(updated below)
President Barack Obama officially demanded that Syrian President Bashar Assad resign for the sake of his own people, saying he was no longer fit to lead after “imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people” during a crackdown on pro-reform protesters.
New York Times, October 24, 2012:
Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.
Barack Obama, August 31, 2013:
Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. . . . [W]e are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus.
President Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there, but a mounting concern for the White House is how to target the Sunni extremists without helping President Bashar al-Assad. . . . The flights are a significant step toward direct American military action in Syria, an intervention that could alter the battlefield in the nation’s three-year civil war. . . .
On Monday, Syria warned the White House that it needed to coordinate airstrikes against ISIS or it would view them as a breach of its sovereignty and an “act of aggression.” But it signaled its readiness to work with the United States in a coordinated campaign against the militants.
It was not even a year ago when we were bombarded with messaging that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a Supreme Evil and Grave Threat, and that military action against his regime was both a moral and strategic imperative. The standard cast of “liberal interventionists” – Tony Blair, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Nicholas Kristof and Samantha Power – issued stirring sermons on the duties of war against Assad. Secretary of State John Kerry actually compared Assad to (guess who?) Hitler, instructing the nation that “this is our Munich moment.” Striking Assad, he argued, “is a matter of national security. It’s a matter of the credibility of the United States of America. It’s a matter of upholding the interests of our allies and friends in the region.”
U.S. military action against the Assad regime was thwarted only by overwhelming American public opinion which opposed it and by a resounding rejection by the UK Parliament of Prime Minister David Cameron’s desire to assume the usual subservient British role in support of American wars.
Now the Obama administration and American political class is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the failed “Bomb Assad!” campaign by starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad – the very same side the U.S. has been arming over the last two years.
It’s as though the U.S. knew for certain all along that it wanted to fight in the war in Syria, and just needed a little time to figure out on which side it would fight. It switched sides virtually on a dime, and the standard Pentagon courtiers of the U.S. media and war-cheering foreign policy elites are dutifully following suit, mindlessly depicting ISIS as an unprecedented combination of military might and well-armed and well-funded savagery (where did they get those arms and funds?). Something very similar happened in Libya: the U.S. spent a decade insisting that a Global War on Terror – complete with full-scale dismantling of basic liberties and political values – was necessary to fight against the Unique Threat of Al Qaeda and “Jihadists”, only to then fight on the same side as them, and arming and empowering them.
Nobody disputes the brutality and extremism of ISIS, but that is a completely different question from whether the U.S. should take military action against it. To begin with, the U.S. not only ignores, but actively supports, all sorts of brutal and extreme parties in the region.
More important, what are air strikes going to accomplish? All one has to do is look at the horrific chaos and misery in Libya – the Successful Humanitarian Intervention™ – to know that bombing Bad People out of existence accomplishes little in the way of strategic or humanitarian value. If one really wants to advocate that the U.S. should destroy or at least seriously degrade ISIS, then one should honestly face what that actually entails, as detailed by the New America Foundation’s Brian Fishman:
No one has offered a plausible strategy to defeat ISIL that does not include a major U.S. commitment on the ground and the renewal of functional governance on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border. And no one will, because none exists. . . .
Bombing ISIL will not destroy it. Giving the Kurds sniper rifles or artillery will not destroy it. A new prime minister in Iraq will not destroy it. . . . [W]ar makes the jihadist movement stronger, even in the face of major tactical and operational defeats.
The conflicts in Syria and Iraq strengthen ISIL because war is the only force terrible enough to hold together a broad and extreme enough Sunni coalition to be amenable to ISIL. Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi recognized this in 2004 and built a strategy of provoking Shia militias in order to consolidate fearful Sunni groups. . .
Without war, ISIL is a fringe terrorist organization. With war, it is a state. . . . This is where I am supposed to advocate a brilliant strategy to defeat ISIL by Christmas at some surprisingly reasonable cost. But it won’t happen. The cost to defeat ISIL would be very high and would require a multi-year commitment. . . .
The country must be ready to accept the sacrifices necessary to achieve grand political ends. Until then, any call to “defeat ISIL” that is not forthright about what that will require is actually an argument for expensive failure.
If you like running around sermonizing on the need to destroy ISIS, at least be honest enough to acknowledge what that will really require and then advocate that. Anything short of that is just self-glorifying deceit: donning the costume of Churchillian Resolve and Moral Purpose without any substance.
It seems pretty clear at this point that U.S. military action in the Middle East is the end in itself, and the particular form it takes – even including the side for which the U.S. fights – is an ancillary consideration. That’s how the U.S., in less than a year, can get away with depicting involvement in the war in Syria – on opposite sides – as a national imperative. Ironically, just as was true of Al Qaeda, provoking the U.S. into military action would, for the reasons Fishman explained, help ISIS as well.
But the only clear lesson from all of this is that no matter the propagandistic script used, U.S. military action in that region virtually never fulfills the stated goals (nor is it intended to do so), and achieves little other than justifying endless military action for its own sake. How long before we hear that U.S. military action is needed (again) in Libya to restrain the chaos and extremism unleashed by the NATO intervention in Libya? Does anyone really believe that “limited” bombing of Syria and Iraq in a rage against ISIS will result in anything other than more justifications for military action in that region?
UPDATE: The U.S. “is sharing intelligence about jihadist deployments with Damascus through Iraqi and Russian channels,” the Agence France-Presse reports today, citing one source as saying: “The cooperation has already begun.”
From The New Hitler (back) to U.S. Partner in less than a year: an impressive feat for both Assad and U.S. propaganda.
Wait didn’t America provided finanical help and weapons to isis
http://www.dw.de/who-finances-isis/a-17720149
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html
the hypocrysy or the self interest of united states of jewmerica and their jew faux demcoracy demcoratic jews promoting self interest /republican party tried of this roaches we need a revolution
Did Frank Luntz,the Republican strategist ,come up with the name Islamic State , after determining that focus groups
found the name Islamic State ,easy to pronounce and an easy way to strike fear in the zenophobic American and British populace?
My point is: Why would Fundamentalist Islamists who don’t speak English and who hate the West, America and England in particular,
give themselves an English language name?
US “national security” is about the US “National Security State” and the need to protect the 1% Owning Class. The US National Security State is comprised of the White House, Pentagon, State Dept., CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. whose job it is to protect the vital interests of the 1% Owning Class around the world.
The reason why US foreign policy looks like and smells like a never ending game of Risk is because the US needs to do whatever it has to to protect and defend its “national security”. For those who don’t know what the game Risk is, it is a board game about nations and alliances that go to war. The game can go on for days because alliances keep shifting and changing.
The obvious explanation for the self-contradictory and self-defeating zig-zag U.S. policy in the Near East has been the domination of U.S. polciy and Obama by ruthless Zionists. Zionists are not smart: just ruthless and savage, and lack ability to deal withe people per se.
Pretty good article by Glenn. My only cavil would be that Fishman’s idea that ISIS is Sunni is false. ISIS has slaughtered Sunnis with a will. It is US-trained and funded. McCain met its leader in May last year, one month after he formed ISIS. Al-Baghdaadi was an inmate of a US prison in Iraq some years ago. He spent numerous months (being programmed?), then disappeared for years, reputedly visiting Israel, only to pop up in charge of ISIS. Any time America wanted, they could pinpoint ISIS convoys by satellite. But they don’t.
I would add to your conclusions that the aim is the destruction of Syria. Utterly. This is about oil, yes, but it’s also about preserving Israel as Mifddle East hegemon, and embracing the Zionist plan to devastate the region. Following that Gotterdammerung will be disastrous for America and the world, but since Zionists run Washington, they’ll do it anyway.
“Thus we see how The Bloody Traffic continues in peace-time as in war-time. The armament firms sell their weapons of murder to whomsoever will buy: to their own Governments; to friendly Governments; to enemy Governments; to Governments which are potential enemies; to Governments engaged in wars condemned by the League of Nations; to countries carrying on wars which their own Governments wish to support secretly; to Chinese war lords; to the armies of oil combines; to Nazis; to any Government, to any interest whatsoever, so long as the money is forthcoming. The purchasers matter not. If they pay they get goods. Even when they can’t pay, they get their goods if their credit, on the security of taxation or pillage, is sufficiently good.
Such is The Bloody Traffic, a quite callous selling of the weapons of murder to any customer who can pay the price.”
“A subject which requires more investigation than has yet been given to it is the relationship of the armament firms to the banks. There is a closer relationship than is usual with ordinary industrial concerns; first, because Governments are the buyers of armaments and less wealthy nations frequently require loans for the purpose, and second, because the Governments of the wealthier nations often wish, for political reasons, to direct and facilitate the purchase of arms by smaller nations and guarantee loans for this purpose.
This four-party arrangement between the armament firm, the bank, the small purchasing nation, and the sympathetic Power has great advantages, especially for the armament firm. Let us see how it works out.
The armament salesman convinces the Government of a small nation that it should buy arms. It has no funds for the purpose. The armament firm therefore approaches the bank. The bank wishes to be certain that the interest on the loan will be paid, so it approaches its Government. The Government sees an opportunity of bringing the small nation within its sphere of political and economic influence. The guarantee is given.
Thus the armament firm gets its order, the small nation gets its armaments, the bank gets its interest guaranteed, and the Great Power gets an ally which is useful immediately as a sphere for economic development and which, as a political supporter, may be exceedingly useful in a time of war for military purposes.
Sometimes the initiative is taken, not by the armament firm, but by the Government of the Great Power; sometimes by the Government of the small nation. In either case the benefits are mutual.”
“You will find the directors of armament firms manning the councils and committees of every patriotic organization. You will find them on the platforms of the most patriotic political parties. You will find them most bitter in their denunciation of the policies of other countries. You will find them condemning as traitors those who venture to criticize the policy of their own country.”
“It is not possible to penetrate fully behind the veil which hides the intimacy of the relationship of the Money Trust and the Munitions Trust. But the veil has been lifted enough for us to realize that The Bloody Traffic is closely wedded to the Banking Traffic.” Fenner Brockway – The Bloody Traffic
This outstanding books last chapter is devoted to chemical weapons. Published in 1933 it details how the Entente powers in WWI were being killed by munitions made from raw materials shipped from the United Kingdom and France. These were sold to German industry to manufacture armaments then used to kill and maim their own [Entente] troops. Likewise, Germany was exporting raw materials to the Entente powers then used to make munitions to kill German soldiers. Nothing has changed, the banking and armament industries are tied at the hip. The Paul Krugman sickness, those who believe war is good for an economy. The “Broken window fallacy”.
Dutch Intellectuals Apologize to Putin
“We, awake citizens of the West, who see the lies and machinations of our Governments, wish to offer you our apologies for what is done in our name. It’s unfortunately true, that our media have lost all independence and are just mouthpieces for the Powers that Be.
Because of this, Western people tend to have a warped view of reality and are unable to hold their politicians to account.”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/29/dutch-intellectuals-apologize-to-putin/
Dutch Intellectuals Apologize to Putin
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/29/dutch-intellectuals-apologize-to-putin/
“We, awake citizens of the West, who see the lies and machinations of our Governments, wish to offer you our apologies for what is done in our name. It’s unfortunately true, that our media have lost all independence and are just mouthpieces for the Powers that Be.
Because of this, Western people tend to have a warped view of reality and are unable to hold their politicians to account.”
Seriously, Glenn? You’re going to link the words “brutal and extreme” to an article about the Israel/Gaza conflict? The US doesn’t back Hamas, so you must be insinuating Israel is the “brutal and extreme” in the above link. Is it brutal and extreme to attack a group who is firing rockets across your border non-stop? The Palestinians put Hamas in power, and they aren’t stopping them from shooting rockets from schools, hospitals, and other civilian areas; then the liberal world wants to complain when “big bad Israel” defends itself. What did they expect to happen??
The “FUN” they have in store for us has been recorded, spoken and broadcasted by those who want to control us, and also eliminated much of our human population. WE are their debt slave. We are good for blood sacrifices in wars just to mention one method. Think about this following quote and realize they are talking about YOU.
“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution”
? Aldous Huxley
Huxley was an insider and didn’t believe that even if the masses knew what was in store for they, they would do nothing, they would not really care as long as they were being entertained.
War can indeed be the end itself when a country – like the United States – is in the death-grip of a fear-mongering military-industrial-surveillance complex.
As a small aside, living in Trinidad and Tobago for the past 15 years, the currency here which is supposedly floating has never moved more than 5 cents to the US dollar, while for all other currencies it moves by sometimes as much as 30%. Independant indeed. This is an oil country, American bought and owned.
Glen Greenwald.. You are really pushing the limits of your own delusional theories. You always point out all the dastardly things that the American government does but you “Improve on the facts” This is not honourable journalism. Anyone can go around quote-mining. You are unhelpful and promote nothing but fear. There are enough sycophants out there to make you feel powerful but you play a very sad and dangerous game.
Perhaps it would be helpful for you to back up your accusations with clear demonstrations of how the facts have been distorted. Otherwise, one could conclude that you don’t really have access to relevant facts to support your argument.
Another tool of the murderous Obama Regime.
Stephen Lendman agrees with Mr. Greenwald on this issue.
“Obama Declares War on Syria”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/27/obama-declares-war-on-syria/
‘The Islamic State is the pretext. Syria is the target. At issue is regime change.
It’s replacing its sovereign independence with pro-Western stooge governance. It’s wanting unchallenged regional control.
It’s wanting Big Oil exploiting its resources. It’s wanting Iran isolated. It’s aiding Israel’s Greater Middle East agenda.
It’s making the world safe for war profiteers. It’s about colonizing nations.
It’s advancing America’s imperium. It’s about carving up whole continents belligerently. It’s doing so for dominance and profits.
It’s about justifying might over right. It’s about destroying nations to save them.
It’s about calling imperial exploitation economic development. It’s about glorifying war in the name of peace.
It has nothing to do with democratic values. It’s not about humanitarian intervention or responsibility to protect.”
I don’t know anything at all about the greater mid-east, this because I am inside the u.s. Even incoming foreign media is tampered with various ways, thousands of thousands of “*filters” etc.
I can’t say I have much respect for analytical analysis from the west.
What I can say is within the broader “white” (mostly comprising of and controlled by r1b who isn’t actually white) population it is very common knowledge that the only goal at all in foreign policy is to create a situation of forecasted genocide, or quite simply “to kill as many of ‘them’ as possible”.
That’s it.
*political analysis
tis the military-political complex feeding itself – global warring anywhere (and global warming everywhere)
Don’t you just love the circus in washington, d.c.? amerika will now work with those evil terrorist! Well they are terrorist when they don’t think wholesome amerikan thoughts. Well if uncle sam is coordinating with Syria then ole sam will be coordinating with Hezbollah. Will Iran join the party soon? amerika’s Frankenstein monsters are running amok! The circus continues on the obama plantation.
Propagandized 101..
Opposition: 127 dead as Syrian forces target civilians
By the CNN Wire Staff
April 7, 2012 — Updated 2252 GMT (0652 HKT)
[snip]
‘Syrian forces are targeting civilians displaced from their homes by earlier fighting, an opposition group said Saturday, three days before a deadline for government forces to withdraw from cities.
The Local Coordination Committees of Syria said the regime is targeting villages and farms around the eastern city of Rastan, where fighting a month ago forced out more than 80% of the city’s residents. They escaped to the nearby area but are now coming under attack, according to the group, which is a network of opposition activists.
The death toll has risen to 127, including eight women and five children, the LCC said Saturday. The breakdown of those deaths are 59 in Hama, 28 in Homs, 14 in the Aleppo suburbs, 24 Idlib, one in Daraa, and one in Douma in the Damascus suburbs, the LCC said..’
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/07/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html
..
Well, if you can’t trust the ‘Local Coordination Committees of Syria’ (LCC), who can you trust??
“Well, if you can’t trust the US Government….”
Finance:
LCCSyria is financed by donations from individual supporters. This is further facilitated by the “Adopt a Revolution” initiative. Furthermore the Office for Syrian Opposition Support, which itself was founded by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE and FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE and is funded by the Friends of Syria Group, provides “material support” and “training assistance” to the LCCs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Coordination_Committees_of_Syria
note.. Capitalized emphasis, mine. -suave donger
I am so ashamed of my country. America has become so plastic…and two-faced. We strut around the whole globe, trade goodness and honesty for power. And all the time, good Americans have been sold-out, sold down the river. America has no entitlement, nor major mandate to be the tail wagging the dog everywhere. Wake up, America, we have a lot of housecleaning to do up in D.C. and I have learned to trust no one in D.C. I trust NO present politician. There’s too much to gain these days in selling everyone in America out.
