Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Keep CounterPunch ad free. Support our annual fund drive today!

There’s No Place Like CounterPunch

There's no place like CounterPunch, it's just that simple. And as the radical space within the "alternative media"(whatever that means) landscape continues to shrink, sanctuaries such as CounterPunch become all the more crucial for our political, intellectual, and moral survival. Add to that the fact that CounterPunch won't inundate you with ads and corporate propaganda. So it should be clear why CounterPunch needs your support: so it can keep doing what it's been doing for nearly 25 years. As CP Editor, Jeffrey St. Clair, succinctly explained, "We lure you in, and then punch you in the kidneys." Pleasant and true though that may be, the hard-working CP staff is more than just a few grunts greasing the gears of the status quo.

So come on, be a pal, make a tax deductible donation to CounterPunch today to support our annual fund drive, if you have already donated we thank you! If you haven't, do it because you want to. Do it because you know what CounterPunch is worth. Do it because CounterPunch needs you. Every dollar is tax-deductible. (PayPal accepted)

Thank you,
Eric Draitser

The Belligerent Ghost of PNAC


In early January 1998, aware of the soon-to-break story about the Clinton/Lewinsky trysts, the Project for a New American Century saw its “window of opportunism.”  On January 16—the day before the story appeared in the press—PNAC publicized their “open letter” to President Clinton urging him to consider military action against the Iraq regime of Saddam Hussein, who was again alleged to be evading UN inspections and stockpiling tons of lethal WMDs.  By early February, Clinton, desperate to divert attention from his pathetic scandal, gave a speech to the nation enumerating in considerable detail the danger posed by these alleged stockpiles (sarin, anthrax, etc.).

The neoconservative PNAC (1997-2006) had been co-founded by Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution (yes, regrettably, maniacal imperialists do indeed belong in an “institution”).  Bruce Jackson, highly politically-connected VP of Lockheed, was a PNAC project director.  (He would later write the 2000 “foreign policy” platform of the Republican Party).  Those who signed on to its founding included the now-infamous MIC promoters Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

1. Their primary purpose: augmenting unipolar, U.S. global hegemony, through “regime change”–especially targeting nations in which State-socialist public-ownership still included coveted assets such as oil fields, utilities, communications companies, etc. (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, to name a few).  As in the aftermath of the fallen U.S.S.R., formerly public assets could be bought cheaply, becoming a goldmine of investment privatization.

2. Their propaganda (“marketing”): threat-inflation (dangerous WMDs, imminent genocide, etc.).  Despicably unmentioned was the ongoing genocide—termed as such by Denis Halliday, the UNHRA chief in Iraq who resigned in protest—due to the harsh, U.S.-backed, UN sanctions.

3. Their secondary purpose: use threat-inflation to rapidly build up, once again, U.S. “defense” spending, thereby benefiting both their war-profiteering patrons and themselves (adept as they were at avoiding any appearances of “conflict-of-interest”).

At least since WWII, the “revolving door” between the DoD (Pentagon officials and generals) and the big weapons contractors had been unashamedly mutually profitable.  Somewhat later, the U.S. State Department too would be almost entirely co-opted by the U.S. war industry and its related industries (oil, etc.).  As one random example: top former Bush State Department official Stephen Hadley, vocal advocate for bombing Syria, reputedly has considerable stock in Raytheon (Tomahawk missiles).  Right now, Victoria Nuland—former Cheney associate and wife of PNAC co-founder Kagan—is the currently (belligerent) Assistant Secretary of State for Eurasian affairs.

Madeleine Albright grotesquely dominated U.S. “diplomacy” in the late 1990s. One could speculate that because as a small child she lived through the Nazi bombings of London (1940-41)—wailing sirens, sudden panics, hiding in bomb shelters–she has exhibited a lifelong, cortisol-primed, hyper-vigilant bellicosity.  Despite her brazen admission–on CBS’ “Sixty Minutes” (1996)—that deliberately killing a half-million Iraqi children through the sanctions had been “worth it,” she was soon promoted to be Secretary of State.  Infamously, she would soon declare that, even if Saddam fully complied with the UN inspections requirements, the sanctions would continue (March 26, 1997).  Her authoritarian, sanctimonious bullying—of Kofi Annan, Colin Powell, the UN Security Council, even NATO (Serbia bombing)—got results.

By October 1998, Congress overwhelmingly passed the so-called Iraq Liberation Act.  (Shortly thereafter, and unsurprisingly, Saddam temporarily denied the re-entry of UNSCOM inspectors back into Iraq; given the unbending U.S. policy, what did he have to gain?)  In December 1998, Clinton, caught up in congressional impeachment hearings, created a diversion by bombing Iraq for four days.  The rest—after Bush’s “election” and then 9-11–is (shameful, murderous) “history.”

Hillary Clinton, evidently a devoted acolyte of Albright’s, presents another disturbing profile.  Repeatedly and publicly humiliated by her husband’s chronic philandering, HRC could, as a hurt and betrayed wife, have divorced her husband.  But that would have severed a political partnership which could still yield more fame, power, and wealth.  One can only speculate that, filled with repressed rage, HRC has sought to “displace” her vengefulness onto conveniently distant “enemies” (Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, etc.).  In recent years, she has been outspoken in her advocacy of bombing and other military “interventions.” (Upon viewing Gaddafi’s grisly murder, she laughed: “We came, we saw, he died.”)  Some psychoanalysts have used the term “reparative re-enactment”: having attained power, a once-traumatized and humiliated person may find some healing closure—as a victorious aggressor.  What seems disastrously absent—in the cases of Albright, Clinton, and other belligerents like McCain (tortured in Vietnam)—is any real self-awareness of their underlying motivations.

