THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Monday, June 30, 2014


THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century.

Written after years of extensive research, THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY contains over 550 pages, including more than 1200 footnotes and some 120 pages of bibliography. The book has been meticulously researched with every aspect of the history fully supported with primary evidence, much of it from the neoconservatives themselves.

The book is a must for all those interested in the history of neoconservatism, the recent history of Israel and conflict between the West and Islam in the Middle East during the first ten years of the NEW AMERICAN CENTURY.

Despite being originally written as a successful doctoral thesis, the book avoids academic jargon and uses plain easy to understand language  

It details the rise of neoconservative influence within the US government particularly from the Reagan era through to the presidency of George W. Bush, when neoconservative power reached its zenith. It details the strong connections neoconservatives have with right-wing Israeli Zionism and the way in which neoconservatives were able to manipulate American power to benefit the Greater Israel cause. The book details how various interests including the Military Industrial Complex, the American religious right, US big business and US/Israeli Zionists converged into a coalition under George W. Bush and his administration that set out to determine the future history of the Middle East in such a way as to benefit Israel and the economic interests of the US.

Click here to read the introduction to The New American Century.

Available now from AMAZON KINDLE for US$9.99

Saturday, June 21, 2014


Australia is a Westernised nation that exists within the Asian sphere of influence. Despite our geographic position, however, Australia has steadfastly clung to its Western roots, first with Britain and latterly with the US. But with changing times in a changing world it may be time to rethink our traditional and outdated alliances and consider our position relative to our neighbours.

There has been a massive socio-economic gap between us and many of our neighbours in the region but now that gap is slowly getting narrower. There are also fundamental societal differences including religion, work practices and familial values. Yet, despite these differences, we have generally managed throughout our history to have been seen as reasonably good neighbours even though there have periodically been some bitter disputes in the past. However, given the way the world is evolving in the twenty-first century one wonders if it may not be time for Australia to consider cutting loose from our obsession with the somewhat arrogant notion that we are a part of the concept of Western exceptionalism and instead consider the possibility of becoming a declared neutral sovereign nation.

In doing so, Australia does not have to shed any of the values that it shares with nations that it has been closely associated with in the past, and nor does it need to retreat from playing a role on the world stage. As a neutral nation, Australia would merely realign its role in the world from one of being a co-belligerent with past allies as they head off to their various wars against stereotyped enemies as a result of being entangled with treaties signed to suit bygone eras, to one of being a negotiator and arbitrator in the resolution of modern conflicts and crises and a provider of humanitarian services.

Australia is in unique position to adopt the role of an actively neutral nation. We are essentially a Westernised nation with a strong multicultural foundation geographically situated within the Pacific region dominated by a burgeoning Asian economy consisting of competing Asian nations and markets. During stable periods in the world Australia enjoys the best of what both the Western world and the Asian world that is at our doorstep have to offer.

But the world of the twenty-first century is changing.

America has proclaimed itself the world’s only ‘superpower’. As such, many Americans see their role as being policemen to the world. Unfortunately, this has progressed to some of the more conservative members of American politics also seeing themselves as not just being the world’s policemen but also self-righteously being judge, jury and even executioner whenever trouble looms in places that are within the orbit of what they believe is ‘America’s interest’.

While undoubtedly there has been a time when America’s interests have also been Australia’s, the big question for Australia in the twenty-first century is; are America’s interests still unquestionably our interests as well? Sure, without the United States, Australia would never have been able to beat back the Japanese in the middle of the last century – but that was in the last century when total wars dominated the era. Does Australia really have to tie itself to America’s apron strings today because they helped us out during the last century?

In today’s world, nations face different challenges. The ideology of American exceptionalism has rubbed off on many Western nations who now see themselves as much more than just ‘defenders of freedom and democracy’ around the globe. Not only do they want to defend freedom and democracy but now they want to deliver it to those who aren’t necessarily ready for it or even want it yet. And, in the case of the Middle East and throughout much of Africa where the Islamic world dominates, many nations like Iraq, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere have for the most part shown their disdain of democracy, or at least, Western-style democracy. As a result, the Western world now faces not only nations that are hostile to America, but now also face non-state entities that are even more hostile toward America and the West than some nations.

