The events of September 2001 were a watershed. It provided
the justification for a new programme, one long in the works, which was
determined to secure American global hegemony. The War on Terror is but a facet
or aspect of this greater objective. It's a tactic serving larger strategic
goals. It's a bitter pill for many to swallow, but they must acknowledge that
in the end, terror seems to serve this goal (the expansion of Establishment
power) more than hinder it. The corporate-state complex has greatly benefitted
from this new arrangement. The War on Terror is really terror unleashed as a justification for expansionist war and the
restriction of democratic impulses in society. The rapid emergence of the
Internet as well as growing social and economic tensions has only necessitated
the need for the Establishment to quickly and comprehensively gain absolute control.
The world has not grown smaller, but bigger. There's so much more to manage and
the shadowy hydra of terrorism affords the powers that be a potent tool in
manipulating the public through fear. It's an enemy that cannot be defeated, a
war that cannot end.
I do not agree with those who simply write off these attacks
as false-flag operations. Just because they ultimately serve and benefit the
Establishment does not mean the perpetrators are fellow conspirators or even
mere patsies. There are cases where this may indeed prove true, and undoubted
historical precedent, but sweeping generalizations of that nature do not
reflect present reality nor is it necessary in order to comprehend the
methodology and nature of the forces at work.
Petraeus' suggestion at the end of August that the US should
formally embrace the policy of working with al Nusra in order to oust Assad indicates
that the discussion is live in the circles of power... and in fact may be an
attempt to openly formalize and proclaim what has been the covert reality.
The publically disgraced but still Establishment-esteemed Petraeus
in suggesting this policy gives it credence and dispels any notions of an Obama
pro-Islamic conspiracy which the Right continues to dream about. The policy
does not reflect a pro-Islamic stance on the part of the administration, nor is
it the tip of an iceberg leading back to some great Benghazi scandal. Rather
it's in keeping with a long-term policy the US has committed itself to. America
has a long history with Islamic Radicalism, both supporting it and fighting against
it, often combating its own allies and creations.
If the Republicans want to point fingers they must indict not
only Bill Clinton, but both Bush administrations and especially their great
icon Ronald Reagan. The GHW Bush, Clinton and Reagan administrations directly
supported the people the United States has been fighting for the past 14+ years
and these fighters have spread across the globe. George W Bush's administration
is not off the hook either. While they launched a war on many former Islamist
allies, they continued to support Chechen jihadis against Russia, and not a few
are now in ISIS.
America also has a long history in employing what is
euphemistically referred to as the Strategy of Tension. Essentially this
doctrine calls for the destabilisation of societies for political ends. This
means you play off you allies against each other, support them and work against
them at the same time. Utilizing covert and paramilitary groups, politics can
be shaped, wars fomented, economics manipulated and geo-political moves can be
made.
Does Obama have it in him? Is he really up to this level of
sophistication and proactive policy crafting and implementation? Probably not, but
neither did his immediate predecessor. I think it can be convincingly argued
that Reagan didn't either. And yet in every case, whether comprehended or not,
the policy has been embraced by the Executive. It empowers their hand as well
as the hands of the Praetorians who actually shape and execute the policy. The
Unitary Executive empowers not only the presidency but the whole of the
Executive branch and removes power from congressional and thus ostensibly
democratic oversight and control.
Arming al-Nusra is just the type of operation the Strategy of
Tension would exemplify. Use them and let them fight your battle and then when
it's over the war machine scores a victory, gets to reset the board and once
again finds the enemy it so desperately needs. You fight the enemy you backed
and in many cases created.
The Free Syrian Army is something of a myth and is an
umbrella term utilized to describe various militias that fight the Assad regime
when they're not massacring civilians and each other. The al Nusra faction of
Al Qaeda has been the most effective and there's been cooperation between some
of the so-called 'moderate' militias and al Nusra who is after all fighting
both ISIS and Assad. They're fighting America's war. One is reminded of the
Anglo-Americans utilizing Stalin's USSR to do the bulk of the fighting against
Germany. We're seeing the same thing on a small scale. Petraeus, a realist, student
of history and ethical Consequentialist sees no problem with the arrangement.
The US has through various means aided in their arming. US
trained groups and weapons have continued to end up in their camp and US ally
Qatar has also played no small part. Qatar's role provides plausible
deniability for the American administration, but this is a smokescreen for the
Mainstream Media to hide behind. The US has been closely involved with Qatar,
selling them billions of dollars worth of weapons and working with them as they
have trained militias in Libya, some of which are today in Syria. It's hardly a
scandal when it merely reflects a long term policy. And yet some of these
militias have clearly allied themselves with al Nusra. That's the bit of
information the Establishment would like to hide.