““You need to cite evidence that the US has been supplying weapons to the ISIS, Mr. Greenwald.” – -CraigSummers
The desire for definitive proof via a paper trail that the US is providing arms and/or assistance to any particular group of militants is understandable, but at this point is beside the point.
ISIS, and most, if not all groups in the region are “being supplied” arms and assistance by the US and other beneficent entities simply because these arms have been bestowed on the region for the past several decades (because, as history has shown us, arms supply = peace).
In other words the point is moot; because due to poor accounting methods and lax governmental regulation, both here and in the Middle East, the arms have ended up in the hands of everyone there anyway.
In the end, and from a practical standpoint, it seems that the “who supplied arms to whom when” question is for the most part irrelevant – because the fact is that it is and has been primarily the US who has been raining down weaponry as well as “Freedom Bombs” on the region for quite some time now.
This “war on thugs” is analogous to the failed “war on drugs” in that once the weapons are on the street, no ever seems to realize that no matter the noble cause (or ineffectual policies) that landed them there, it’s not the users that are to blame – it’s the pushers.
“I speak religion’s message clear
and I control you
I am denial guilt and fear
and I control you
I am the prayers of the naive
and I control you
I am the lie that you believe
and I control you
I take you where you want to go
I give you all you need to know
I drag you down I use you up
Mr. Self-Destruct
I am the needle in your vein
and I control you
I am the high you can’t sustain
and I control you
I am the pusher I’m a whore
and I control you
I am the need you have for more
and I control you
I am the bullet in the gun
and I control you
I am the truth from which you run
and I control you
I am the silencing machine
and I control you
I am the end of all your dreams
and I control you
I take you where you want to go
I give you all you need to know
I drag you down I use you up
Mr. Self-Destruct”
Nine Inch Nails – “Mr Self-Destruct”
I don’t even need definitive proof. Do you know of ANY evidence at all!? Cuz I sure haven’t found any. Two years of press accounts tell me that the administration has been aware of the risks of just arming any group in Syria.
Maybe it was an episode of VICE on HBO where the CIA gave weapons to a rebel group only after going through some crazy interview process. And even then, they got small arms (Russian ones). Which brings us to another point: if the US did give weapons to ISIS, they would NOT be emblazoned with “US military” insignias!!!
Nate, responded to this below, but with the new comments section don’t know if you’ll see it. Once again – Side Fighting Assad can equal rebels (earlier in time) in addition to ISIS (now). Switching sides equals from “Assad’s side” to “other side” (which encompasses different groups). I agree that it could be phrased better, but I don’t think understanding the article there is like a huge feat of reading comprehension or anything, and am starting to think arguments to the contrary (You mean it was ISIS all along, don’t you!) are being made in bad faith. Ok, this is the last time I will speak of this issue, because it’s putting me in an extremely poor temper.
Too many NSA and Mosad spin doctors have taken residence here.
It’s not as if ISIS is armed with American military equipment.
And it doesn’t matter that the US was arming Islamists as early as 2007:
“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection
And it’s not like the New York Times – March 24, 2013 – ever reported:
“With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.”
…or that the Washington Post reported [CIA begins weapons delivery to Syrian rebels. September 11, 2013]:
“The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.”
No, it didn’t happen unless someone got a receipt.
Your research is well done. However, the problem is that there are multiple fighting groups in Syria. Again, while most of them want to topple Assad, they are most of the time fighting against each other as well because they have different goals and ideologies. All international journalists know that the US government has been providing light weaponry to certain rebel groups, but so far nobody can bring proofs that the US government has provided weapons to ISIS, which is the most powerful group on the ground. Mr Greenwald clearly intends to have his readers believe that the US government was providing weapons to ISIS a few months ago and then now decides to bomb the group because the Empire is having fun. For such a serious accusation to stand, Mr Greenwald needs to provide us some evidence.
It is frustrating that the brilliance of US policy in Syria is not being properly recognized. The US finds both the Syrian regime and the opposition to be unpalatable, so its policy is to let them continue fighting against each other as long as possible. When Assad appears to be getting the upper hand, the US quietly instructs Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to turn up the support to the jihadists, and when he suffers a setback, to scale it back. None of this, as you note, has any US fingerprints on it.
This is a bad outcome for civilians in Syria, but fortunately the US government never allows humanitarian concerns to cloud its judgment. However, it’s also a large country and as Condaleeza Rice said, “we need a common enemy [war] to unite us”. So the US will probably intervene directly, but this does have some potential pitfalls. It must strike ISIS hard enough to weaken it, but not enough to cripple it. If they overdo it, they will be forced to attack Assad as well, in order to restore balance.
So Glenn Greenwald is quite correct to wonder whether US propaganda will be up to the task of creating popular support for fighting for both sides in the Syrian civil war. The public generally prefers a simpler good guy vs bad guy narrative. It’s never as much fun rooting for both teams to lose, and the public just might tune out.
A very interesting and appealing theory! But on the other hand, it can be mistaken to attribute to guile that which is as easily explained by incompetence.
ummm, apparently, you are completely at ease with having a narrative with a fucking psycho. I bet you have nice little chats with mass murderers online. You know..just for shits and giggles.
quote:”This is a bad outcome for civilians in Syria, but fortunately the US government never allows humanitarian concerns to cloud its judgment.”unquote
Says the monument to revulsion.
“…….When Assad appears to be getting the upper hand, the US quietly instructs Saudi Arabia and Kuwait…..”
Yes, ever so quietly. It would nice to see a link on that. There is no doubt that the US likes the position of Assad much better now than five years ago when the US failed diplomatically to pull Syria out of the Iranian orbit. Syria, Iran and Hezbollah have all been weakened by the civil/regional conflict. But the US does not dictate policy to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Qatar. They have been at odds on several issues.
Greenwald refuses or simply is unable to look past US policies. In addition, Obama has made strategic changes in US policy in the Middle East which has put the US at odds with some long time allies.
Thanks.
Thanks??? You’re fucking pathetic Summers. You’re thanking a person masquerading as one of the most vile, murdering psychopaths ever to walk on this planet? This speaks volumes of what you are too.
@chronicle
Some people are just conditioned to be polite. It is a bit harsh to condemn a person for the simple act of saying ‘Thanks’. And speaking of being polite, I should apologize for continually yanking your chain. I really don’t intend to elicit such a splendid reaction, and much as I enjoy it, I am concerned that you may have high blood pressure and be placing yourself at risk. So please pardon me for being overly presumptuous, but I would advise taking some sedatives before you reply to my comments.
@CraigSummers
I’m not a journalist, so I don’t have to offer any proof. But the policies of the US and the Gulf States do coincide on the issue of isolating and containing Iran; both dislike Iran’s regional power, although the US concentrates on Iran’s anti-American outlook, while Saudi Arabia’s antipathy is based more on sectarian rivalries. The war in Syria, lavishly funded by the Gulf States, was intended to isolate Iran, in addition to the more general Saudi goal of spreading Wahhabism. However, neither the US nor Saudi Arabia really want to see an ISIS victory. So both have an interest in a prolonged conflict without any real victor. So my assumption of cooperation between them is not based on one party dictating what the other should do, but rather on their shared interests.
I don’t believe I need to explain American aversion to ISIS, given the latter’s extreme violence coupled with an anti-western outlook. Saudi Arabia should theoretically be more sympathetic to ISIS. However, while keen on funding Jihadists fighting in foreign countries, they really wouldn’t relish seeing them in Saudi Arabia itself. They are not certain they could control ISIS, whose professed goal is to conquer the entire Islamic world (as unrealistic as that may be), and so they certainly don’t mind if the US attacks and weakens them just a little. After all, the ongoing war in Syria is a useful safety valve, attracting extremists who might otherwise focus their attention on Saudi Arabia itself.
quote”This is a bad outcome for civilians in Syria, but fortunately the US government never allows humanitarian concerns to cloud its judgment.”unquote
Says the monument to revulsion.
Speaking of revulsion…do you ever think about when you ordered your first wife and son murdered?
quote”
Benito Albino Mussolini was abducted by government agents and was told his mother was dead. In 1931, at age fifteen, he was adopted as an orphan by the fascist ex-police chief of Sopramonte. Initially educated at a Barnabite college in Moncalieri,[4] he enrolled in the Italian Royal Navy, and always remained under close surveillance by the fascist government. Nevertheless, he persisted in stating Benito Mussolini was his father and was eventually forcibly interned in an asylum in Mombello, Province of Milan, where he was murdered on 26 August 1942 after repeated coma-inducing injections, aged twenty-six.[3] “unquote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Albino_Mussolini
notwithstanding your other 300,000 victims
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
A monument to revulsion is a massive understatement. The mere fact you masquerade as one of the most vile, murdering psychopaths ever to walk the face of the planet is living testimony to what you really are.
Your list is somewhat biased, as Mussolini gets credit for deaths caused during WWII, but Truman, who ordered nuclear bombs dropped on civilians, killing about 200,000 people, gets no credit all. The list does attribute 70,000 deaths to Richard Nixon and 30,000 to Johnson, but since up to 1,000,000 people were killed in Vietnam they seem to have been shortchanged as well. The sanctions against Iraq have been estimated to have caused the death of 500,000 children, but neither George H.W.Bush or Bill Clinton makes the list. In other words, like most lists, it isn’t worthy of being taken very seriously.
Doc
“……And it doesn’t matter that the US was arming Islamists as early as 2007……”
You are right. It doesn’t. There is zero evidence in your post that the US supported the ISIS in Syria. The US has supported the Syrian rebels since they began fighting back against the Assad regime which brutally cracked down on the peaceful demonstrations in Syria. Again, the US (under Obama) was extremely slow to arm the rebels because of the rise of the ISIS in opposition to Assad.
While the US might have provided backdoor support for the Sunni extremists in Syria and Lebanon in 2007 in opposition to the Hezbollah-Iran-Syria axis, the US was working with Sunni moderates to oppose al Qaeda in Iraq under the leadership of al-Zarqawi. The US “surge” succeeded in bringing moderate Sunnis into the political system in the “new” Iraq. However, the success of the surge was reversed by the Maliki government after the US was forced to leave in 2011. In addition, Assad and Hezbollah have been long suspected of murdering the former Prime Minister of Lebanon in 2005, Rafik Hariri, which inflamed the Sunni-Shia divide. The Syrian army had occupied Lebanon up until that time. Two members of Hezbollah were indicted, but they likely didn’t operate without the blessing of Assad and Nasrallah.
The key point is that US-obsessed posters like yourself refuse to acknowledge the complexities of the geopolitics in the Middle East and simply blame the US for everything. Gee, Doc. Did you happen to notice that Russian soldiers were captured in Ukraine or that Russian troops and heavy armor may have crossed into Ukraine? And that is the fault of who?
I’ve never heard a bigger bunch of bloatificators in my life. Does anyone here work for a living? Or do you sit around on your brains and write this blather that no one reads? You just write this crap to practice your typing skills don’t you?
Hearing silent typed words is a sign of dementia.
I disagree with the article when it says “U.S. military action in the middle east is the end in itself.” I give our military and national security heads a little more credit than he does. On the surface it looks like a cluster f*** with every country that we touch in the middle east ending up a failed state with no functioning government and in the midst of civil war.
If we review the overarching neocon plan for middle east foreign policy derived from before 9/11, the goals were as follows:
1. Multiple grand theatre simultaneous wars.
2. Controlled chaos (i.e. broken states, religious and ethnic factions warring against one another with the result of weakening the nation-states in the middle east)
3. New Middle East (if you look this up, you will see Iraq broken up into 3 separate territories, given to Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds).
This plan sounds very similar to what has actually taken place since the invasion of Iraq. This, to me, is very unlikely to be co-incidence.
Why do they want controlled chaos and a new map of the middle east? We fought many proxy wars and supported many government coups in southeast asia and latin america during the time of the Cold War with a goal roughly of military dominance of the world combined with economic interests. The same continues.
We wanted to take down the Syrian government because of this Syrian / Russian / Iran alliance. Ghaddafi was a close ally of Russia. Yanukovych in Ukraine was cozying up too much to Russia. The fact that we had to arm and enable al qaeda offshoots to help in taking down these leaders speaks volumes about our true objectives. If domestic terrorism was our policy-makers’ fundamental national security concern like they often make it seem, then it would be pretty insane to be funding these al-qaeda offshoots and giving them opportunities to have their own nation-states. This is after all the alleged reason we went to war with Afghanistan, to prevent terrorists from having a nation-state haven. So, I would conclude that this more far-reaching goal of crushing any perceived challenge to U.S. military might, such as from Russia, is a more likely goal of our military interventions. Not fighting for its own sake.
I am not claiming to be a military expert. It may be the case that in order to ensure longer-term national security for our country and our allies, including but not limited to Israel and Saudi Arabia, that this controlled chaos strategy is a good one. I intuitively doubt it, and I would still question the morality of the policy.
Really, the Nobel committee should have the integrity to rescind the Nobel Peace Prize of Obama. I am not saying he is any worse than Bush or any worse than McCain or Romney would have been, but he is nevertheless truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He wins the presidency by making these unctuous speeches with themes of ‘restore our moral standing’, he condemns the drone program as a Senator, he condemns the Iraq war as a senator, and then as soon as he gets real power he does the same bull#$&%.
Despite my disagreement over this point of American goals, thank you Glenn Greenwald for writing the article. Any media that is pointing out that the United States is funding these extremists is helpful. If the general public became aware of this relationship, in light of how this backfired with our funding of extremists in Afghanistan in the 80s ending up with 9/11, I think the public would not easily accept these policies.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882
https://newmiddleeast.wordpress.com/tag/brzezinski/
I think “Islamic State” is a self-aggrandizing misnomer, as there are other islamic states in the area, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. ISIL is also a misnomer, as they do not possess Lebanon or the Levant. They possess parts of Iraq and Syria; hence ISIS is the correct name for them.
The “L” in ISIL is somebody’s translation “Levant” of the term al Sham. It refers to the designations Bilad al Sham and Bilad al Yemen, literally the Land on the Left, and the Land on the Right, referring to the area roughly Syria and the area roughly Yemen when facing Mecca from the west. The untranslated term is the origin of the term ISIS. They are deliberately patterning themselves on the Rashidun Caliphate, up to and including the name of the founder. That Caliphate was the only Islamic State when it reigned.
This thread could use some Cindy comments to punch it up a bit! Where are ya, Cindy?
What horseshit. Sure, our policies are idiotic, naive and interventionist and conflicted and heavyhanded. But to assert that we are just aching for a fight in the mideast is ridiculous. Also, to assert that we can’t defeat ISIS militarily quite easily is just ignorant.
ISIL has about 15,000 troops, and the officer corp are old Baathists who bring professional logistics and planning and order to their efforts. But their forces are primitive and not even anywhere near the capability that say Saddam’s regular army had – who we killed tens of thousands of in 3 days while incurring more deaths from traffic accidents than convoys.
These forces are far too spread out and where they are clustered they are not in hardened bunkers. Their supply lines are completely vulnerable as well. Air power can decimate such a force. A concentrated air campaign is not just about bombers. In fact, A-10s and AC-130s could do huge damage to any exposed fighters or supply lines. They have no real anti-aircraft defenses nor do they have much armor to speak of. They do have artillery, but it is no threat to us in any event.
If we were to launch some kind of attack, thinking back to 9/11 and 2003 in Iraq would be a mistake. You see, on 9/11 we had 2500 spec forces operators across all our services. Today? We have 50,000. We could take these guys out in a matter of weeks. The lesson really is about how spec forces operated in Afghanistan and Iraq – tens of thousands of operations, dozens every night, going out and hunting these guys down.
This doesn’t mean all will be well afterwards. I think we should simply leave the region and see how brilliantly these peaceful people run their own ship. And if some morons get on TV cutting our people’s heads off and leaders of some dimwitted religious fanatics get on TV and threaten us – we should go back and kill every last one of them who do so. And then leave again.
Now, I’m smart enough to know that Barack Obama couldn’t fight his way out of a wet paperbag. And that our entire foreign policy is a joke. So who knows how this will turn out. But the hyperbole in this article is laughable.
But I was winning!No trulaine.
The Intercept sucks when it cuts off comment so quickly on a subject. Like we all have a 1 gigabyte internet connection at home. You want me to read your stuff, or is this just for the rich yuppies with lots of bucks. I use a library internet connection and I will bet you, just like the filthy rich, don’t give a damn about what I think!
