Voskamp is an enterprising journalist. As a grad student at University of Texas/Austin 3-1/2 years ago, he interviewed Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, the former deputy director of the CIA, now a professor of national policy at UT, and asked him whether oil interests were pushing for war in Iraq.

Voskamp conducted the interview as a researcher for journalist Robert Bryce for his book, "Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the rise of Texas, America's Superstate." The comments weren't printed in that book. I called Inman to see if he minded my making them public. He said No, and elaborated on them:

"Oil has everything to do with our relationship with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates. Where Iraq is concerned, our policy has everything to do with Israel's long-term security."

But is this a conspiracy theory? How did people who care about Israel affect our policy visavis war in Iraq?

"Because they were persuasive and they were dedicated in making their case. They ended up in very strategic positions in the Vice President's office, the NSA, and the Defense Department. They fervently believed, and in the absence of opposing views [after 9/11] they carried the day.... [Today] they are no longer a unified bloc with power. .. The terrible failure to plan for Iraq after the removal of Saddam Hussein has discredited their view about how to bring peace to the Mideast."

Are you talking about dual loyalty?

"No. It's about fervor. Zealots often carry the day. They are U.S.A. loyalists. But their vision of the Mideast, and how to secure peace in the Mideast, is shaped by concern for Israel's longterm security... Myself, I don't think you will ever get security in the Mideast until you have what on the surface appears to be fair to both sides. You have to have leaders committed to peace, on both sides. One side can't impose a solution."

Yet another voice belongs to Navy Secretary Don Winter, who warned last week at the Naval War College that just recently, the "fear factor" coming from the spike in oil prices had made an impact in the world economy "in the billions." In the subsequent press conference, I asked Winter whether Roscoe Bartlett wasn't a prophet, in his belief that unless we start conserving now, there will be civil disruptions over oil. "I've talked to the congressman, I've had several engagements with him," Winter, a fellow engineer, said, and though he stopped short of endorsing the Bartlett view, said, "A lot of what he has said has come true." Hark.

This is the new secretary of the Navy, Donald C. Winter, sworn in a few months ago. He opened up the Naval War College's conference on strategy that I attended Tuesday in Rhode Island, and when I heard that he was a former VP at Northrop Grumman, I was prepared to write him off.

Then he spoke. Winter is charming, fast on his feet and extremely impressive. He would seem to represent a new spirit in the Bush Administration, of do-good internationalism. For he stressed that a central function of the Navy is humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

At a subsequent press conference, a reporter asked why we should be using the Navy "for the new Peace Corps and new Red Cross around the world."

Winter responded with ease and vigor. "I would not tend to characterize it that way. We have a new set of responsibilities around the world. And this is a win/win. We're helping, and I think the sailors love doing this."

Navy people, he said, get a lot more satisfaction from bailing people out after the tsunami than from more traditional functions. Aye-aye, sir.

The reason I went to the Naval War College was to hear Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of the controversial paper on the Israel lobby, address an audience of officers and experts at the Navy's 57th annual Current Strategy Forum. It's remarkable when you think about it. Back in April, Harvard people were saying they were going to have all kinds of forums on the paper—to denounce it, as Hillel director Bernard Steinberg told me. Well, no forums. There's been an embarrassed silence. And as has been argued here before, that probably stems from the fact that there is strong underground support for the paper's findings, including its assertion that the disastrous decision to invade Iraq came partly out of pro-Israel pressure. Yes, that's hard to talk about.

Meanwhile, (as Col. Larry Wilkerson has already indicated) the military is listening.

It was evident to me during my visit that many at the Naval War College were familiar with the paper. By one report, the College came under pressure from an unnamed congressman to cancel the talk, but the College stuck by its cannonballs. And no, Walt and Mearsheimer weren't there to talk about the lobby—but the subject sure came up. A Lieutenant Commander Wilson rose to ask about the paper, wondering "how the Palestinians can combat the Israelis' foreign influence in the United States."

Mearsheimer used the question as an opportunity to say that the United States must not side with Israel on the question of unilateral disengagement from the West Bank.

After the talk, another lieutenant commander came up to the authors with a bound copy of the paper, and had the authors sign it. Alan Dershowitz's assertion that the two had "destroyed their professional reputations" was not supported by this event in Rhode Island. When it comes to the strategic military community, they're doing fine.