Meanwhile while on the one hand Qatar is closely allied with
Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, their alliance with the US as well as their regional
activities have also served to elevate tensions in the theatre and once again
we are reminded of the Strategy of Tension. The US has found a convenient ally
in Qatar that is utilized to effect covert operations and support for terrorist
groups that serve the overall strategy. But at the same time they weaken the
hand of the Saudis and others who the US also wishes to restrict in some
circumstances. Elsewhere, the US backs, funds and supports the Saudis. And once
again, weapons 'mysteriously' end up in the hands of terrorist groups through
the agency and facilitation the Saudis are able to provide.
The Saudi war in Yemen is an American operation from start to
finish. Washington is funding it as well as directly providing arms and
logistical support. The Saudis are acting as proxies and yet they have their
own regional interests that cannot be ignored and provide plausible deniability
for the US. Everyone is using everyone else and seeking their own interests and
yet the US alone has the power to pull the plug as it were and shut down
battlefields and alter policies. The fact that Qatar's funding for al Nusra
(and probably ISIS) continues and the fact that Saudi Arabia is able to
continue its war in Yemen are the direct result of US approval and planning.
They could stop it in an instant, first and foremost by shutting down the arms
sales. These arms are being funneled directly into these conflicts and the US
knows this and approves of it. These groups are armed with US weaponry, some
captured to be sure but much of it has come off the shelf.
Qatar in particular is the new darling for the Praetorians,
providing that element of je ne sai quoi to America's goals in the
Middle East. Qatar is functioning as both an element of confusion and a
catalyst to break old stalemates and untie sundry Gordian knots.
The US is feeding the fire and unleashing the dogs of war.
Another recent example of ally vs. ally has been in the news
with the recent release of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. The episode
demonstrates the nature of these relationships. No one fully trusts anyone else
and allies work against each other. The Israelis have a fairly bold track
record in this regard. They've taken some profound risks and have offended the
US more than once and yet do so knowing that the alliance will stand. One is
also reminded of past occurrences such as when Israel created an informal
alliance with Apartheid South Africa. The two American allies collaborated on
nuclear projects and if you believe it, they did so under the nose of their
American masters and generated considerable angst in Washington.
What of Qatar's support for Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood and
Hamas? This can be understood on several levels. Qatar has its own interests and
the US will oppose them while at the same time supporting them. Or the US may
be happy to employ them as a tool of tension. Or, the US keeps many eggs
(options) in the basket and Egypt under a Qatari-influenced Morsi was
preferable to chaos. Qatari aid to Morsi can be understood as a proxy influence
on the part of the US, while at the same time the US moved to reinstate
military rule. Proxy rule was acceptable, but Egypt under al Sisi and the
military (essentially a return to status
quo) is even better. That said al Sisi is evidently wary of the Americans.
He knows them well. He's received American training and as a former military attaché
to Saudi Arabia, he undoubtedly grasps the nature of America's power and
influence in the region. Thus al Sisi has attempted what not a few satellite or
proxy rulers have attempted in the past. He is trying to play his own 'tension'
game by ensuring that all his eggs aren't in one basket. The French have often
served in this role as an alternative arms supplier to the Americans. Sometimes
this is appreciated as a way to support an American proxy without being
subjected to a media spotlight. Other times and perhaps most of the time, it
greatly irritates the Americans as it is a lost opportunity for the
Military-Industrial Complex to profit as well as wield direct unrefracted influence.
Don't forget these wars and bombing operations are also something
of a sales pitch that all these countries and the military-industrial sectors
will seek to exploit.
But for now rather than look to France, al Sisi has moved to
establish relations with Moscow. While many in the US find this to be
problematic even treacherous, it's really just another opportunity for the US
to exercise influence, gain information and open future doors. But al Sisi had
best remember, the US keeps tabs and holds a grudge. But for right now, the US
wants Egypt to calm down. Of all the countries in the Middle East, Egypt is
needed to guarantee Israeli security. The Qataris preferred Morsi and there's
nothing to suggest that they and whomever they might support might not prove
useful at a later date should al Sisi need correcting.
Ultimately the US has invested itself with the Qataris – a
slight counter to Saudi influence to be sure, and has stationed two of the
major forward commands in the country.
Their military and diplomatic influence is sufficient that Qatar could
be stopped if the US really wanted to counter them. Qatari schemes and
operations are not clandestine, they are not lost in a tangle, like the US
relationship with Pakistan's ISI, nor is the Qatari political-military
relationship comparable to that of Islamabad.