This reminds me of this Civilization 2 reddit post:
http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_playing_the_same_game_of_civilization_ii/
Especially the bit about spies w/nukes being the only way for the nations to damage each others’ cities.
According to the “Art of War”…….this article represents what type of informational “ground”..?
Boomerang 101, 404, 901
“We’ve always been at war with ….”
Orwell
I’ve been reading in certain quarters that the fake Foley decapitation was a false flag propaganda stunt to prompt war.
But I think it could just as likely been a ploy to drive Ferguson off page 1 – the stunt emerged just as the National Guard was called it.
To the warnings that excessive drone use, the Guantanamo fiasco, and the West’s fascist treatment of the Middle East, including the refusal to criticize Israel would encourage MORE folks to join Muslim extremists(Al Qaeda etc.) the corporate media and leadership sneered.
Of course, they do not care…their careers and war profits are more important to them than either the good of the world in general or the good of their own nations.
Congratulations, idiots, on doing the impossible…making hard line communism look reasonable.
‘The Congress Shall Have Power … to Declare War’
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/the-congress-shall-have-power-to-declare-war/379189/
Mr Obama, the great orator and visiting guest lecturer on the subject of US Constitutional Law, has essentially made much ado about the little he has to offer to this nation in the realities of real law. In fact his adherence to the letter of the law is nothing short of abysmal. Instead he has fallen all over his feet and now proclaims his interpretations of the law are secret, and his public policies are about “not messin’ up” – too much. In my day the next step he might make would be, back up and punt, and it is now his second down, and he does not have the option of goin’ for a safety. Too bad, so sad.
This American government seems to be so schizophrenic as to which direction it wants to go. Covering lies upon lies is my guess. So imbroiled and sunk into lies, that they forgot where they last placed the truth.
The public must push back against empire at some point. Would the Republicans back impeachment of Obama for violating the constitutional limits like they claim? Or for war crimes with a hit list for drone strikes, even a signature strike on a 16 year old American citizen? War crimes may not appeal to neocons. Do Republicans really want to clean up the system or just play politics. For Democrats, Obama is like Herod for the Jews, sold them out to the power structure.
One thing is certain, we will never get a chance to vote on these issues. The only solution is to get into the streets and not comply with authority. Look at the civil rights movement. Look at Occupy Wall Street. They pushed the 1%, and we became them by absorbing it. Look at Ferguson and the pushback against police militarization. We together can make change but not by voting. We simply must exercise our rights collectively, before they are snuffed out.
Please ,the demoncrats are just as corrupt as the rethuglicans.They all sold out to Zion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/world/middleeast/american-fighting-for-isis-is-killed-in-syria.html?_r=0
Had the architects of the Iraq War served during wartime themselves, or had children serving in the military, perhaps the administration would have better understood the costs of the conflict it chose to create. The four main architects of the Iraq War did not fight their generation’s war in Vietnam. Cheney accepted numerous deferments during the Vietnam War: in his own words, he “had other priorities in the ’60s than military service.” Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard–which, it was clear, would not be called for service in Vietnam. Wolfowitz never served, while Rumsfeld spent three years on active duty during peacetime.
Patrick J. Murphy
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
The US has long history of supporting groups by providing weapons and training only to have to fight the same groups years later. Remember Saddam Hussein? Trained and armed by the CIA.
Do they still teach history in America? Seems not.
Fortunately, thanks to electronic media, our attention spans are becoming ever shorter. So we can repeat history at a faster rate; just last year the US was proposing to bomb Assad and now it is proposing to bomb the insurgents. Previously this might have caused severe cognitive dissonance, but now hardly anyone raises an eyebrow (except for a few disgruntled sourpusses who don’t understand the difference between good insurgents and bad insurgents*).
You say that like it’s a bad thing. To militarily occupy a strategic area of the world, you need a continual supply of fresh opponents.
Of course they do, although naturally it must be suitably whitewashed. Teaching the glorious history of Americans defending freedom around the world is the best way to get new army recruits.
*Good insurgents are mainly imaginary and we can mourn their loss and berate ourselves for not providing them with enough material support. Bad insurgents are real.
“To militarily occupy a strategic area of the world, you need a continual supply of fresh opponents.”
To feel safe at all you need battle honed soldiers, even if you have to start a war to get them. Looting the world could be risky business in some locations.
We are a very sick nation.
Glenn,
Very good article today in the French “le Canard Enchainé” (famous weekly satirical paper) Title is:
Yesterday enemies become Obama’s new allies : forgotten, insults and warlike purposes; Bachar, Poutin and the Iranian Rohani join the anti-Jihad coalition under US management. With on its side the oil monarchies which financed those Islamics… LOL
Glenn,
Very good article today in the French “le Canard Enchainé” (famous weekly satirical paper): Title is:
Yesterday enemies become Obama’s new allies : forgotten, insults and warlike purposes; Bachar, Poutin and the Iranian Rohani join the anti-Jihad coalition under US management. With on its side the oil monarchies which financed those Islamics… LOL
The U.S. response to two of its enemies fighting should be, “do nothing”. Or hey, try something new, Diplomacy.
Great points, but I don’t think we even know what diplomacy is any more; we use it so rarely it’s become a rusty relic. War is our pre, during, and post game, and should we ever try to break that cycle we’ll have another war just as a refresher course.
The economics of war, ca. 1930. Smedley Butler’s dollar values need adjustment for inflation but the underlying axioms still seem valid.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm
“underlying axioms still seem valid.”
That it does coram nobis.
“WELL, it’s a racket, all right.
A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can’t end it by disarmament conferences. You can’t eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can’t wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.
The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted.”
“So capital won’t permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.”
“A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.”
“To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.
We must take the profit out of war.
We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.
We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.”
Equally applicable today.
Amen
Should be required reading, for everyone, everywhere.
Sorry if this posts twice, but should be required reading for everyone, everywhere.
Inflation calculator: Here is an example: If you purchased an item in 1920 for $100.00 the price in 2014 would be $1,191.25. Cumulative rate of Inflation: 1091.3%
Holy crap!
“But the only clear lesson from all of this is that no matter the propagandistic script used, U.S. military action in that region virtually never fulfills the stated goals (nor is it intended to do so), and achieves little other than justifying endless military action for its own sake.”
…
“How long before we hear that U.S. military action is needed (again) in Libya to restrain the chaos and extremism unleashed by the NATO intervention in Libya? Does anyone really believe that “limited” bombing of Syria and Iraq in a rage against ISIS will result in anything other than more justifications for military action in that region?”
Perpetual war is both a means to an end and end unto itself. Muslim on Muslim violence (Sunni vs Shiite) is the Ideal means by which the aims of Transnational Capital interests can be best realized:
1. It is provides a steady stream of revenue for arms manufacturers
2. It allows for the endless expansion of NATO
3. It creates an ongoing need for the U.S. Military industrial and intelligence complex
4. It simultaneously erodes Sunni and Shiite culture and commercial infrastructure
5. It significantly reduces targeted Muslim populations (Short and long term)
6. It creates a need for foreign capitol investment to facilitate rebuilding in war torn areas. In turn, Foreign Capitol investment allows for the imposition of culturally transforming preconditions that further undermine the philosophical integrity (cultural identity) of Muslim culture. Loans acquired from Global lenders go directly to a select group of transnational corporate interests who have shrewdly lobbied for the type of foreign policy that allows them to be best positioned to capitalize from the transformational chaos of war.
7. It allows for ready access to natural resources that are deemed vital to sustaining America’s economic well-being.
If there is one governing principle that governs US foreign policy in the Mideast it is that of a New Ordo Ab Chao!
“You can not make an omelette without breaking eggs.” — Robespierre, mastermind of the French Reign of Terror
Current Chaos has potential to lead to a New World Order: Kissinger | Charlie Rose
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Okhua1Gfzc#t=173
“It will take time to restore chaos and order—but we—order out of chaos.”
—Bush, speaking to reporters about the situation in Iraq
Source: Federal Document Clearing House
Definitively expressed, `Wilhelmina.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/19/why-spy-on-everybody-because-you-need-th
This is just history repeating itself — as it always does, from week to week, month to month, year to year, decade to decade, no matter what the so-called great powers if the day say or want: a small group or tribe or religion — the Mongols, Aztecs, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hebrew, Greeks, Romans, English, American independence revolutionaries, etc., all started as small groups that exploded into global prominence and power usually via the sword. ISIS and its bastardized version of Islam is no different: Just history repeating itself.
Details leaking out suggest that ISIS and the major military ‘surge’ in Iraq – and less so in neighboring Syria – is being shaped and controlled out of Langley, Virginia, and other CIA and Pentagon outposts as the next stage in spreading chaos in the world’s second-largest oil state, Iraq, as well as weakening the recent Syrian stabilization efforts.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-in-iraq-a-cia-nato-dirty-war-op/5388486
The Obama administration is currently deploying “missile defense” (MD) systems in Turkey, Romania, Poland and on Navy destroyers entering the Black Sea. The NATO military noose is tightening around Russia.
Russia has the world’s largest deposits of natural gas and significant supplies of oil. The US has recently built military bases in Romania and Bulgaria and will soon be adding more in Albania. NATO has expanded eastward into Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, right on Russia’s border. Georgia, Ukraine, Sweden and Finland are also on the list to become members of the cancerous NATO.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pentagons-strategy-for-world-domination-full-spectrum-dominance-from-asia-to-africa/5397514
Continually, the notion that “American public opinion” stopped the attack on Syria over the chemical weapons problem is offered as though American opinion really does make a difference. This is a romance that needs the ice bucket challenge. What happened is that John “loose lips” Kerry opined there was no diplomatic solution, hence the US must attack, and Vladimir Putin immediately leaped on this statement and offered a diplomatic solution. By then the Brits had refused to do anything and Obama was standing alone in the doorway. At this point he withdrew, sensing it was politically to his advantage. To think that all the American public’s caterwauling was the reason is truly naïve. We have NOTHING to do with policy.
>”We have NOTHING to do with policy.”
Well then … lets just say Putin was acting on our behalf and call it even. %^)
*the ‘diplomatic solution’ Putin put forth, iirc, was that the US justification for imminent attack on Syrian forces , as opposed to attacking some Syrain ‘rebels’ today (h/t Greenwald, Glenn.) … was quite spurious (h/t suave donger & F.W. Meyers.)!
The conversations continue without the acknowledgement that the evidential details of the historical events shaping our world are in dispute. Do we really know what happened in Gouta, to MH17, or on 9/11? No, yet the alt media and MSM alike carry on as if the presumptions can be taken as facts, and those who question can be written off as revisionists.
It is an expedient attitude toward reality itself!
Remember to use your forgettery, as Prof Curtin reminds us:
‘Why is there such a vast ignorance of the truth behind national and international affairs?
I would suggest that the answer lies not just with the specific issues themselves and the lies and propaganda used to befuddle the American people, but with the cultural and social background that frames Americans’ thinking. The latter serves to cut to the root people’s belief in their own power to think freely and clearly about the former.’
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Use-Your-Forgeterry-To-Rem-by-Edward-Curtin-Attention_Brainwashing_Brainwashing_Culture-140818-895.html
Yes,Zionism.
The Intercept, driving the stake through the US propaganda and bullshit machine since 2014!! BAM! That’s all ill say. I am so glad this website can articulate what so many of us would love to say to those who claim “we need to destroy ISIS” or go get the “terrorists”. Do they even realize how loosely that term is thrown around anymore and what actually qualifies someone to be a “terrorist”? Its like they completely through out the actual definition of that word and just with however it is interpreted by the public, which, shouldn’t need to be said, isn’t making the foreign policy decisions in this country and luckily so. All it would take it some pentagon correspondent on MSNBC to say “these are the “terrorists” we must get them!” and the majority of people happily gobble that up as fact and follow suit. Its unreal. Very few think for themselves anymore but a lot more are starting to which is why the US didn’t follow through on airstrikes in Syria last year. We weren’t fooled then and hopefully we wont be this time around. I will not stand for my brother being deployed because the US bankers & corporations money making machine needs to be sustained. Its sickening. No Honor in that.
Obama might have been a brilliant law student, but both on the domestic and international fronts he’s shown that he hasn’t a clue on how to tackle the many challenges. On the other hand, he’s probably just doing what the extant powers tell him to do–just like his predecessors, and like those who’ll follow him in office.
Did they release his grades?If not,just what makes you think he’s brilliant?I see a black hole.(he aint black,no way,he is a baby doc duvalier))
Mr. Greenwald
This is certainly another US-centric article.
If the US is cooperating with the Assad regime as is reported at the end of your article, then this lays bare the complexities of political situation in the Middle East today. Technically, the US is supporting the Syrian rebels who are fighting the ISIS as well. None the less, this move by the US will strengthen the Assad regime. Supporting the brutal, anti-democratic Assad regime (at least for the time being) is the same as supporting the “old order” of authoritarian rulers in the Middle East. Egypt and the United Arab Emirates are also cooperating to bomb the Islamists in Libya. Saudi Arabia supported the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood by the Egyptian military. So the Islamists who have risen from the ashes of the Arab Spring have suddenly become the biggest threat to Middle East dictators. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary people have died to change the status quo in the past five years so this is another setback for democratic change. The old order of the Middle East may be regaining their footing with the cooperation of world powers including the US and Russia.
Currently, the US (rightly) is bombing the ISIS in Iraq to protect the Kurdish population and the new government in Iraq. The US sought a new government in Iraq because Maliki (like Morsi in Egypt) politically marginalized part of the population which directly led to the Iraqi Sunni population supporting the ISIS. Thus, the new government in Baghdad must reach out to the Iraqi Sunnis if the ISIS is to be defeated. Iraq requires a political solution to resolve. Obama is entirely correct on that front. There will be no easy way to root the ISIS fighters out of cities they control like Mosel without Iraqi (not US) boots on the ground which could be a very long and bloody campaign.
The Assad regime and the ISIS both represent modern day evil. In this case, two wrongs make a right: both are cancers that need to be removed from the Middle East. Assad has been cited by the UN and human rights organizations for numerous war crimes. Assad is responsible for the civil war raging in Syria which has killed over 200,000 people and opened the door for the ISIS by forcing the Syrian democracy movement to take up arms against the regime after a brutal crackdown (same story in Libya by the way). The ISIS is a racist Islamic terrorist organization attempting to resurrect the Caliphate using terrorist tactics to subdue a population. The ISIS exploited the post-civil war politically dysfunctional Maliki government in Iraq and the Assad-initiated civil war in Syria to establish their presence in Iraq and Syria, respectively.
The Assad regime actually has a considerable amount in common with the ISIS. Both are driven by power, and will use any tactic to gain or retain power. Both despise democracy. Neither one cares how many Muslims the US has killed in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya (etc.). Both will kill as many Muslims as necessary to achieve their goals. Both use terrorist tactics in an attempt to subdue the population including wholesale executions of unarmed prisoners and targeting of civilians for political gain (i.e., terrorism). Contrary to Assad’s PR campaign, he is not fighting the “war on terror”. Assad is terror. Secular and Islamic murder leads to the same result.
Finally, the US has not dropped one bomb in Syria yet, so this article is premature in declaring inevitable US military action against the ISIS in Syria. The US could seek a deal to remove Assad from power before cooperating with the Russian-propped up Assad regime. The US still supports the Iraqi rebels and regime change in Syria. That’s a fundamental US foreign policy goal (at the moment).
“……..Now the Obama administration and American political class is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the failed “Bomb Assad!” campaign by starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad – the very same side the U.S. has been arming over the last two years…….”
You need to cite evidence that the US has been supplying weapons to the ISIS, Mr. Greenwald.
I have waiting for that evidence as well, but his followers only send me reports and articles of the US government providing limited military and humanitarian support to rebel groups that have been involved in fighting against ISIS.
The US held off arming the rebels for the first two critical years of the war because of the jihadists in Syria. So it seems unlikely that the US sent weapons to the Jihadists i.e., the ISIS. One never knows for certain, however, since the US supports the removal of Assad.
>”One never knows for certain, however, since the US supports the removal of Assad.”
Good point Craig. Conspiracies abound on us policies… btw, have you taken a gander recently at those APCs, tanks and hummers those whacked-out (by all accounts!) ISIS/L dudes are driving?
*also, how do you figure bombing ISIS/L to hell and back will in some way remove Hitler …er … I mean Assad from power?