During the first decade and a half of the twenty-first century Australia blindly followed America’s whim and enjoined them in wars that were not in our interests and, indeed, wars that were based on lies and deceit. These wars have cost Australia much in both blood and treasure and even today there is still the prospect that Australia will become embroiled in further conflict at the whim of the United States.

In order to continue our alliance with a West dominated by the US, Australia has committed itself at great cost to building and purchasing military ships and aircraft that are designed specifically, not so much to defend Australia, but rather to help project American power into regions that may be theatres of conflict of the future and that are beyond our immediate shores. In continuing to align ourselves with American and other Western interests, Australia is alienating many of our Asian neighbours and trading partners. Recently, for example, the Australian government announced that it would no longer refer to Jerusalem as ‘occupied’ and instead refer to it as ‘disputed’. This effectively has Australia at odds with international law and has in the process outraged many Muslim nations both in the Middle East and in the Pacific region, and in particular our nearest neighbour Indonesia, all of whom are customers of Australian products and who are now considering trade sanctions against Australia.

Claiming neutrality, as many nations have discovered throughout history, does not necessarily protect one from attack and nor does it absolve one of their international humanitarian obligations. Germany, for example, ignored Belgium’s neutrality during World War One; the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in declaring their neutrality in 1938 and 1939 did not stop them from being overrun by the Soviet Union when World War Two got underway. And just latterly, while the situation in Ukraine is historically complex, Ukraine’s neutrality did not stop Russia from annexing the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine. In short, neutrality will not stop a more powerful country from attacking you if you have something they want and have no other way of getting it.

For Australia, however, there are plenty of goods and resources that others may want from us but going to the expense of attacking us in order to get it would be prohibitively expensive. It would be far cheaper to simply purchase that which they want rather than raise an invading army to take what they want.

As an independent neutral nation Australia needn’t withdraw into isolationism. Rather than provide military resources to allies when it is not in our direct interests to, Australia, instead, should provide humanitarian resources and services to nations regardless of their alignment on the world stage.

In a world where alliances of old no longer necessarily provide security for us or no longer serve our best interests, it may well be time for Australia to have good long hard think about the advantages of being an independent republic and declared neutral sovereign state.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014


The kidnapping of three Israeli settler youths in the West Bank has been used by Israel as an excuse to round up Hamas leaders in the West Bank with a view to possibly deporting them to the Gaza Strip. One wonders if, while the world’s attention is drawn to the crisis in Iraq, whether or not the Israelis might also be planning an all-out incursion into the Gaza Strip.

Without actually mentioning the Gaza Strip, Israeli commander in chief, Lt. Gen. Benny Grantz, has been quoted as saying: "We have a goal, and that is to find these three boys and bring them home”, but he also went on to say, “and to hit Hamas as hard as possible – and that is what we are going to do. We are on our way toward a significant campaign. We will get our plans in order," hinting that the ‘significant campaign’ may be to invade the Gaza Strip in order to put an end to Hamas’s control of the enclave just as soon as their ‘plans are in order’.

The Israeli reasoning behind such action may be that they believe that Sunni militancy at this time is very much on the nose as the violence by Sunni jihadists in Iraq are exposed and that, therefore, there would be little world sympathy for any action the Israelis take against those who they promote and claim to be Sunni extremists.

In just the last few hours Israeli attack aircraft have launched raids against targets the Israelis claim are weapon manufacturing facilities while other target are claimed to be storage facilities. These strikes are in response to Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel which, in turn, are retaliatory strikes on Israel for their recent spate of shootings of unarmed Palestinians working in fields close to the Israeli border fence.