Of course, bombing may yield other, non-psychological dividends.  As other political analysts have noted: first, destroy a nation’s infrastructure, deposing an “uncooperative” (even if elected) president in the process; after installing a new president (former World Bank official Ashraf Ghani in Afghanistan?), force the new government to take out World Bank/IMF loans, using the public-owned assets as collateral; and bring in U.S.-based corporations like Bechtel and KBR to “rebuild”).

That brings us back to Victoria Nuland.  It is symptomatic of Obama’s diplomatic incoherence and detachment that she, a PNAC and Cheney “imperial acolyte,” remains in a State position of critical (even fateful) importance.  Not unlike Hitler—who, surprised by his easy conquest of Poland and France—became overly emboldened—the U.S. State/”Defense”/CIA have now rolled over half-a-dozen countries in the past decade or so.  Their strategy in the Ukraine bears some resemblance to the Kosovo/Serbia machinations of the late 1990s—and unmistakably shows signs of well-worn CIA tactics (fomenting ethnic-nationalist insurgencies, etc.).

Nuland herself exhibits the same adolescent “tough talk” which has somehow become fashionable, even among “diplomats” (“Fuck the EU.”)  (I was reminded of George Clooney’s idiotic remark, in his third-rate, colonialist, Hawaiian-based movie “The Descendants”: “Fuck paradise.”)  Again, I’m tempted to speculate about “overcompensation”: like her above-mentioned predecessors, Nuland proves her “toughness”–in the hardball world of male power-politics and cutthroat “diplomacy”—by advocating even more aggressive, reckless policies than her male counterparts would.  The possible consequences—in the ongoing confrontation with Russia–are not pleasant to contemplate.

William Manson, a psychoanalytic anthropologist,  formerly taught social science at Rutgers and Columbia universities. He is the author of The Psychodynamics of Culture (Greenwood Press).


William Manson, a psychoanalytic anthropologist,  formerly taught social science at Rutgers and Columbia universities. He is the author of The Psychodynamics of Culture (Greenwood Press).

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine


October 25, 2016
David Swanson
Halloween Is Coming, Vladimir Putin Isn’t
Hiroyuki Hamada
Fear Laundering: an Elaborate Psychological Diversion and Bid for Power
Priti Gulati Cox
President Obama: Before the Empire Falls, Free Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal
Kathy Deacon
Plus ça Change: Regime Change 1917-1920
Robin Goodman
Appetite for Destruction: America’s War Against Itself
Richard Moser
On Power, Privilege, and Passage: a Letter to My Nephew
Rev. William Alberts
The Epicenter of the Moral Universe is Our Common Humanity, Not Religion
Dan Bacher
Inspector General says Reclamation Wasted $32.2 Million on Klamath irrigators
David Mattson
A Recipe for Killing: the “Trust Us” Argument of State Grizzly Bear Managers
Derek Royden
The Tragedy in Yemen
Ralph Nader
Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think
Norman Pollack
Centrist Fascism: Lurching Forward
Guillermo R. Gil
Cell to Cell Communication: On How to Become Governor of Puerto Rico
Mateo Pimentel
You, Me, and the Trolley Make Three
Cathy Breen
“Today Is One of the Heaviest Days of My Life”
October 24, 2016
John Steppling
The Unwoke: Sleepwalking into the Nightmare
Oscar Ortega
Clinton’s Troubling Silence on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Patrick Cockburn
Aleppo vs. Mosul: Media Biases
John Grant
Humanizing Our Militarized Border
Franklin Lamb
US-led Sanctions Targeting Syria Risk Adjudication as War Crimes
Paul Bentley
There Must Be Some Way Out of Here: the Silence of Dylan
Norman Pollack
Militarism: The Elephant in the Room
Patrick Bosold
Dakota Access Oil Pipeline: Invite CEO to Lunch, Go to Jail
Paul Craig Roberts
Was Russia’s Hesitation in Syria a Strategic Mistake?
David Swanson
Of All the Opinions I’ve Heard on Syria
Weekend Edition
October 21, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Wight
Hillary Clinton and the Brutal Murder of Gaddafi
Diana Johnstone
Hillary Clinton’s Strategic Ambition in a Nutshell
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Trump’s Naked and Hillary’s Dead
John W. Whitehead
American Psycho: Sex, Lies and Politics Add Up to a Terrifying Election Season
Stephen Cooper
Hell on Earth in Alabama: Inside Holman Prison
Patrick Cockburn
13 Years of War: Mosul’s Frightening and Uncertain Future
Rob Urie
Name the Dangerous Candidate
Pepe Escobar
The Aleppo / Mosul Riddle
David Rosen
The War on Drugs is a Racket
Sami Siegelbaum
Once More, the Value of the Humanities
Cathy Breen
“Today Is One of the Heaviest Days of My Life”
Neve Gordon
Israel’s Boycott Hypocrisy
Mark Hand
Of Pipelines and Protest Pens: When the Press Loses Its Shield
Victor Wallis
On the Stealing of U.S. Elections
Michael Hudson
The Return of the Repressed Critique of Rentiers: Veblen in the 21st century Rentier Capitalism
Brian Cloughley
Drumbeats of Anti-Russia Confrontation From Washington to London
Howard Lisnoff
Still Licking Our Wounds and Hoping for Change
Brian Gruber
Iraq: There Is No State
Peter Lee
Trump: We Wish the Problem Was Fascism
Stanley L. Cohen
Equality and Justice for All, It Seems, But Palestinians