“…….also, how do you figure bombing ISIS/L to hell and back will in some way remove Hitler …er … I mean Assad from power?……”
I don’t which is what I said in my first post. It will (unfortunately) strengthen Assad by eliminating some of his opposition (IMO).
Yes, conspiracies do abound, but I have yet to see any evidence that the US supplied weapons to the jihadists (contrary to what Greenwald implied).
Thanks
@CraigSummers
We effectively provide materiel to jihadis in two ways:
1) We supply petrodollars to the oil dictatorships of the Arabian Peninsula. They supply materiel to many groups — some of which work against us actively, others not so much. None of them are Eagle Scouts.
One petrostate has been particularly supportive of hardline, bona fide jihadis in (nearly?) all the post-Arab Spring conflicts: Qatar. It has been notably absent from your letters on this topic. Not surprisingly, its activities do not jive with your narrative about the region. Turkey is often quietly supporting our enemies du jour as well. Much of this decades-old jockeying between states roughly follows the patterns it did during the Cold War. I suspect that it was as much a scam then as it is (clearly) now.
2) We constantly lavish equipment, armaments and sundries like training on our allies-of-the-moment. They fold like wet paper, and our $billions worth of military support then falls into the hands of our enemies. It’s Saigon, c. 1975, on endless loop replay. After 40 years, our foreign policy elites certainly know to expect it; they provide assessments to our political leadership that have to include it. However, our patterns of engagement in volatile regions never change.
The only rational way to look at it is to determine who benefits.
Thanks Fluffy for the great response. Nothing in the Middle East is simple politically. The US has been at odds recently on policy with various allies including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel. As you mentioned, Qatar has especially supported the jihadists and it’s all a part of the regional conflict pitting Iranian and Saudi influence and interests (Shia and Sunni). The simple, but powerful revolt by the Arab people demanding a greater say in their governments captivated the world. Unfortunately, it has been complicated and overshadowed by the regional conflicts and the rise of the jihadists. Nothing seems to ring truer in the Middle East than the enemy of my enemy is my friend. For example, Egypt (under al-Sissi) and Saudi Arabia support Israel and oppose Hamas (which is supported by Iran!).
Greenwald may try to simplify the regional conflicts into US policy, but the US is just one player in the region (albeit a powerful one) that is being torn apart by multiple interests which the US simply cannot control (like Syria, for example).
The one comment that stands out more the any other, however, is the reference to “post-Arab Spring” conflicts. It’s premature to call the Arab Spring over. Nothing happens overnight, and too much blood has been spilled by normal Arab people fighting for a say in their government. It’s not over by a long shot in my opinion.
I just watched Argo for the third time. Great movie if you get a chance to watch it.
Thanks.
The Craig,
When did you start referencing propagandized pap??
Oh, wait..
[snip]
‘The Americans never resisted the idea of playing a film crew, which is the source of much agitation in the movie. (In fact, the “house guests” chose that cover story themselves, from a group of three options the CIA had prepared.) They were not almost lynched by a mob of crazy Iranians in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, because they never went there. There was no last-minute cancellation, and then un-cancellation, of the group’s tickets by the Carter administration. (The wife of Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor had personally gone to the airport and purchased tickets ahead of time, for three different outbound flights.) The group underwent no interrogation at the airport about their imaginary movie, nor were they detained at the gate while a member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard telephoned their phony office back in Burbank. There was no last-second chase on the runway of Mehrabad Airport, with wild-eyed, bearded militants with Kalashnikovs trying to shoot out the tires of a Swissair jet.
All that is supposed to be dramatic license, “just a movie,” “based on a true story” vs. actually attempting to tell the truth. I get it. But I’m less concerned with the veracity of individual details than with the fact that “Argo” uses its basis in history and its mode of detailed realism to create something that is entirely mythological. It’s a totalizing fiction whose turning points are narrow escapes and individual derring-do designed to foreground Affleck and his star power (instead of the long, grinding work of Canadian-American collaboration behind the scenes that made the real rescue possible), an adventure yarn whose twists raise your pulse rate but keep the happy ending clearly in view. It turns a fascinating and complicated true story into a trite cavalcade of action-movie clichés and expository dialogue, leaving us with an image of the stoical American hero (or the Mexican-American hero played by a white guy, anyway) framed in a doorway with a blonde in his arms and the flag flapping behind him. I’m not being metaphorical, by the way; that’s the final shot of Mendez’s homecoming scene..’
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/18/why_argo_doesnt_deserve_the_oscar/
The ziomedia said they have American howitzers,but didn’t say where they got them from,of course,as it would hurt the narrative if the truth came out that we supplied them.Of course they’ll say they ripped them off from more moderate rebels.Serial liars lie serially.
Craig – This looks like an interesting alternate way of connecting the dots, I’ll have to read this later when I have time.
Steb: 1. Again, the article does not name ISIS in the context you imply, it talks about “sides”, in this case “those fighting against Assad”, which would include both ISIS and other groups. 2. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t mean to sound presumptuous, but the commenters here are people who happened to read the same article you did and write a comment about it – no one is obligated to run fetch you evidence because you disagree with something you read. I think you’re just interpreting that statement in a different way than was intended, but if you think there’s a factual error in the article, why don’t you email someone at The Intercept directly instead of grousing at others here?
1) The US government has specifically targeted ISIS for the bombing campaign. Again they are multiple groups in Syria that are fighting Assad and are fighting against themselves. For instance, the Free Syrian Army has made it clear it wants to topple Assad by any means necessary, but it has never shown any interest in invading Irak and massacring Shias, Christians and others in that sovereign state. ISIS has a different agenda that also includes going to Irak and other countries to set up a Caliphate. Again, Mr Greenwald is very good at brushing the complexity of Middle East conflicts in order to raise his anti American views. Stating that the US government is arming the side it was arming is beyond misleading. Mr Greenwald who spends time bashing the American media should know better and clarifies his point.
2) READ my first comment before you judge me. I specifically asked Mr Greenwald to provide us with evidence that the US government was arming ISIS. I did not ask you nor anybody else to provide me with anything. Yet, other readers who support him are the ones who sent me reports and articles to back Mr Greenwald’s accusations. Scroll down the page to see for yourself. These readers must be ready to feel the heat as they voluntarily replied to my comments without any substance. If you have some decency you would apologize for your second point as it is factually incorrect.
Here is another relevant question: Why is the United States doing an $11 BILLION arms deal with Qatar???:
http://www.independentsentinel.com/obamas-11-billion-arms-deal-with-terror-sponsoring-nation-of-qatar/
Complexity;the only complex is the Zio one of superiority belied by their abjectly inferior people skills.Take out the gilded splinter of Israeli hegemony,and the world moves on in a more peaceful direction.
And even in Ukraine,the Zionist are the ones stirring the sh*t,as every warmonger is Zionist paid or a member of the borg.
1) The US government has specifically targeted ISIS for the bombing campaign. Again they are multiple groups in Syria that are fighting Assad and are fighting against themselves. For instance, the Free Syrian Army has made it clear it wants to topple Assad by any means necessary, but it has never shown any interest in invading Irak and massacring Shias, Christians and others in that sovereign state. ISIS has a different agenda that also includes going to Irak and other countries to set up a Caliphate. Again, Mr Greenwald is very good at brushing the complexity of Middle East conflicts in order to raise his anti American views. Stating that the US government is bombing the side it was arming is beyond misleading. Mr Greenwald who spends time bashing the American media should know better and clarifies his point.
2) READ my first comment before you judge me. I specifically asked Mr Greenwald to provide us with evidence that the US government was arming ISIS. I did not ask you nor anybody else to provide me with anything. Yet, other readers who support him are the ones who sent me reports and articles to back Mr Greenwald’s accusations. Scroll down the page to see for yourself. These readers must be ready to feel the heat as they voluntarily replied to my comments without any substance. If you have some decency you would apologize for your second point as it is factually incorrect.
Steb –
As to point one, this seems tangential. We were discussing whether or not there was a factual error in the article. I don’t think there is, if read the way I described. Whether or not you think it’s a good argument, while important, is another topic.
On point two – I am not referencing your OP, I am referencing the fact that you seem to see the validity of Greenwald’s argument as contingent upon whether or not his ‘followers’ provided you with the evidence you wanted. Otherwise, why remark on it at all? The answer to the question you asked exists independent of commenter response. Perhaps I am overly sensitive on that point, though, as I once ended up on someone’s blog for a comment I made about an article, with the tone that I must have been representing the author of said article, which annoyed the shit out of me. It was a particularly creepy blog, too. Anyways, this reads as similar thinking, but I may have jumped the gun.
Great points. Greenwald tends to focus his attention on two countries – Israel and the US. If it’s not connected to these two countries, you won’t find it in the Intercept. Thus Russian soldiers getting caught in Ukraine is a non story. Russia supplied separatist downing a passenger jet killing 300 people is a non story. The kidnapping of 300 girls in Nigeria by Boko Haram is a non story and so on.
Thanks.
Just because the serial lying MSM sets the parameters of ISIS bellicosity and depredation,doesn’t mean its true,and anyone with a discerning eye not corrupted by tribal or heretical religious views should believe the opposite,or at least view their claims with caution and not eat them as gospel.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Thanks
Yeah – I hope I didn’t come off as too rude or anything Steb. While we disagree on some points, you seem like a smart and well-informed person, there are a ton of smart and well-informed people on this site that I’m sure you’d enjoy debating with. It adds some spice to the comments section to read exchanges between people with different views, after all.
Most people realize that just because Glenn doesn’t write about an issue, that doesn’t make the issue a non story; not even, necessarily, a non story to Glenn. You would have to ask him specifically about that if you’d care enough to do so. But your declaration that because Glenn, for reasons of his own, doesn’t choose to write about something for publication, that makes that something a non story is some weird thinking. Probably coming from someone who has the proverbial (cliche 1) hard on for [name your target]. I’m going to allow myself two cliches in a row here, because you’ve earned it. Have you ever considered Getting Yourself a Life, CraigSummers?
I always appreciate your opinion, Kitt.
Thanks.
Craig. Is your real name Jennifer Psaki? :-)
Ha! She seems far too nice to pose as craigsummers.
Was that a NO?
Yes. That was a no
Thank you.
People who lie and people die because of it,are not nice people,no matter their gender or pretty faces.(I have no idea what that asshole looks like,its just the modus operandi to put pretty faces in news desks to spread poison)
Don’t know where you come from Craig Summers, whether some brand of Hasbara or just a Kool-Aid drenched neoliberal. Neither Saddam nor Gaddafi nor Assad were as bad as the campaigns to demonize them made them out. Those campaigns were intended to prepare the US population for the coming subversion of those regimes and the follow-on US interventions and regime overthrow.
The supposed brutality of those Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad was clearly the legitimate police response to both home-grown and foreign-sponsored (CIA, US NED, and USAID) rebellions. Once the CIA has fomented an uprising, the the DOD comes in, under the cynical and fraudulent cover of R2P, to “protect” the “Peaceful demonstrators from the “brutal dictator”. It’s a load of crap which worked once, in Libya, and is now seen clearly for the flimsily disguised aggression that it is. Nuland in Ukraine ended the charade, and fooled no one.
GHW Bush suckered Saddam into Kuwait so Iraq — the most advanced and stable Arab country in the mideast — could be destroyed for Israel. Then, Cheney/Bush, stupidly, for profit and ego, invaded and destroyed what was left of Iraq and middle eastern stability, again, for Israel. Gaddafi, a revolutionary hero for Libya and Africa, who had used Libya’s oil to give Libyans a magnificent standard of living, opposed Israel and US hegemony, so he had to go. So Hillary, S.Rice, and S. Powers took up where Cheney/Bush left off, stirred up trouble used it as the excuse to turn Libya into a hell hole. But the “grown-ups” saw the pattern, and when it was Syria’s turn, Putin said “No. Assad stays.” The US, neocons, EU, Qataris, Saudis, and Turks stuck with the program, because Plan B: savage Syria even if Assad remains, is still favorable to Israel. And then too, the sarin gas false-flag ploy worked perfectly to strip Assad of his chemical weapons — his defensive strategic deterrent against Israel — so there’s at least that.
That’s what’s happening Craig, not your Kool-Aid-fueled fiction.
Assad is the stabilizing force in Syria, the US, Israel, and their creation ISIS are the terrorists, and you, Craig, are their Baghdad Bob.
“…….Assad is the stabilizing force in Syria…..”
Nothing above the intelligence of a doorknob could say that with a straight face. If you had just put that sentence first, you could have saved me the trouble of reading the rest of your garbage.
Baghdad Bob…….hilarious……you just kill me Jeff.
Really Craig? ISIS rose from “the ashes of the arab spring?” Your willful mendacity craig is sometimes amusing to the informed.
“…….Your willful mendacity craig is sometimes amusing to the informed……”
Speak about disqualifying yourself.
From Jacob Hornberger, a moving plea for non-intervention:
“What better confirmation of the manifest failure of the philosophy of foreign interventionism than the renewed U.S. bombing of Iraq?
Just think: All those hundreds of thousands of dead, maimed, detained, and tortured Iraqis, along with those who lost their homes, businesses, and savings. They were all bombed and shot by U.S. troops for nothing. All those Iraqis suffered and died for nothing.
The same holds true, of course, for U.S. soldiers who died or came back maimed or all screwed up in the head. The ones who lost their lives died for nothing. The ones who came back physically handicapped or mentally disturbed are suffering for nothing.
How can anyone still be an interventionist after what has happened in Iraq?”
[snip]
“…think back to the Persian Gulf War, when the Pentagon ordered the destruction of Iraq’s water and sewage treatment plants, knowing that such destruction would bring infectious illnesses in its wake? And it did. That’s what helped kill all those children, given that the sanctions prevented Iraqi officials from repairing those water and sewage treatments plants that the Pentagon had destroyed.
How can such a thing not be described as evil?”
[snip]
“If the Iraq fiasco has taught us anything, it is that evil means produce evil results. Just ask anyone who is now calling on the U.S. national-security state to drop more bombs on Iraq in order to combat evil.”
http://fff.org/2014/08/26/the-evil-of-u-s-aggression-against-iraq/
Nothing?They died for Israeli expansion and American energy.
Why is United States and Britain and some other Western democracies prefer and launched wars all the time?; why is war the only policy instruments they have in resolving disputes?. And if you look at these wars they were always against their former allies and stooges. The brutalities and crimes committed in these wars have never been accounted and paid for. These wars of aggression in the name of human rights and freedom turned these affected countries into misery and poverty for years. The United States and their “international community” have turned the United Nations into a lapdog of Western policy instruments. Its time we have a multi polar power centres in the world and move United Nations headquarter to Geneva in Switzerland.
>”The United States and their “international community” have turned the United Nations into a lapdog of Western policy instruments.”
Insightful observation. U.S. foreign policy today and the ‘international community’ who support it, usually some combination of the ‘5 eyes’, is beginning to resemble a private club, imo.
That’s an extremely dangerous position for everyone on the planet, imo, if those ‘policies’ are unjustified (& in the case of Iraq, unjustifiable), infringe upon the sovereignty of other Nation/States (e.g. the ‘global war on terror’) and/or directly undermines, or directly interferes with, the functioning cohesiveness of the global community (i.e. the ‘other’ 188+/- nations) as a whole.
Most alarming, that self-centered trend in U.S. foreign policy, so pronounced in the Bush admin., has only been …uh … refined by the Obama administration.
*I don’t think moving UN HQ to Switzerland will help much. … and I’m quite disappointed with Ban Ki Moon’s leadership so far.
Moon is a SK native,dependent on US muscle to keep NK at bay in their civil war.Corrupt as bernie madoff.
As in nearly every human endeavor, follow the money. War profiteering is as old as war.
Smedley Butler, once in line to be Commandant of the Marine Corps and a two-time Medal of Honor winner, wound up convinced that War is a Racket (free on line). It should be required that behind every politician pounding the war drums on air a map of the defense contractors in his district (preferably with dollar amounts) be prominently displayed. A lot of people would finally see the light
Now the Fun of Empire is upon us, the plebs are looking forward for drawing the final “That’s all Folks!” curtain!
We have been duped by the White House deception for a very long time.
You’re wrong though, the US has been arming the moderate opponents of Assad, they haven’t armed ISIS. The entire article is based on false information
From the department of serendipity, today the UN reported on Assad’s repeated use of chemical weapons. (and IS war crimes too)
So I guess the question is, which existential threat is now our ally?
