"You [President Paul von Hindenburg] have just handed over our sacred German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time. I prophesy to you this evil man will plunge our Reich into the abyss and will inflict immeasurable woe on our nation . . ." --German General Erich Ludendorff, 1933

"He that is the author of a war (of aggression) lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death." --Thomas Paine

"[I can't see] how you can be president, at least from my perspective . . . without a relationship with the Lord. Believing in God gives you the confidence to make those tough decisions." --George W. Bush (Washington Times, January 18, 2005)

The neocon hierarchy in Washington, D.C., has been, for more than a decade now, the main proponent of deliberate imperial and colonial wars of aggression by the heavily armed United States.

They persuaded an inexperienced George W. Bush, out of sync with history, that he would be on a mission to save the world for democracy if he became a colonialist and an imperialist. Belligerent Vice President Dick Cheney was their point operating man within the administration. This oilman, supported by his pro-Israel deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz, and a confrerie of other neocons, was convinced that by occupying militarily a foreign country, his Republican government would not only please the Israeli government, large Zionist campaign contributors and big defense contractors, but could also guarantee cheap oil for decades to come, while opening the Iraqi territory to oil exploration by American companies.

They were supported in this by neocon think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute, which provided the blueprints for such imperial and colonial wars. In the neocons' minds and in Cheney's mind, this was a win-win proposition, no matter how many lives and disruptions such a coldly calculated bloody aggression would cause in the Middle East and around the world. I think they are misguided.

That is, in a nutshell, how the Bush-Cheney administration stumbled upon a militarist, imperialist and colonialist foreign policy in the Middle East.

Desperate and already labeled the "worst American president ever," George W. Bush chose to push aside the wise advice of the Baker-Hamilton Commission and drank once more the neocons' potion of a military 'surge' in Iraq.

After the hanging-lynching of prisoner of war Saddam Hussein, an illegal act under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, Bush II fired the top generals who opposed his "fuite en avant" strategy -- General John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and General George Casey, the chief general in Iraq -- and replaced them with Adm. William Fallon and Lt. Gen. David Petraeus.

Last November, Gen. John Abizaid rejected maverick senator John McCain's and pro-Israel senator Joe Lieberman's calls for increased U.S. troop levels in Iraq. General Abizaid said that he had "met with every divisional commander and had asked them if bringing in more American troops now [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said 'no.'" But Bush, as amateur commander-in-chief, knows better than the generals in the field and he 'decided' to side with apprentice generals John McCain and Joe Lieberman.

Gen George Casey, as US ground commander in Iraq, had also proposed that American troop levels -- now 138,000 -- could be reduced by 30,000, in order to give the Iraqis a greater role to play in stabilizing their own country. But George W. Bush thinks Iraq is 'his' country, (remember, he stole it at gunpoint, didn't he?), and he sacked General Casey.

This is eerily reminiscent of what Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) did in early 1938, around his fifth anniversary of coming to power, when he replaced his top generals by more amenable ones. Indeed, on January 25, 1938, Hitler sacked Field Marshal Werner v. Blomberg, the commander in chief of the German Armed Forces, and, a few days later, General Werner v. Fritsch, the commander in chief of the German Army. During the risky and illegal march into the Rhineland a few years earlier, the top German generals had repeatedly urged Hitler to withdraw his troops out of fear this would plunge Germany into a new European war with catastrophic consequences. They were right; 100 percent right.

I also think general Abizaid and general Casey are right and amateur Bush II and opportunist McCain are wrong, dead wrong.

Amazingly, it was then said about Hitler what is being said today about Bush Jr., i.e. that he "never trusted his generals, preferring to rely on his own gut instincts while surrounding himself with weak-willed yes-men." Bush II is doing the same thing, surrounding himself with supporters who agree with him about his policy of increasing the numbers of troops in Iraq, even though such a reckless move is largely opposed on Capitol Hill and among the American public at large.

It was also then said about Hitler that "any attempts to get him to change his mind were a complete waste of time. The generals didn't realize they were dealing with a man who never changed his mind once he made a firm decision and would do anything to achieve a desired goal." Sounds familiar! If you think so, then brace yourself because the worst is still to come.

In an obvious attempt to salvage his accidental and disastrous presidency, and save face during the next two years by avoiding a military withdrawal from Iraq, a country he invaded illegally in 2003 and subsequently completely destroyed, Bush Jr. is throwing the dice by increasing American troops there, hoping to temporize until his successor can start with a clean slate and clean up the mess left behind. The next American president and the American people, not counting the thousands of Iraqi people set to die under Bush's hand, will pay the price for this ineptitude.

It does not matter that under the terms of the War Powers Act of 1973 [Section 4(a)(3)], President George W. Bush is formally required to obtain Congress's authorization before "substantially [enlarging] United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation," since Bush II has already indicated that he needs not respect either international or domestic law. Of course, this is an impeachable offense when a president does not respect the law. But will the new Democratically-controlled Congress find the fortitude to act? Not likely, considering the establishment Democrats are pro-Israel neocons who stand solidly behind Bush's imperial wars.

To summarize, things could easily get messier in the coming months, and in the coming years, because Bush's neocon hierarchy also wants him to partition Iraq and to attack Iran. This way, so the neocons think, Israel could feel safer and the U.S. could more easily control Iraqi oil when it is in regional Kurdish and Shi'ite hands, and if Iran is distracted from the Iraqi front. And, since Bush II thinks like the neocons, he will do what Hitler did in 1939, he will escalate the conflict and create a larger conflagration.

So far, the neocons have got what they wanted from George W. Bush, because the American president much prefers to listen to their siren song of empire than to hear cool-headed advice that such a course of policy leads to chaos and disaster. Bush II will follow his mentor, Dick Cheney, all the way down. Even though a large majority of the American people, 70 percent, are outraged by such callous behavior and disapprove of Bush's wars, and even though a similar majority of Iraqis want Bush's troops to leave their country, and even though Congress may want to deny him funds for his pet wars, Bush II does not care because he is answering to a higher call.