As I wrote last week, Israel is deliberately attempting to provoke Palestinians both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip into launching a Third Intifada so that Israel can respond with an all-out occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Sunday, June 15, 2014


Former British Prime Minister and war criminal Tony Blair has written an essay attempting to deflect blame for the current crisis in both Iraq and Syria on the actions he and his fellow war criminals, former US president George W. Bush and former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, committed themselves to when they lied their way to war against Iraq in March 2003. In his essay Blair says: “We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ caused this crisis. We didn't.”

The fact is; ‘we’ did – or, at least, Blair, Bush and Howard and their neoconservative supporters around the world did.

Blair argues that: “Three or four years ago al-Qaeda in Iraq was a beaten force”. Blair’s wrong. Firstly, it wasn’t; it was subdued but it certainly wasn’t beaten. And secondly, why was ‘al-Qaeda’ in Iraq in the first place? It certainly wasn’t there before the invasion in March 2003. And Saddam Hussein had no more time for the Sunni extremists we see there today than the West has. The reality is that the Islamic jihadists that the West decided to put under the umbrella label of ‘al-Qaeda’ evolved as a jihadi movement in Iraq shortly after the invasion and they evolved because they saw an opportunity to do battle with the West who they saw as an enemy that had dared invade Islamic lands. They weren't there to protect Saddam Hussein’s regime, they were there to simply rid Islamic lands of foreigners in their lands.

During the allied occupation of Iraq, especially in the early days of the invasion and occupation, the allies treated the Iraqi people with the kind of disdain and brutality that became typified by the exposure of the horrific treatment of Iraqi prisoners in places like Abu Ghraib. As a result, young Iraqis became radicalised and joined the various jihadi and resistance groups that formed during this period. Money and religion became a toxic mix during this time as various groups changed sides behaving more as mercenaries rather than jihadists.

As time went on jihadists from other places in the Middle East moved to Iraq to join them. Later, when the allies eventually overwhelmed them, most of them simply melted away. Some quietly returned to their homes while others went off to fight in other jihad wars. Some went to Libya and elsewhere in North Africa while others later went to Syria.

Then along came the next generation of jihadi fighters as the civil war in Syria became a war between the Syrian government and their supporters and the international jihadists who flocked from all over the world to fight their holy war. Now the war has gone full circle in Iraq and that, contrary to Blair’s assertion otherwise, it most definitely was ‘we’ that caused the current crisis. Before the invasion there was no ‘al-Qaeda’ in Iraq. Today the jihadists that the allies wrongly label ‘al-Qaeda’ are stronger than ever in both Syria and Iraq.

Of course ‘we’ are to blame. 

Thursday, June 12, 2014


Let’s get straight to the point; if George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard and their other Western supporters had not lied their way to a war against Iraq, the Middle East would not be in the mess it finds itself in today in Syria and Iraq. In short, the people of the Middle East can blame the West for much of the turmoil that dominates their lives now so is it any wonder that the youth of the region – and young Muslims all over the world – who have resented what has happened to them and their comrades have become radicalised to the point where they are now perpetuating the very turmoil the West started.

The Americans and their Western allies have prodded the Lion of the Islamic world that has become the ever expanding movement of Islamic jihad.

Attacking Afghanistan to get at the person they said was responsible for the attacks against America on 9/11 was one thing but to then attack an innocent nation – and lying in order to do so – is something else.

The West wanted war against the people of the Middle East? Well, now they have it and all thanks to the notion of that ridiculous ideology called Western Exceptionalism and their neoconservative proponents. 

Tuesday, June 10, 2014


The increased frequency of killings by Israeli occupation forces of Palestinians in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank coupled with the testimony of Israeli soldiers who are beginning to speak out about Israeli operations in the occupied territories seems to confirm that Israel is attempting to deliberately provoke the Palestinians into launch a third Intifada in order to provide Israel with a casus belli to fully occupy the West Bank with the long term aim of annexation.

For ten years a group called Breaking the Silence, founded by ex-Israeli Defence Force personnel who have been sickened by their involvement in the crimes committed by the Israeli military, have been documenting and publishing those crimes via their website. The Guardian today publishes some extracts from the Breaking the Silence files.