What do you suggest as a solution to the Middle East problem then Mr Greenwald? Sit back, let IS gain resources, territory and strength so they can mount an attack on the West? No thanks. Typical journalists, they can criticise but they can’t offer a better solution themselves.
I personally prefer to stop wasting military resources on the region. Instead, build a giant wall around the region. Let the savages murder each other in the name of their backward, absolutist religion. Once they’re gone, move in and pump out the oil left there. The rest of the world can then live happily ever after.
The Israelis maybe backward,but they aint religious.
“I personally prefer to stop wasting military resources on the region. Instead, build a giant wall around the region. Let the savages murder each other in the name of their backward, absolutist religion. Once they’re gone, move in and pump out the oil left there. The rest of the world can then live happily ever after.”
Um…your plan amounts to wishing for unicorns to shit magic bricks from which this presumably impassable, indestructible wall would be built, a wall that, moreover, could not be scaled or tunneled under. As for the rest of the world “living happily ever after,” you really DO believe in magic unicorns, don’t you?
I agree 100%. Just make sure to start the wall somewhere near Texas. The world needs a little break from the American Gospel of Bomb Bomb Bomb.
The Canadian(WTF has happened up there?) NATO contingent spoofed Russia by printing colored maps showing what is Russia and what is not,they failed to color in Kaliningrad,and failed to note American troops all over the world that’s not our territory.
What a bunch of morons,led by morons.
Yes, I am asking for unicorns here. It’s still a far more reasonable and practical suggestion than to divest entirely from the Middle East, allow the IS to inevitably attack the West and cripple the economy with the double whammy of a lack of oil and a massive terrorist attack.
Given that “do nothing” is clearly not an option, are there any better ideas than “cripple IS with military strikes”? If not, I’m happy to go with that option, altruistic intentions or not.
The Kurds have a spine, but unless ‘the west’ lays off that entire region is doomed.
What a goddamn mess! This is starting to smell just like Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, we armed the opposition to topple the ‘puppet soviet backed regime’, and what did we get? The Taliban!
Now we get the Obama administration saying (of all things) ISIS is an “imminent threat” (Chuck Hagel).
Didn’t Obama just ask congress to ‘give’ the Syrian rebels (“vetted” rebels) $500 million dollars last month? Then what happens? The “vetted” rebels then give the money and arms to Al Nustra (the Al Queda ‘affiliate’) and ISIS and then we get the next Bin Laden that hates our guts. Bang up job you’re doing NSA, DIA, CIA, DOD! We have now officially gone to hell in your handbasket.
The administration started by giving the rebels anti-tank weapons & ‘covert’ training in Jordan. The rebels then allowed ISIS to get these weapons. Now everybody is wondering how they rolled over the Iraqi armed forces. In the words of Charley Sheen: “HUH!
Why doesn’t Obama just pull out all the stops and give the ‘rebels’ neutron howitzers while he’s at it? Then they (the Police State of America) will have a pretext to use nukes against anybody in the region.
The more bipolar President Obama gets and the more weapons he pours into the region, the less we will EVER see peace in the middle east and the more tax billion$ will be pissed down the toilet.
Great article Glen, tell it like it is. The rest of the mainstream media seems to be the lapdog of Obama and Chuck Hagel.
No,Obomba and Hagel are lapdogs of the MSM,their legacy and prospects at the mercy of these serial liars for Zion.
“It’s as though the U.S. knew all along that it wanted to fight a war in Syria, and just needed a little time”
Eric Margolis asks if the orchestrated outrage over Foley the media prelude to direct US intervention in Syria where the jihadists backed by Washington are losing:
“Furthermore, on the same day Foley was allegedly being decapitated, 19 people in Saudi Arabia, a close US ally, were publicly beheaded for various crimes. One of the men was executed for witchcraft. There was no outcry at all over this medieval horror. Saudi Arabia is suspected of charging political opponents of the monarchy with drug offenses, which carry the penalty of beheading by a sword-wielding executioner. Not a peep about this in the US media trumpeting the Foley story.”
“We westerners have a charming and quaint belief that killing people from the air by using bombs, rockets, shells, napalm and cluster munitions – or even nuclear weapons – is somehow not really as bad as ramming a bayonet into an enemy, blowing him to pieces with heavy artillery, or slashing his throat the way sheep are killed
Air warfare is clean. Air warfare is the American way of war.”
An American, Douglas McAuthur McCain, was recently killed in Syria fighting for ISIL … but not beheaded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/world/middleeast/american-fighting-for-isis-is-killed-in-syria.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMedia&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
ABOUT SHILLS AND TROLLS, OH BOY
Or the elite’s workforce of “boys and girls” who will do anything for money. These are the same people who will call your 80 year old grandmother and do everything they could to steal whatever money she might have left. They have put their ethics, morals and their own human heart in a black box and believe that money is their god.
Comment Worth repeating.
“Glenn Greenwald
26 Aug 2014 at 5:35 pm
This article stops disappointingly short. It reaches the point of stating that war in the Middle East is a deliberate US strategy (agree), but then concludes that ‘is the end in itself’. War, as enjoyable and profitable as it may be, is never an end in itself – there is always some larger strategic goal. (BTW not saying this comment is by a shill or troll ~ David)
I see the ambiguity, but when I said that war is an end in itself, I wasn’t at all implying that it has no benefits for those who wage them.
Quite the contrary: I agree, and have often written, that its benefits are power, control and profit. I can’t repeat that argument every time I write about war propaganda, but I agree completely with your point and didn’t intend to suggest otherwise.
By “war is an end in itself,” I simply meant that the US doesn’t wait around for some “justification” for war: a humanitarian crisis, a national security threat, etc. Instead, war itself is the desired goal: for precisely the reasons you said.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All the shills and trolls get paid big bucks to prevent honest people from coming together to find out and discuss the truth and solve problems. I wonder if we could pay them the same amount of money that they get now, if we could get them to help save humanity from those who pay them to destroy humanity?
TROLL ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
“In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]”
SHILL ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
“A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
“Shill” typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. ”
How much, or what, would it take to get the shills and trolls on the side of the “The Good, The True and The Beautiful”? What exactly is their problem? Any suggestions?
Without getting into a lengthy discussion….regarding the shills and trolls of the elite.
Remove the economic incentive. Eliminate the Central Banking Cartel influence (The Federal Reserve) in the United States of America. We can say Hell No to the economic class war of totalitarian rule through use of austerity measures being waged by those very same elites upon people all over the world.
We could all take a lesson right now from Loukanikos…active participant and noble fighter for the people of Greece from 2008 -2011 during the austerity demonstrations. Also known as “The Riot Dog.” Loukanikos knew how to say Hell No. By the way…. as a reward for his efforts, he found a good home when the active protests ended. Unfortunately, the people of Greece were sold out by their leaders to the IMF, World Bank, and Bank of International Settlements because they did not speak up and take action in the peaceful window of opportunity. We the People have little time left in an analogous window of opportunity in the United States of America. Here’s to my kindred spirit Loukanikos.
“Once Upon a Time In Athens The Legend of The Riot Dog”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTXStyb9pdg
The FED;The Zionist pigs piggy bank.
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” -T. Jefferson
The greatest advice on Foreign Policy…
Is it just a coincidence that the Israelis
suddenly agreed to some of the demands
Hamas was making at the same time that
the US is becoming more involved in Iraq and Syria? Did Obama give the order to
settle it so he could focus on the other two
hot spots.
The grass has been mowed. Next mowing will be in a few years.
That’s why they have agreed to demands.
The Israelis laugh,demean and insult their stinking porch monkey.Only when the US govt turns off the money spigot will they listen.
It seems to me that these are all reflections of ‘the process'; once you’ve decided on the foreign policy direction (in relation to a given government/dictator), if you are not on their/his side then begin by demonizing them/him and then assemble ‘coalition'; then arrange ‘sanctions’ and maybe covert actions against them/him and if opportunity arises – overt actions (which might include bombing). That said; ISIS has proved unworthy to ‘govern’ any society and their actions guarantee their ultimate failure. Even though its been said that a bombing campaign alone would be insufficient; I think that it is clear that the boots on the ground will be a coalition of middle eastern people (including Iranians and Hezbollah) and it seems to me that when this scourge has been removed; the rest of the world would do well to recognise and acknowledge their debt.
The only scourges I see are America,Britain France and Israel,as its their stupid counterproductive policies that have led to the Taliban,AlCIAda,and now Isis.Cause and effect,and any tales of alleged brutality by ISIS should be balanced with the absolute surety of Israeli and American provocations.Serial liars lie serially.
It’s all just corporate welfare. You buy arms from American arms manufacturers, to give to your enemy, then you buy more arms to blow up your enemy and their arms. Then you buy more arms again to give to your enemy again. Then you buy more to blow them up again. And so it goes, ad infinitum.
And as bullets give way to simple rockets, then SAMs, drones and even more expensive weaponry, the arms manufacturers make more and more money, and the death toll accelerates faster and faster. Both sides kill more and more with less and less effort, the horror of collateral damage gets more and more easily dismissed. And thus the spiral towards complete inhumanity leads to hell on earth.
What about USA stops being involved in every bodies business all over the world? We probably would not have half the violence and so called terrorism all over the place. But a lot of upperclass would not nearly make the money they do.
I noticed this didn’t show up when I posted it a few hours ago, so at the risk of double posting:
“U.S. military action against the Assad regime was thwarted only by overwhelming American public opinion which opposed it and by a resounding rejection by the UK Parliament of Prime Minister David Cameron’s desire to assume the usual subservient British role in support of American wars.”
You forgot Lavrov: http://bit.ly/1tB2SCo
Not to reduce all US foreign policy decisions to banal bigotry or anything, but they sometimes seems to boil down to “oh well, they all look alike anyway so who cares which ones we bomb”. See also: the West’s and Israel’s shared attitude of “ISIS is fine as long as they behead other Muslims and ignore us”. http://dailym.ai/1qfGJYj
Iran has played the role of Hitler 2.0 for a while now but as soon as they agree to help the US screw over Russia suddenly they’re part of our “willing coalition” (sort of). http://bit.ly/1ld0MHK
Then again, one of the main reasons the West obsesses over Iran (besides Israel’s constant whining and bitching) is that “all roads leave to Moscow” so I suppose none of this should be surprising. If they have Assad and the new(ish) government of Iran cooperating in some fashion then the road might be a little bit clearer, perhaps? Remind me to ask Pepe Escobar.
Anyhoo, good article.
I wonder whether Mr Glennwald truly enjoys bashing the USA. He states :
” Now the Obama administration… starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad – the very same side the U.S. has been arming over the last two years”
Mr Glennwald, would you please provide us with evidence that the US Government has been arming ISIS for the last two years. You have always presented yourself as the defender of the truth. According to you, the US government has been lying to the American people by stating multiple times that their unwillingness to arm Syrian rebels with heavy weaponry is due to the possibility that the weapons might end up in the hands of extremists groups such as the Nusra Front of ISIS. The US government has a history of lying to the American public and it also has a history of telling the truth as well. Since your dedication to the truth should place you above politicians, then show us the evidence please.
“Nobody disputes the brutality and extremism of ISIS, but that is a completely different question from whether the U.S. should take military action against it. To begin with, the U.S. not only ignores, but actively supports, all sorts of brutal and extreme parties in the region”
I apologize if I appear condescending. I believe Mr Gleenwald has a good knowledge of the complexity of Middle East politics. He is just enjoying swimming in his anti American pool too much. So, in the interest of the readers, most of whom will bash me soon because I dare to challenge Mr Glennwald, let me present some facts as I am a defender of the facts and a hater of twisted truth.
The conflict in Irak has its root in religion. Sunnis and Shias have been fighting almost a thousand years before Columbus went to America. Stopping our support for a Sunni dictator, for instance Saddam Hussein who had history of killing other religious sects, to promote and help a democratically elected leader, Mr. Maliki does not mean that the conflict between Sunnis and Shias is over. The Sunnis under prime minister Maliki can testify to that point. Many Shia militias, whose leaders are democratically elected officials, have been committing atrocities against Sunnis since Saddam Hussein left.
According to Mr Glennwald we should not target ISIS because for years we have supported brutal regimes in the area. It is irrelevant to him that these brutal regimes (I am guessing he is referring to many gulf countries) are strongly supported by the main tribes in their society and the so called opposition in these countries does not follow democratic values like Irak has shown us.
“All one has to do is look at the horrific chaos and misery in Libya – the Successful Humanitarian Intervention™ – to know that bombing Bad People out of existence accomplishes little in the way of strategic or humanitarian value”
1) How far in history Mr. Glennwald wants to go? In terms of humanitarian value did life get better for the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others after American and its European allies bombed the Nazis? In terms of humanitarian value, did life get better for the majority of those living in Kosovo after NATO bombed Serbia? In terms of humanitarian value, did life get better for the Kuwaitis after America bombed the Iraki occupying force? In terms of humanitarian value, did life for the Yazidis (for those who were not massacred by ISIS) get better after the US bombed ISIS positions?
2) Mr Glennwald takes pleasure in blaming America for the inability of others to maintain stability and peace in their society. His very narrow minded argument is that America and its European allies are responsible for the inability of the multiple militias in Libya to get together and enjoy the wealth of their country through peace. Are we also responsible for the sectarian conflicts in the Middle East that began more than a thousand years ago?
Please, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me you have an outrage reaction whenever Arabs are killed by US, European or Israeli forces. However, you have a different tone whenever Arabs are killing other Arabs. You believe that the US gives too much support to Israel because too many innocent Palestinians died as a result of IDF operations. However, you do have a problem when the USA is bombing a criminal organization that has already killed thousand of civilians and makes sure that the world knows that it is willingly killing them. A criminal organization unanimously condemned by the United Nations. I am sure you are aware that the elected Iraki government officially requested the US military operation.
So, Mr Glennwald. What would you do about ISIS? Those who believe we should not get involved need to review their historical manuals and see how far former caliphs wanted to go.
Your comment is long, and I surely wasn’t going to bother after right away running into this:
He said, and you quoted, this: ” Now the Obama administration… starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad – the very same side the U.S. has been arming over the last two years.”
This is true: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9918785/US-and-Europe-in-major-airlift-of-arms-to-Syrian-rebels-through-Zagreb.html
Read my statement again and go back to your search of evidence. Mr Grennwald (I apologize for the misspelling) states that the US is bombing the “very same side” it has been arming. You provided evidence that the US has provided and still providing weapons and other aids to the Free Syrian Army.
There are multiple rebel groups in Syria, the Free Syrian Army, Azzam Brigade, Al Nusra Front, ISIS etc… While all of them want to topple the Assad regime many follow different ideologies and many are fighting against each other. The US is bombing the ISIS rebel groups. The US is not bombing the Free Syrian Army that is actually fighting with the ISIS rebel groups. When weapons are shipped in a messy civil war, it is highly possible that some of the weapons would end in the hands for other groups that are not supposed to receive them. For instance, you might see Taliban fighters using weapons shipped to the Afghan army. Does it mean the US is arming the Taliban?
Mr Greenwald carefully presented his article as if the US government was providing weapons to ISIS last year, and decides to bomb the group this month. This is a serious accusation. For somebody who proud himself of being on the side of the truth he needs to do better than relying on articles and news reports that do not even support his case.
Read my statement again and go back to your search of evidence. Mr Grennwald (I apologize for the misspelling earlier) states that the US is bombing the “very same side” it has been arming. You provided evidence that the US has provided and still providing weapons and other aids to the Free Syrian Army.
There are multiple rebel groups in Syria, the Free Syrian Army, Azzam Brigade, Al Nusra Front, ISIS etc… While all of them want to topple the Assad regime many follow different ideologies and many are fighting against each other. The US is bombing the ISIS rebel groups. The US is not bombing the Free Syrian Army that is actually fighting with the ISIS rebel groups. When weapons are shipped in a messy civil war, it is highly possible that some of the weapons would end in the hands for other groups that are not supposed to receive them. For instance, you might see Taliban fighters using weapons shipped to the Afghan army. Does it mean the US is arming the Taliban?
Mr Greenwald carefully presented his article as if the US government was providing weapons to ISIS last year, and decides to bomb the group this month. This is a serious accusation. For somebody who proud himself of being on the side of the truth he needs to do better than relying on articles and news reports that do not even support his case.
Don’t need to. The “side” the U.S. gave money to in Syria is sharing with ISIS. I’ll get links if you like.
