most ridiculous of all 911 theories that I’ve heard, it’s not the first time I’ve read it. It would seem that the 911 ‘truth’ movement has been co-opted and pointed in every ‘safe’, ridiculous direction you can imagine. Now, who would be in the business of doing that?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?