The stories are filled with evidence of a program designed to deliberately provoke Palestinians into reacting against an Israeli military presence in the West Bank. There can be only one reason for this Israeli policy of deliberate provocation and that is to prod the Palestinians into retaliation by launching a third Intifada which will then provide the Israelis with an excuse to launch a full-on invasion of the West Bank and an opportunity to eventually unilaterally annex all of the occupied territories.

Talk of annexing the settlements has already surfaced but has little support among the general populace of Israel or the minor political parties that make up Netanyahu’s coalition government – at the moment. However, an Intifada could turn around public opinion in Israel to support a full-on occupation and annexation.

Abbas’s recent reunification of his Fatah movement with Hamas which controls the Gaza Strip has further provided incentive for the extreme right of the Israel government to thwart Palestinian advancement on the world public opinion stage, particularly within the United Nations and the various organisations the Palestinians have applied to join. The Israelis are becoming aware that the Palestinians are gaining a lot of sympathy which means, in turn, that the Israelis are losing a lot of world sympathy – particularly as their crimes against the Palestinian people have become exposed. In short, the right-wing Israeli Zionists are getting desperate. They sense the world turning against them and, as a consequence, feel the need to tip the balance and, as has so often happened in Israeli history in the past, the best way they know how to turn things around is by provoking their enemies into a fight. And the best way they do that is through a succession of provocative incidents that they hope the world won’t notice that leads eventually to retaliation that makes it look as though their enemies actually provoked the Israelis. 

Saturday, June 07, 2014


The Tony Abbott-led neoconservative government of Australia, renowned for its xenophobic intolerance of boatpeople and its hatred of Islam, has been praised by US neoconservatives for its recently announced change of stance toward Israel’s settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In the neoconservative online magazine and blog, Commentary, neoconservative propagandist Tom Wilson writes:

…it would appear that there has been a radical and bold break with the international consensus: Australia has announced that it will no longer refer to East Jerusalem as “occupied territory.” Tony Abbott’s government has put out an uncompromising statement of intent, informing the world that, “The description of East Jerusalem as ‘occupied’ East Jerusalem is a term freighted with pejorative implications which is neither appropriate nor useful. It should not and will not be the practice of the Australian government to describe areas of negotiation in such judgmental language.” This announcement is made all the more significant on account of the fact that back in January Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop publicly disputed the notion that Israel’s settlements should be considered illegal either.

Wilson goes on to write:

The move by the Australians couldn’t have come at a more sensitive time. Just as Canberra is breaking ranks with the international consensus that opposes the Israeli presence in eastern Jerusalem, that consensus is itself hardening. In recent days both the United States and the European Union have mounted vocal protest against Israeli plans to build new homes in existing Jewish neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem. This is an astounding response that exposes the full extent of the hostility toward the Jewish state that emanates from both the EU and the Obama administration. For while the newly formed Hamas-backed Palestinian government has received endorsement from both the White House and the Europeans, building homes for Jews in the ancient Jewish holy city of Jerusalem has provoked a degree of condemnation out of all proportion with reality.   

Referring to the proposed new building works for East Jerusalem, Wilson argues that the areas being considered are areas that would fall under Israeli sovereignty anyway after any agreement that creates a Palestinian state and also that all of Jerusalem is already part of Israel under Israeli law anyway, so Israel should be entitled to build in these areas anyway.

I’m sure that many Palestinians will be more than a little upset over this kind of presumption about the future of East Jerusalem which Palestinians had hoped would become the capital of their state at some time in the future.

Wilson bemoans the fact that the US are criticising the decision of Israel to build further settlements in East Jerusalem. However, as Philip Weiss notes, the US isn’t exactly pushing too hard to force the Israelis to stop settlement building and, after years of the Israelis ignoring US pleas to stop building, it’s now got to the point where they are virtually condoning building by not insisting on putting a halt to it and only making objecting noises for the sake of public opinion. One has to wonder if the Abbott government actually realigned its stance unilaterally or if it had quietly got the nod from the US in the hope that other nations might follow and influence US public opinion through example as the neoconservatives are clearly hoping.