What Greenwald wrote is, quite simply, true.
Yes please, provide me and the readers with the links that prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Free Syrian Army is willingly providing weapons obtained from the USA to ISIS. Evidence that are similar to the ones you provided that clearly prove that the US is helping the Free Syrian Army. That would also prove that the multiple fights between the Free Syrian Army and ISIS are just part of a huge theater. It should not be that hard for Mr Greenwald to find such evidence. He has good connections inside the US government that are willing to share secret information to him. So, I am waiting.
As I said, the Syrian rebels are a fluid:
The result has been arming rebels, often means also arming ISIS.
(Please plug text into google box to get links. Posting two of them would possibly cause this post not to appear.)
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/09/free_syrian_army_uni.php#ixzz3Bbu2cGwH
P.S. Your also err in thinking the FSA and ISIS are two entirely separate and monolithic blocs. Actually, the FSA faction is fluid, and members move in and out of ISIS.
Yes please, provide me and the readers with the links that prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Free Syrian Army is willingly providing weapons obtained from the USA to ISIS. Evidence that are similar to the ones you provided that clearly prove that the US is helping the Free Syrian Army. That would also prove that the multiple fights between the Free Syrian Army and ISIS are just part of a huge theater. It should not be that hard for Mr Greenwald to find such evidence. He has good connections inside the US government that are willing to share secret information to him. So, I am waiting.
In that case the debate has changed. Then, you also have to prove the readers beyond reasonable doubt that the violent battles between FSA and ISIS in the towns of Azaz, Atme, Aleppo, and Idlib this year were just a huge theater.
You have shared links providing evidence that members of the FSA have switched sides in the Syrian civil war. Well, I can provide you with this link
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/06/28/Syria-opposition-fighters-expel-ISIS-from-eastern-city-.html
which reports FSA fighters involved in combat operations against ISIS. As I stated, it is a messy civil war.
Your information presents two points:
1) You have still not provided evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the US is providing weapons to ISIS. You have provided evidence of high ranking FSA members warning the world that they will lose their fighters for ISIS because FSA is not getting the help it has been requesting for years. Therefore, those fighters join the most powerful group on the ground: ISIS.
2) You also prove that the US government has told the truth in that case. Government officials have consistently repeated that they are unwilling to provide heavy weaponry that could change the situation on the ground to Syrian rebels, specially FSA because those weapons might end in the hands of extremist groups such as ISIS. You just prove that point!
If you do a quick search you can find all manner of news stories about the U.S. and Saudi Arabia arming Syrian rebels. I found this one in less than two seconds
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626304579509401865454762
and there are plenty more. I don’t think Greenwald really needs to back that one up.
I could go on, but I don’t think it would be worth the effort since you obviously haven’t done your homework. I’m tired of doing other people’s homework.
If I was your teacher, then I would give you an F for your homework that you proud yourself of doing. There are multiple rebel groups in Syria with different ideology. Many of them are fighting against each other. The US has been arming mostly the Free Syrian Army, which is what your articles are referring. The Free Syrian Army has also been fighting against ISIS, which the group that the US is bombing. Mr Greenwald claims the US is bombing the same group it has been arming, then he should provide us evidence that the US has been arming the ISIS rebel group not the Free Syrian Army as the US is not bombing their positions.
Not an English teacher, we hope:
“that you proud yourself of doing”
No. Not an English teacher. Do you have a more intelligent point to share?
Just pointing out the arrogance of your statement, especially as it contained an extremely poor choice of words in the very same sentence. You might want to get that straight before presuming to lecture others.
By the way, you are not in court. Providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is not the threshold for debate here.
You appear to be hung up on the idea that the US might have supported specific terrorists at one time or another. That has happened over and over again and should surprise nobody that it may well be happening again. In fact, it could be easily argued that the US is one of the largest purveyors of terrorism in the world.
Your apparent ankle-biting about one small portion of an article is duly noted. What did you thing about the rest of the article?
1) I think you are very proud of you English skills. Therefore, you should have read your reply again before you sent it as you were keen to give me an English lesson. It should not be difficult for you to notice your obvious mistakes. I apologize to Mr Greenwald and the readers for lowering myself to the level of Mr Kelly who associates an individual’s analytical skills with his grammar. I promise I will not follow his track by engaging in personal attacks in this great debate field.
2) Yes, you are right. This is not a court room. If it was a court room, in which I believe Mr. Greenwald as a lawyer would be more precise in his choice of words, he would be guilty of libel. However, Mr. Greenwald is followed and respected by thousands if not millions of individuals. Some of these followers have the power to vote and choose their leaders. It is very fair to assume that if these followers strongly believe in Mr Greenwald’s views they might pick candidates who are inclined to establish the policies that he promotes regardless of the efficiency of these policies. So, I hold Mr. Greenwald to a higher standard whenever he decides to accuse others of serious crimes and whenever he shares an opinion that could affect the ability of many citizens to make political choices. Crudely stated, if it was you making false accusations I would have completely ignored them as your opinion is insignificant to large amount of voters.
3) When dealing with thousands of dead civilians and genocidal massacres the term “may happening” is not enough for me. All of us, I hope, would be outrage if the US government would send one of us in jail without strong evidence. Then, we must also demand proofs when Mr. Greenwald is accusing the US government of providing weapons to an extremely violent criminal organizations. If he cannot provide simple evidence, then there is no difference between him and the “propaganda” in the media he has been denouncing for years.
4) I shared my opinion on most parts of his article. Make sure you read my first comment again before you judge me.
I would not usually call attention to such an incomprehensible sentence if it did not reek of hypocrisy.
I regularly make mistakes, so there are no high horses in my stable.
So, what did you think of the rest of the article? I noticed you were worried that Glenn Greenwald might influence someone to vote for the wrong person based on his writings. I challenge you to find a more fact-based, or better explained opinion writer anywhere. Please give me the names of your journalistic heroes. There must be some out there that you are not worried about? That would not steer poor gullible readers in the wrong direction? People might vote for the wrong person, after all. This is serious business.
I do not have journalistic heroes. I am a concerned citizen, a tax payer and a voter who believe in the truth and scientific facts. Your point is completely irrelevant to this debate. Mr Greenwald expresses his freedom and we support or challenge him. Again, read my first comment to inform yourself about my opinion on the other parts of the article. If you are unwilling or unable to review my first comment feel free to ignore it instead of directing your energy to personal attacks against me.
I’m genuinely sorry that you find any of my writing to be a personal attack. I do not intend it to be. I am sarcastic and dismissive of ankle biters so perhaps that was what you were referring to? Do not take it personally. You are quite abrasive yourself. A thicker skin might be called for.
As to your first comment … well, there was so much to wade through. I think your first one started with: “I wonder whether Mr Glennwald truly enjoys bashing the USA.” A sure sign of an ankle-biter.
Or if you prefer a different title, perhaps you should give us the name of a large influential country that has done more damage around the world in the last 50 years or so. One that has bombed more other countries. One that has supported more coups against Leftist governments, one that has armed right wing death squads, and invaded other countries based a large vat full of stinking lies. One that has more consistently supported the terrorist right wing regime in Israel. One that has supported more brutal genocidal dictators. One that consistently commits war crimes, and then prosecutes the whistle-blowers who reveal them instead of the criminals who commit them.
It’s a tall order, but a smart guy like you should be able to come up with just one.
Your question is quite simplistic. Firstly, I am not here to defend the US government. I am here to defend the truth. Bombing another country does not necessarily mean a damage to the world. While bombing Vietnam and killing thousands of civilians was bad and immoral, I do not believe bombing ISIS, a violent criminal organization, is damaging to the world. We cannot judge a country by a bombing count. Moreover, in a country such as the USA where leaders are elected we cannot blame president Obama for the CIA coup in Iran. Policies change and evolve over time. The Iranian leadership tells their people that America’s policies has not changed since the 50’s, while the Vietnamese who lost more people under America’s bombing campaign have a different view of reality.
Secondly, as Mr Greenwald usually does. You failed to look at the other side. Unfortunately, the world is not a place where we make a choice between angels and demons. The reality is we have to make a choice between different demons. The way you frame your question suggests that for the last 50 years the US government have consistently picked the brutal regimes, the non democrats, the violent right wing militias versus the democratic, the non violent and the progressive left wing militants. I will not state that supporting the brutal regime of Pinochet was good, but according to multiple well respected human rights organizations Cuba does not have a good record in that area.
Finally, I do not believe, again this is my opinion, that an American citizen should believe that his government has done more damage to the world than any other. The South Koreans, the Poles, the people of Kosovo, Aids patients in Africa, and many others would disagree with that assessment. Not because the US government necessarily decided to help them out of humanitarian concerns, but it just happened the interests of these people matched US policies at certain times.
Evidently you could not come up with a single country that has done more damage than the US in the form of bombing dozens of other countries, overthrowing democracy in dozens of countries, illegal wars etc. I know you would have a hard time with that. It is not really your fault. The truth which, you say you support, is hard. You are not really as concerned with the truth, as you are with your own nationalistic bias. What about my contention that the US did all these things to a far greater degree than any other country? Is that not the truth? If it is not, then please do come up with another country….in fact I will make it easier for you. Pick any 5 countries. Unless that is too simplistic for you? In the future, when you say something is quite simplistic, I will know that it means you can’t answer the question without conflicting with the your “truth”.
Mr Kelly,
You are unwilling to understand my points. You cannot judge a country by the amount of bombing it has done in history. Was it damaging to the world that the US bombed the occupying Iraki forces in Kuwait? Was it damaging to the world that the US bombed Serbian forces to stop the genocidal killings in the Balkans? Is it damaging to the world that the US is bombing ISIS? So, if we go by bombing counts for the last 50 years: two damaging counts, Indochina, and Irak 2003 versus three non damaging bombings would make that country’s policies better?
The Russians did not do a lot of bombings in the last 50 years. However, do I need to enumerate the dictators and non democrats the Russian supported during the Cold War? How many people were murdered and killed in Russia by Stalin, how many were killed in Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Yugoslavia and many others by the Russians’ puppet governments ? Have you heard about the Gulag?
Check the human right records of Soviet backed dictator Siad Barre in Somalia and Idi Amin in Uganda. How many peasants were executed in North Vietnam? How damaging was it for the world to have nuclear weapons stationed in Cuba? How damaging to the world was the Berlin Wall? Should we have supported the angel Dos Santos in Angola like the Soviets did instead of the demons UNITA rebels? Should we have supported the left wing rebels in Columbia, El Salvador…while they were kidnapping, torturing and killing opponents?
China does not bomb other countries, but have you heard about the Chinese Cultural Revolution? Have you heard about the atrocities of Mao?
France did not bomb that many countries. Have you researched their policies in Africa in the last 50 years? Have you heard about Mobutu Seseko? He would not have been able to stay in power without the French.
Iran barely bombed Irak during their last war. However, how damaging is it for the world to have innocent civilians specifically targeted and killed by that government in its war against Zionism?
Talking about illegal wars. Are you watching news about the Ukraine? How many Tibetans died as a result of China’s annexation? How many died as a result of USSR invasion of Afghanistan?
If you want to go by bombing and body counts, then your argument is simplistic and will not hold as being impartial because other countries were responsible for more deaths and more damages to the world. Your argument would actually help the illegal war in Irak in 2003, because the US killed less civilians than Saddam Hussein did and most of those who died afterwards were killed as a result of the conflict between Sunnis and Shias and not by American soldiers.
I am not here to defend US policies as being the most helpful to the world. I am here to state the war in Irak in 2003 was wrong, but the bombing of ISIS is good. Supporting dictators in Africa was wrong, but France and Russia did the same and in some cases their dictators were worst ( in terms of body count since you wish to go that way) However, fighting aids in that continent is very helpful to the world.
“You cannot judge a country by the amount of bombing it has done in history.”
Really? I can, actually. I gave you what should have been an easy task, but you failed miserably. All that pithy word salad coming from you I would have thought you could have come up with a country (or 5) that has done more harm (not just bombing), but you seem to be unwilling or incapable. If I were your teacher….. etc.
“If you want to go by bombing and body counts, then your argument is simplistic and will not hold as being impartial because other countries were responsible for more deaths and more damages to the world.”
This is a very clever debate tactic. First you suggest that I said something that was limited to body counts or bombs dropped, and then you attack that artificially narrowed position….now what do they call that?
I guess we have to agree to disagree.
“I guess we have to agree to disagree.”
Party pooper!
Glen Greenwald just reads the paper. You go off on this mindless screed and you can’t bother to do a google search? There has been mounds of evidence that Saudi Arabia and Qatar has poured tons of arms and men in support. Far more than the US government. You can google search that I hope? This is widely acknowledged. The US has said nothing about it giving them plausible deniability but the US not even mentioning it speaks volumes. There has also been reports of CIA training camps along the Turkish border with Syria. Turkey provided a staging ground for men and troops. The CIA provided training and logistics support. All of this is widely available on the web.
… now that being said. You raise a stink about not providing proof of US support and than you seem to imply that the US support for war in the middle east is a great thing. LOL. You are a very ignorant view of history. Prior to the US encouraged war with Iran, Iraq was a stable country. It was actually one of the most prosperous countries in the middle east with a rather impressive educational and health system. Some of that coming being built and remaining from the British occupation of Iraq. That all came to an end with the Iran and Iraq war. This was a war that was encouraged by the US for the purpose of weakening Iran which through out our vicious dictator the Shah. Glen Greenwald never suggested that US should be responsible for bringing peace to that region. He suggests that the US has been a belligerent empire in that region and caused great harm and bloodshed to that region. What little good the US has done on occasion has been overwhelmed by the monstrous evil policies it has pursued in that region. Specifically the Carter Doctrine policy that declared the Middle East of strategic interest to the US and that the US would use military force to maintain its control of the middle east and its resources. Your completely unbelievable assertion that the US has any humanitarian purposes in the middle east is so laughable it is hard to imagine you are serious. The US public is so against these wars of aggression the NeoCons have been waging is so bad they war mongers like yourself will try and latch onto any excuse for it to continue. You really are a disgusting human being. As far as ISIS goes. I could care less about ISIS. ISIS can manage themselves. If they are actually fighting US interests in the middle east it is probably a good thing for the region. The US has no business trying to dominate and control these people. They are fed up with it. The people of the middle east are sick of war. They are sick of American bombs dropping on their heads and being killed by the US military industrial complex. I actually am amazed at what a peaceful people the arabs are. They have every right to fight back againt the US. The US has been waging a war on them since they decided to back the Zionists and than Carter declaring the entire middle east and its resources to be under military control of the empire. That was one bold statement he made and it has led to nothing but grief between our peoples since. The US should get the hell out and stop funding the Israeli settler colony and apartheid state. We could start to heal wounds and begin getting along again. What alternative world do you live in?
http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-proposes-500-million-to-aid-syrian-rebels-1403813486
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/us-aid-to-syrian-rebels/
1) I admit my “google skills” might not be as good as yours. So, would you please share with us the evidence that the US has been arming ISIS. I do not want evidence that the US has been arming the Free Syrian Army because the US is not bombing the Free Syrian Army, which is the enemy of ISIS. Mr Greenwald claims the US is bombing the same group it has been arming. So, he means we were arming ISIS and now we are bombing them. PLEASE SHARE THE EVIDENCE THAT THE US HAS BEEN ARMING ISIS BECAUSE I CANNOT FIND IT.
2) Maybe the books I have read were wrong, the libraries I have visited were fake, or the countries I have visited were on another planet. I am not an expert in history, but stating that Irak was “stable” before the Iran-Irak war is not only inaccurate but actually ridiculous.
How far in history would you like to go? the battle of Karbala in 680 AD? The multiple massacres during the Middle Age? The multiple military coups in the 60s? The campaign of assassinations, tortures etc…in the 70s? You truly believe the Shias and the Kurds would agree with your statement?
3) In your understanding, the regime that replaced the Shah is so much better than the dictator that the US supported. Is that what the human rights organizations have told you? Of course, in your petty analysis the conflict between Sunnis and Shias had nothing to do with the Irak-Iran war. It is in your mind the responsibility of the USA.
4) No one, including me, believes that the USA is an angel. I do not believe in angels neither. So, if I was a Yazidi in Irak where ISIS has made it clear that they intend to kill me and all my ethnic group, then I would love the same government that supported Saddam Hussein and toppled the elected government of Iran to bomb ISIS militants. That would allow me and thousand of others to stay alive. However, as you stated, you do not care about ISIS massacring thousands of civilians live on TV. Like Mr. Greenwald, you care a lot about Palestinians dying as a result of IDF operations, but thousands and thousands of civilians getting killed willingly and openly by ISIS are irrelevant for you. Yet, you have the arrogance to say that I am “disgusting”!