The only other effective anti-Assad group has been the
Kurdish YPG, which is more or less the Syrian branch of the PKK. The PKK is
also (when convenient) designated as a terrorist organization. Once again it's
hard to not be cynical. The PKK's Ocalan is a terrorist in the eyes of
US-Turkish relations and yet the YPG considers him their ideological founder
and leader and their political wing is directly tied to the PKK. But in Syria,
that's okay, because they're part of the 'Free Syrian Army' fighting Assad. Why
should it be different with al Nusra?
And yet even though the US supports the YPG in some
instances, they have also turned their back on them due to the new arrangement
with NATO ally Turkey. Erdogan in order to reassert his control over the
government and further his plan to reform the Turkish political system has
reignited the war with Kurds and with tacit approval from the US has turned to
bombing YPG targets. Meanwhile America also works to subvert Erdogan and he
knows it well. Turkey also harbours Chechen Salafis and Jihadis because it
counters Russia and furthers NATO's anti-Russian strategy. And while the
Russians hunt down and kill Chechen fighters on the streets of Istanbul they
sign energy deals with Erdogan. Russia has been one of Turkey's major export
markets. US sanctions against Russia have hurt Moscow but have also harmed the
Turkish economy and weakened Erdogan.
Recent events in the Syrian War may all but end the friendly relationship
and allow Turkey and Russia to revert to their historically antagonistic and
competitive roles of Islamic Byzantium vs. the Third Rome/Orthodox Byzantium.
As long as al Nusra continued the fight against Assad, all
was well. The expansion of ISIS has served a purpose and if need be can be
contained. Frankly right now, Western governments are getting their Christmas
wish list fulfilled. The cyber 9/11 that was needed to implement a new
generation of Orwellian state controls now seems almost unnecessary. The recent
spate of ISIS attacks has opened the floodgates and US leaders are deliberately
trying to tie in the current 'fear episode' with the revelations of Snowden.
They are capitalising on the present angst in order to push the cyber agenda
and demand a clampdown on the Internet and expand government surveillance
powers.
The chaos that's afoot and the level of deception in the
media are very reminiscent of what was happening in 2002. The public has
learned nothing and domestic political polarity coupled with growing tensions
with Russia and China makes the present period seem even more dangerous.
But then Putin marched in and attempted to sabotage the plan.
While the Russians have hit some ISIS targets, they've primarily been attacking
al Nusra and other anti-Assad elements. The American media reports this as
attack on the Free Syrian Army, but without exception will not provide any
details about which FSA branches have been hit. Why? Because Russia is bombing
al Nusra/al Qaeda positions and destroying the immediate threat to Assad. The
US media cannot report this in negative terms and so they remain deliberately
vague.
The Russians have clearly seen what the US is up to. They've
been watching this game play out in the Caucasus, Ukraine and Central Asia.
Putin stopped the US in 2008 by intervening in South Ossetia, he's tried to
arrest their expansion in the Donbass and Crimea and now he's countering US
schemes in Syria. While Putin is of course acting out of his own interests, it
must be said that if any of the outside players have some kind of moral high
ground in the conflict it is – ironically, Vladimir Putin. He's supporting the
existing secular government, a longtime ally, and the retention of Assad works
toward guaranteeing the security of minorities and perhaps some kind of
settlement... an end to the war. The alternative can only be chaos, which seems
to be the strategic goal of US policy. The chaos will afford the US opportunities
to continue expanding its military footprint abroad and the police state at
home. Ultimately it will allow them to re-draw the map of Eurasia, in other
words establish hegemonic dominance over it.
France as always attempting to play a role that deflects US
power has sought to one the one hand cooperate with the US and on the other
hand, forge a different path. The Friday the 13th attacks coupled
with the downing of a Russian passenger jet in the Sinai, both attacks being
claimed by ISIS afforded Hollande an opportunity to become the Western hero in
reaching out Putin and bringing Russia onboard with the Western agenda in
Syria.
The downing of a Russian jet on the border of Turkey will
harm this French/European rapprochement with Putin. US commentators have made
it clear the policy makers in Washington don't want to see this relationship
established. Turkish fighter jets, US F-16's no less, have worked to sabotage
Hollande's attempt to build a coalition and Putin's attempt to seek legitimacy.
The game goes on, ever changing. It's a cauldron of lies and
murder and yet so very few are paying attention and ever fewer have possess the
basics to apprehend let along comprehend the theatre. People are dying while
men in power scheme and profit. Fear and deception grip the publics of many
lands and Christians who refuse to live and think as pilgrims and strangers all
too easily are deceived and caught up in the fervor.