Stopping our support for a Sunni dictator, for instance Saddam Hussein who had history of killing other religious sects, to promote and help a democratically elected leader,
This is so misleading as to be basically false. Altho after the first Gulf War, Saddam postured as religious to attract support from religious Iraqis, he was a secular Ba’athist, and likely an atheist. During his rule, he promoted the militant Arab nationalism of Ba’athism while he also brutally repressed religious factions.
A number of astute foreign policy observers predicted before the Iraq war, that if Saddam were deposed, the religious and other factions he’d been repressing would be at each other’s throats. These observers were, of course, correct.
The above post should be formatted thus, with first graf a quote of Steb :
This is so misleading as to be basically false. Altho after the first Gulf War, Saddam postured as religious to attract support from religious Iraqis, he was a secular Ba’athist, and likely an atheist. During his rule, he promoted the militant Arab nationalism of Ba’athism while he also brutally repressed religious factions.
A number of astute foreign policy observers predicted before the Iraq war, that if Saddam were deposed, the religious and other factions he’d been repressing would be at each other’s throats. These observers were, of course, correct.
Misleading? How is it misleading? Did the USA have a history of supporting Saddam Hussein? YES
Did Saddam Hussein have a history of targeting and killing Shias Muslims? YES
Did the US stop supporting him specially after he invaded Kuwait? YES (the US bombed his army forces several times starting in 1991.
Did the US support the Shia majority that was elected after Saddam Hussein? Did the US give the elected government financial and military support? YES
How is it misleading? These are just facts. Mr Greenwald needs to be impartial and explain clearly to his readers that in the Middle East politics and religious conflicts are not as black and white as he likes to present them. He is always ready to jump on the US government because it has supported brutal regimes in that region. However, he always fails to clarify to his readers that the opposition in many of these countries are not democrats neither and their leaders become brutal as soon as they get elected. Example: IRAK.
I am not here to defend the US government. I am here to defend the truth.
Would you please clarify what you mean by “not democrats, ” and what you think that has to do with what Glenn has written?
Thanks for your comments. Democrats mean individuals who believe in the basic principles of modern democracy. They support pluralism. It means other non violent political parties are allowed to challenge their ideology and their economic and social plans freely without being persecuted. They support participation. freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association.
Mr Grennwald and many others believe that the US government has deteriorated the political and economic situations in the Middle East by supporting brutal regimes who are not democrats. His logic is quite simple. People in the Middle East have noticed the support of the US government for Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Pahlavi, Hosny Mubarak etc..so, the people distrust the US and in some cases hate America. However, Mr Grennwald is not telling you that it is not that simple in the Middle East. He disregards strong religious beliefs and the conflict between Sunnis and Shias to present the USA as the Empire responsible for most of the troubles in that region.
Take the example of Irak. We stopped supporting Saddam Hussein, (regardless of the dubious reasons the US government used to invade Irak, we all agree he was a brutal dictator) and before we left the country was run by an elected government. Unfortunately, that elected government the US supported started to brutalize the minority Sunnis in a non democratic way.
Take the example of Iran. The Shah was a non elected, non democratic leader that the US supported. He is gone. Yet, those who have replaced him are not democrats neither. Moreover, there is a strong argument that the actual regime is worst than the Shah.
Take Saudi Arabia. This is not a democratic country. However, Mr. Greenwald is not telling you that these kings in the Middle East are in power because the main tribes in their society want them to be in that position. If you visit Saudi Arabia (or you do some extensive research as they do not like giving visas) you will notice that other politicians’ views are so extreme they make the actual regime look like a Western type democracy. Yet, they are so popular among the deeply religious people that they would be elected in a free and fair election.
Thought this was an interesting point, but when I reread, the categorization he uses, specifically, is “those fighting against Assad”, which would apply to different groups. Granted, I think the overall point would be stronger if he was, in fact, referencing the *very same group – after all, if suddenly the Nazis returned and they were “those fighting against Assad”, would that not change the equation somewhat? But I don’t think the criticism you’re applying here… um, applies. There’s some smooth wording.
Bring on the Caliphate,scrunch this persons panties even more.
Yankee come home,isolate yourself from the Ziomonsters,regain your sovereignty.
Zdendreck, is that you?
The former Caliphs of the 7th to 10th?centuries didn’t even know the world was round,had no world maps,and thus couldn’t even dream of world domination.You are a Zionist propagandist,immersed in poison.
It is crazy.
That said, with regard to your argument about US motives – I would expect that there is a motive a) to finance the US war machine; but also b) to secure access to oil by stabilizing portions of Iraq and Libya.
The economic incentive of securing oil is crass, but you seem to painting some kind of more mindless sinister motivation in total. My sense is the means are hypocritical and Orwellian, but the motives.. may at least be somewhat in the national interest.
Don’t miss the Update to the above piece:
The US supports the lung-munchers in Syria, not the beheaders! One can ignore the fact that the lung-munchers regularly defect to the beheaders, along with their hostages and directly-supplied US arms, which they add to the beheaders’ vast supply of arms provided through NATO member Turkey as well as Jordan and the good graces of reactionary theocratic monarchies of the Gulf.
There is actually one secular progressive force in Syria with a track-record of being willing and able to face the beheaders and the lung-munchers in battle and that it would be logical for the US to support; that would be the government of Syria.It would also seem right for a US president who is a Christian with Arabic first and middle names to try to preserve the good traditions and religious diversity of Syria but the US rarely supports the right side in Arab conflicts, regardless of who is in the White House.
Is this the same “Russia” that allegedly opened a new front in the Ukrainian troubles? The U.S. really does have a devious strategy of “cooperation”, if so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-novoazovsk-crimea.html
the obvious solution is to send the patriot employees of academi (formerly k.a. blackwater, xe) to build a fence along the border of iraq and syria, defending that fence from both sides, while also fighting the assad regime in syria: win win win!
separately, does it bother anyone else that we’re all happy to refer to this upstart organization as a “state” while the refugees of palestine continue to languish stateless?
The only objective of American military action in the Middle East or Libya or Afghanistan wherever, is to help American war industry sustain itself and thus to help the US economy keep its head above water. That the US economy depends on war industry cannot be gainsaid.
V.M.Mohanraj
” … where did they get those arms and funds?”
Is that a rhetorical question? (Rhetorical question)
And this: “But the only clear lesson from all of this is that no matter the propagandistic script used, U.S. military action in that region virtually never fulfills the stated goals (nor is it intended to do so), and achieves little other than justifying endless military action for its own sake.”
Therein lies the core of the truth. The military-industrial complex and other private interests thank Obama for his business. And isn’t it fascinating how many Republican members of Congress are so fully in the corner of the man they were calling a socialist dictator just, what, a week ago?
Nice analysis.
Good analysis, Glenn. What a complete circus. I have recently been impressed by what is going on over there in the ME in the context of who is going to supply gas to Europe and how Israel is going to get its hands on Gaza’s offshore gas.
The Problem With Bombing the Islamic State in Syria
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/08/problem-bombing-islamic-state-syria/92357/?oref=d-river
It seems pretty clear at this point that U.S. military action in the Middle East is the end in itself,
Indeed. Well said.
Associated Press:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/top-general-us-needs-more-info-islamic-state
POSSIBLE AIRSTRIKES IN SYRIA RAISE MORE QUESTIONS
By KEN DILANIAN AND JULIE PACE
— Aug. 26, 2014 5:56 PM EDT
[…] In an effort to avoid unintentionally strengthening the Syrian government, the White House could seek to balance strikes against the Islamic State with attacks on Assad regime targets. […]
– – Associated Press
That should should end cooperation between Damascus and US faster even than I thought.
ESCALATION!!
That didn’t take very long, now did it.
Without regard to the merit of being involved at all in the Middle East on any basis, the sole aim of the US should be to bomb our large, modern equipment cache abandoned to ISIS.
Without that equipment, ISIS becomes just another guerilla group fighting a guerella war. Since ISIS cannot re-supply parts for that equipment except by cannibalization, it’s just a matter of standing off and steadily degrading that weaponry with an unrelenting air campaign until it’s essentially destroyed.
After that, leave it to regional powers to coordinate action against ISIS however they prefer — or not. The outcome of that conflict is of not a vital national interest of the US.
“U.S. military action against the Assad regime was thwarted only by overwhelming American public opinion which opposed it and by a resounding rejection by the UK Parliament of Prime Minister David Cameron’s desire to assume the usual subservient British role in support of American wars.”
You forgot Lavrov: http://bit.ly/1tB2SCo
Not to reduce all US foreign policy decisions to banal bigotry or anything, but they sometimes seems to boil down to “oh well, they all look alike anyway so who cares which ones we bomb”. See also: the West’s and Israel’s shared attitude of “ISIS is fine as long as they behead other Muslims and ignore us”. http://dailym.ai/1qfGJYj
Iran has played the role of Hitler 2.0 for a while now but as soon as they agree to help the US screw over Russia suddenly they’re part of our “willing coalition” (sort of). http://bit.ly/1ld0MHK
Then again, one of the main reasons the West obsesses over Iran (besides Israel’s constant whining and bitching) is that “all roads leave to Moscow” so I suppose none of this should be surprising. If they have Assad and the new(ish) government of Iran cooperating in some fashion then the road might be a little bit clearer, perhaps? Remind me to ask Pepe Escobar.
Anyhoo, good article.
This site reinforces my opinion that our country is loaded with screwballs, along with the rest of the world. Our congress makes it difficult to fight in the name of freedom. Most of our fighting is for special interests — not democracy of humanity. A real world wide threat deserves fighting. If Europe is not interested in Joining us, given their reliance on oil and gas–then we should stay out of it. Israel is an exception — we need to defend what Christians have not in any time in the recent past–Jewish intellect, humanity and resilience. Just keep the God shit out of all this.
US bombing in Syria is win-win-win scenario for all:
1. US wins cause attacking either side Assad or ISIS is a boon for US munitions suppliers and curtailing civil liberties excuses. A chance to arm both sides in a conflict after US attacks + the cleanup contracts.
2. Assad wins because his rebels are now being attacked and his position is more stable than one year ago.
3. ISIS, wins because they can now wave the propaganda banner to all new enlistees to their cause to fight the Great Satan, the good ole USA.
Of course, the real losers are and have always been the common citizen, their families and their children. Of course, that’s exactly why ISIS will prevail.
Vox Vocis Res Publica, don’t buy in to the fiction that we always will lose. It is not God ordained that these freaks will always “prevail”.
This is a new ball game and we are winning. Why? because we are talking, thinking, asking questions, looking under that vale of illusion and trickery, comparing notes, there are more people listening to those who have escaped the mind control, and because we are saying HELL NO! to them, because we are NOT buying their shit anymore and because we know we deserve so much better than what these psychopaths are dishing out to us
.
We will get rid of these parasites, blood suckers and bring the world back into some degree of balance and harmony. HOW – because together we can and we will!!!!!!!!!!!! We have the power and we WILL IT to be that way.
David said “This is a new ball game and we are winning. Why? because we are talking, thinking, asking questions, looking under that vale of illusion and trickery, comparing notes, there are more people listening to those who have escaped the mind control, and because we are saying HELL NO! to them, because we are NOT buying their shit anymore and because we know we deserve so much better than what these psychopaths are dishing out to us”
What a bunch of crap.
Please give examples of all these items, david. I think you look at the world through the media induced hypnotic spell of “America the Great”. You better stop smokin that crap, it’s not good for ya.
David said, “It is not God ordained that these freaks will always “prevail”.
To which I say, David, do you hear voices in your head when you look into the mirror?
“The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”
? James Madison
Yes, and the side benefits of war multiply again. For example College cops score defense supplies
“Most items distributed through the Defense Logistics Agency’s Law Enforcement Support Office go to state and municipal government agencies. But a recent Freedom of Information Act request by MuckRock revealed that more than 100 college campuses with sworn-in police departments also participate in the 1033 program as of last December.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/defense-surplus-university-police-110323.html?hp=l2
Governments can get as nuts as they want , but global warming will be the final winner.John Bertotto
I agree, the speed with which methane is being produced by microbes consuming thawing carbon is beyond our capacity to hope. So, what will you do before their farts smother us? Seek higher ground? Stay away from Rifle. Same problem, only we cooked the basement fracking with nukes.
I now get how that inclining curve so quickly converts into a declining temp trend. I’m thinking long term. I really hate the cold.
Since 9/11, what do you think is the longest number of days the U.S. has had between bombings?
I’d be surprised if there was any period over 30 days…
Once again Obama has shown both side of his face and forked tong at the same time.
First you’re one of our guy’s for killing and bombing. Then you’re one of those guy’s that needs to be bomb and killed
What ever Obama’s is for. I’ll stand against, clearly on the other side of that fence. It’s not because
he’s half black or that he’s half white it’s because he speaks out of both side of his mouth at the same
time and I see the forked tong of the great serpent at work within him.
The Devil has many disciples, they may seam apposed but are working together. They share the
same father and blood of Lucifer. They are brothers in arms with the power to deceive
reposting this excellent piece from Maz Hussein in Al Jazeera last year, it neatly summarizes the important history of how we got here. Maz calls it the violent end of Sykes-Picott, but from another angle it seems like the logical extension of a fairly contiguous “foreign policy” in the region. The Iraq war was not a blunder. Nothing is going wrong. The consequences of De-Baathification were anticipated, and welcomed.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/2013567200437919.html
Obama likely to hit ISIL in Syria without Congress’s formal OK
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-likely-to-hit-isil-in-syria-without-congress-s-formal-ok-175051379.html
Not every group fighting the Assad regime is ISIS. You do realize that, right Glenn?
That is some plain vanilla BS. Obama has made it quite clear that he wanted no piece of Syria until Assad gassed his own people and even then he went to Congress when he did not have to.
Funny how you don’t attempt to address the question of whether the US take military action. If I have learned one thing about Glenn it is that he is not a “solutions” guy. Instead, he makes a useless comparison to Saudi Arabia. Okay, I will play along: I’d say ISIS is quite different from the Saudis, after all the Saudis are not trying to slaughter people who don’t convert to their 7th century version of Islam, nor are they performing mass executions of unarmed civilians, or cutting off journalists heads and kidnapping women. Your bringing up the Saudis serves zero purpose here. Tell us Glenn, what would you do? Grow a pair and put your 2 cents on the line.
That’s, uh, really impressive, Nate. Grow a pair? Really? That’s the level of your “discourse.” Cool.
Spare me your false indignation Kitt.
My reply wasn’t “indignation,” false or otherwise. Your simpleton cliche comment was on the level of a frat-brat, and was too lame to inspire indignation.
I wouldn’t characterize your response as such if you actually considered and responded to the points from my post. You focused on a mere 3 words.
Your reply simply isn’t conducive to further discussion and it makes me wonder why you even expend the effort in responding?
Kitt.Don’t feed the trolls, please.
My disagreement earned me “troll” status?
To borrow from Kitt, I think your post falls into the simpleton cliche category.
This guy isn’t trolling. He’s raising legitimate questions. Why stifle debate by just dismissing him or by just grabbing hold of the most incendiary thing he says. Why not address the questions instead.
Mick, what are Nate’s “legitimate questions” and what are your answers to them?
Nate is not really a troll. I’e seen his type in other comments sections. They purport to dissect the writing of a superior mind with vacuous, usually long-winded trek that intelligent people generally ignore.
It sustains their illusion that they are playing in the intellectual Big Leagues. In other words, this is all about Nate, not about derailing
Glenn’s comment section.
Mona, you sure are quick to resort to ad hominem attacks. It makes you seem so petty and defensive.
Any response to my actual post!? Come on, how about a substantive discussion just to mix things up.
Nate, you are NOT quick to answer the several substantive questions I’ve posed to you in this thread.
Probably because I did not know you asked them in separate comments. I will respond now.
Now Nate, you have not yet addressed my tripartite question, nor any of my follow-ups to the other (about Hitlers and Munich moments).
Put on your thinking cap and see what you can do with those.
Thanks Glenn for pointing out the obvious.
Sadly – So many good people are still hoodwinked by an outrageously DISINGENUOUS government and corporate media.
Define: “not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere.”
Once you get on the other side of their scam you can see IT in all its ugly filth.
BUT – as long as people are inside the magical illusion created by THEIR: media news, TV, Hollywood movies, even our public educational system up to our universities, they can’t believe anyone, any human being could be so totally criminal, and I guess the EVIL is an understatement.
The mind controllers have these “good people” believing it is all about: the democrats and the republicans, the liberals and the conservative, the good guy Americans and all the other bad guys who don’t do what we demand, the whites and the blacks, the rich and the poor, the socialists and the capitalists, those modern thinkers and the indigenous peoples, the christian and the Muslim (or whoever), etc etc. You get the idea it is tried and tested method of “divide and conquer” the enemy.
People just don’t realize, or get it, that WE THE PEOPLE, world wide, are the enemy of the 1% elite psychopaths who run almost all the governments, and all the corporate media, including Hollywood, TV, CBSABCNBCCNNFOXPBCBBC, and they run all the wars and the banks. They use their crisis actors in made up crisis false flags. They us these actors to make you believe that what is an ACT is actually true.
Hopefully more and more people will wake up from their mind controlled sleep and see the reality, and that we are at their mercy as long and we give them our attention, power, belief and submit to all the fear and terrors they have set upon us. BTW they use magic to herd us in the direction they want us to go. One new example is the “ICE BUCKET CHALLENGE”. This originally was a torture used upon black slaves to get them to conform. It is being used now, in the media, as a subliminal message for you to conform, and to ICE YOUR SELF, (ISIS). They use hypnotism and Neurolinguistics on you daily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolinguistics
If this information just wakes up one person I will be so very happy.
Clever man
Nate, why is Assad Hitler one day, and then suddenly he isn’t?
Assad was not and is not Hitler.
The implication here is that Assad is less an enemy today than he was days, months or years ago. I don’t believe that, nor do I think the USG sees it that way. But the rise of ISIS has complicated the matter in the ME and requires the US to reassess the threats. The Assad regime is a serious threat to its own people, that has not changed. But ISIS threatens the entire region.
Then why did Secretary of State John Kerry say he was, and claim that we needed to strike Syria because this was our “Munich moment?”
John Kerry said: “Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein who have used [Sarin gas] in time of war.” http://nypost.com/2013/09/02/assad-is-like-hitler-kerry/ I personally am not a fan of “appeal to Hitler” explanations, but what Kerry said is true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin#Use_as_a_weapon).
As for his mentioning of the Munich Moment, I’m not sure where Kerry was going with that. I don’t think we ever had any intention of appeasing Assad.
Let’s return this to the main point though. Assad is still an enemy of the U.S., that simply has not changed. But does the U.S. and the Assad regime have a common interest in stopping ISIS. Yep, and that sure makes this ordeal much more complicated than Glenn would have us all believe.
The point is, Kerry and others In High Places used the Hitler card when convenient. You can ignore that or try to do a lot of Nate somersaults, but it speaks for itself.
25 second cringe inducing video of John Kerry doing his Hitler dance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjLGQW2u5nM
As a staunch opponent of using the Hitler Card, you’re not going to find a lot of disagreement here, but what say you about Glenn’s use of the Hitler Card!?
Specifically the comparison of Netanyahu to Joseph Goebbels.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/21/netanyahus-telegenically-dead-comment-original/
This was a much more contrived example of reductio ad Hitlerum than Kerry’s statement referring to Assad’s use of Sarin gas. I hope your frustration with playing the Hitler Card consistently applies to Glenn as well.
I didn’t express “frustration with the Hitler card.” I posted an exact example of a clumsy John Kerry flat out the fuck using Hitler as an exact comparison to Assad. Your ribald claim about Glenn’s post about Netanyahooo has already been hashed out. If you want to return to that thread and shake your fist at clouds, go ahead.
Says the guy that includes a link to a John Kerry audio clip from nearly a year ago. I am pretty sure that has also been “hashed out.” And what is funny about my pointing this out? Are you going to defend Glenn’s use of the Nazi comparison because I’d love to hear that!
Also, as I said before (but for some reason has not posted), Kerry was at least correct in his saying that Assad joined the ranks of Saddam and Hitler with the use of Sarin Gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin#Use_as_a_weapon). That makes his claim significantly less “clumsy” than Glenn’s application.
Glenn made no such comparison. He let the two gentlemens’ words speak for themselves. And he has defended the logic of that juxtaposition.
What is the logic of Assad being Hitler last year for John Kerry, but not this year? And for the Saudis never being Hitler or a “Munich moment” for the Obama Administration?
Kerry’s remarks from that clip are — for reasons that are obvious to anyone not playing deaf and dumb — 100% relevant to what is happening today and what Glenn posted above. Your end-run or so called “comparison” to what Glenn posted in the thread that you are pretending has no comments in it for you run all the way back to refer to is irrelevant to Kerry’s ‘Idiot Politician’s Hitler Reference’. I’m not seeing much difference between Kerry’s trashy attempts at framing an issue to your attempts at framing an issue.
Did you just refer to Goebbels as a gentleman?
And Glenn did make a “comparison,” as he acknowledged in bullet point No. 1:
Case closed.
Kerry didn’t say “Assad is Hitler!!” He said Assad used Sarin gas which puts him in the company of Hitler and Saddam.
I see you’ve coopted Mona’s response, which I refuted.
The more you both fixate on this Hitler matter, the more clear it is that you lack a discernible point.
Worse. I referred to Netanyahu as one.
Yes, it is. Glenn made no comparison of Netanyahu with Hitler. He compared some of the former’s language with “some aspects” of Joseph Goebbels’.
Kerry said this is our “Munich moment.” That’s invoking Hitler. Why aren’t the Saudis another Hitler presenting us with a “Munich moment?”
Please set forth the minimum requirements for a Leader(s) to appropriately be compared with Hitler, and for it to be said we are facing a “Munich moment.”
Oh no ya don’t, Nate. It was Sec’y of State John Kerry who brought Hitler into all this. Why did he thinks Assad WAS Hitler, but now he’s not? Why was Assad a Munich moment, and now he’s not?
Why aren’t the Saudis ever Hitler and/or a Munich moment?
So then, is ISIS Hitler now? Is this our latest “Munich moment?”
No, I didn’t “coopted” Mona’s response. I wrote and posted my own response. I didn’t see Mona’s response until afterwards, because I was busy writing my own. But, I guess, you think you won a twofer! Yay for King Nate!
So is the Saudi regime. How come they aren’t Hitler? Why don’t the Saudis present us with a “Munich moment?”
They simply are not the same. Saudi Arabia undoubtedly has human rights issues, but in Syria this war has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war)
I won’t answer your other two questions because they are based on a strawman argument.
Now wait. You said Assad isn’t Hitler because he only harms his own people in Syria. Yet John Kerry called him Hitler, but John Kerry hasn’t said the same of the Saudi royalty.
Why did Kerry say that about Assad? Why did he say it was a “Munich moment?” Why doesn’t he see a “Munich moment” with the Saudis, who also harm their own people?
Why has Assad STOPPED being Hitler for the Obama administration?
1. What kind(s) of military action, 2. against whom, and 3. for what end-goal?
1-3. I agree with the intervention at Mt. Sinjar and the Mosul Dam, which were attacks against Mosul and their end goal was to prevent mass-killings of Yazidis and a situation where ISIS could blow up the dam and drown civilians.
However, I am torn on whether to take further action. On one hand, the U.S. created this situation in Iraq. We destabilized the area and I believe have some moral obligation to not let ISIS roll through, requiring relgious conversion at gunpoint. But on the other hand, the Iraqi government blew it, and like most Americans I am sick and tired of the U.S. playing world police.
Therefore, if I had to put my marker in the sand now, my condition to intervene further in Iraq would be that it include a multi-state coalition, including ME countries. It may be organized like the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya but it should also include a new AUMF with the level of involvement approved by Congress.
In the first sentence meant to say “which were attacks against ISIS”
Against whom?
For what end-goal?
ISIS
To stop ISIS’ conquest through Iraq
What would that look like?
Here’s something on Nate’s “Less Evil” Saudis:
“The Saudi Ministry of Interior—referred to in the document as MOI— has been condemned for years as one of the most brutal human rights violators in the world. In 2013, the U.S. State Department reported that “Ministry of Interior officials sometimes subjected prisoners and detainees to torture and other physical abuse,” specifically mentioning a 2011 episode in which MOI agents allegedly “poured an antiseptic cleaning liquid down [the] throat” of one human rights activist. The report also notes the MOI’s use of invasive surveillance targeted at political and religious dissidents.”–Glenn Greenwald … about 30 days ago.
Glenn’s article continues:
“Over the past year, the Saudi government has escalated its crackdown on activists, dissidents, and critics of the government. Earlier this month, Saudi human rights lawyer and activist Waleed Abu al-Khair was sentenced to 15 years in prison by a so-called “terrorist court” on charges of undermining the state and insulting the judiciary. In May, a liberal blogger, Raif Badawi, was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes; in June, human rights activist Mukhlif Shammari was sentenced to five years in prison for writing about the mistreatment of Saudi women.”
Thanks for all that, Kitt. Nate’s silliness is often best ignored, but he does provide occasion for us to haul out great links.
Is there a purpose to this sideshow? Saudi Arabia does have a terrible human rights record but what does that have to do with the atrocities being committed by ISIS?
I mean, what point are you trying to make?
When are you going to post this?
Well?
Do you always try to speak for others and presume you know their viewpoints? It’s an arrogant trait.
Nate seeks to evade the question by spewing:
Ok, then why have you not posted THIS:
Hmmm?
lol, bravo Mona.
Nate, I know you can’t cop to it, nor would I want you to, but you’re totally a troll dude. One of the best– maybe the fucking best I’ve seen actually. I’m serious. Every post is exquisitely obtuse. I read every one, like they were little troll koans.
I am actually surprised to see so much to and fro as to “who” is financing the Islamic State.
One Google search quickly brought this up:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/too-late-the-sponsors-of-ideology-find-they-have-made-a-monster-9687723.html
Let’s be frank here, shall we?
The United States government and its behemoth spying apparatus knows EXACTLY who has been financing the Islamic State “militants”.
The United States needs to come clean on the intelligence regarding where all their weapons, fancy uniforms, vehicles, fancy white running shoes etc. have come from. The United States government knows.
If the United States government has been financing the I.S., in any way, shape or form, it and any other countries ( Saudi Arabia, Croatia, Qatar, Kuwait etc.), then the United States needs to come clean and STOP financing them and must bring down serious SANCTIONS on any country that IS financing them.
You kill the snake by cutting off the head, right?
Nate, since you have asked a few times for a response, I’ll bite (and apologies, when I use html formatting the html code doesn’t show up but neither does the formatting, so I’m just sticking to bullet points for now).
– I have no idea what logic you are using in saying “Glenn mentioned ISIS, ergo maybe he doesn’t know that groups other than ISIS exist”. That part just didn’t make sense to me.
– Maybe this is nitpicky but where you mentioned Saudi Arabia – Greenwald didn’t specifically reference that country and appears to be referencing more than one group, although he doesn’t specify which.
– The ‘Huh, huh, what do you say to that?!’ bravado reads as baiting for a response. I particularly dislike the sexist language, seeing as how I’m female – what are you saying about the fact that I don’t have ‘a pair’? This is a lazy way to fish for a response, and I say that as someone who has defended my right to be *somewhat lazy on this very site, ha ha. We’re all busy, we all have limited time – but if you want a response there’s some extra onus on you, so earn it the right way by doing some homework, finding an interesting point or article related to the story, formulating a strong counterpoint, etc., etc. Demanding Glenn answer your question because you’re going to insinuate things about him otherwise isn’t the way to go, not to my mind.
– Regarding whether or not the US ‘wants’ to go to war – the topic of ‘intention’ is one where I can get lost in endless philosophical musings, and ultimately I’m not certain how useful a concept it is. It may have limited utility, but I am more of the opinion that ‘things happen, because of causes and conditions’. As to why we find ourselves in conflict at various times – I don’t feel particularly qualified to do a sort of political / sociocultural analysis on that, but the closest frame of reference I have on such matters would be conducting a functional behavioral assessment, which is a way of analyzing student behavior in school. What environment is it happening in – classroom, gym, playground, cafeteria, etc.? I think there’s certainly an area of data point concentration in this case, we’re far less likely to be involved in conflicts in say, Africa or South America at this point in time. What are the antecedents? Usually violence, revolution, or dangerous rebel groups in the local populations / government, although then you’d have to sub analyze into *which of those situations we have thus far responded to, because it hasn’t been all of them. Was this due to polls showing public opinion on the matter in the US, degree of potential violence, etc.? What are the consequences? Do we restore peace for a time? Secure infrastructure, minimize national security threats, etc.? Are there unintentional reinforcers delivered, i.e., this or that person makes a lot of money off the conflict (I know this is often invoked as a primary motivation by commenters, and while I respect everyone’s right to interpret things differently, I just don’t see it.)?
For any behavioral outcome, there is generally a web of influences, some of which are flattering and some of which are not. I sincerely think that anyone involved in such decisions does so with good intent, however, sometimes it’s impossible to see how conditions cause us to engage in motivated reasoning. Or maybe not even ‘motivated’, maybe just ‘vantage point specific’. Anyhow, you seem secure in saying it is ‘BS’ when Greenwald interprets things his way, but have not really given an alternate explanatory theory, which seems unfair because there’s no way to see if your theory explains things better and / or if history seems to line up with one over the other.
What I mean is that Glenn said “Now the Obama administration and American political class is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the failed “Bomb Assad!” campaign by starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad – the very same side the U.S. has BEEN ARMING over the last two years.” He is clearly referring to ISIS, but there is ZERO evidence to support the claim that the US has armed ISIS. The current accusations are that Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been key financiers, but even then there is no evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Finances. So where is Glenn pulling this information!? Who knows. The U.S. has been arming rebel groups but has openly avoided groups like ISIS. The Obama Administration’s reluctant to provide weapons to Syrian rebel groups has been well documented, and is because of the uncertainty about whether those weapons will be turned against the U.S. or fall into the hands of jihadist groups like ISIS. In fact, before the political pressure ramped up, the White House opposed its own staff http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-unlikely-to-reconsider-arming-syrian-rebels-despite-views-of-security-staff/2013/02/08/e05a337e-7208-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html
And by the time they did act, some characterized it as “too little too late” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html)
He stated it via links to two articles: one about Saudi Arabia and one about Israel. That is why I talked about Saudi Arabia.
Fair enough. Your point is taken. If I could edit my post, I’d scratch that part.
The part I called BS was Glenn’s claim that “It’s as though the U.S. knew for certain all along that it wanted to fight in the war in Syria, and just needed a little time to figure out on which side it would fight.” This just simply does not match the reality of the Administration’s approach to Syria, and I took a stab at this months ago in a reddit post.(http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1l7kkw/the_president_does_not_have_power_under_the/cbwpqu2). That assessment was a year ago and how has our involvement in Syria changed? Hardly at all!
Nate – In regard to the ISIS thing, I think you are engaging in some motivated reasoning here. I think you could easily read that paragraph (and I think ‘more’ easily, actually, I think it’s the more likely interpretation) to say that we started by fighting one *side, then switched *sides, the details of who was on that side being unimportant in the context of that argument. But you insist that it is CLEARLY referencing ISIS, which then creates a green light for you to claim factual error. I don’t think it was ‘clearly’ referencing ISIS at all, and I think it’s unfair to claim this interpretation must be correct, ergo you can proclaim an error in the article. You don’t seem open to the idea that you may simply have misinterpreted it. (To be fair, I’m open to the idea that I, also, may be misinterpreting).
As to scratching that paragraph – thanks.
Regarding whether or not we ‘want’ to go to war in Syria, again, my stance is generally that these things don’t happen due to some overwhelming, driving intent on the part of an individual, group, or even country – there are too many factors involved, to my mind, for that to be the case. But it’s worth looking at how those factors tend to play out in the real world. Does it turn into a game of “It’s just a matter of time?” where certain countries are involved? If so, do we want to change that? Nothing has happened yet, so on this, I’ll wait to see how it plays out in this particular scenario and what the ’causes and conditions’ leading up to that are.
I don’t mean for this to be insulting but if you believe Glenn was not referring to ISIS, you are simply not following this stuff at all. The administration isn’t trying to bomb just any opposition group in Syria. It wants to go after ISIS!! Just Google “Obama Syria” and it will hit you in the face. This is the first result. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/29/world/middleeast/obama-isis-syria-iraq.html?_r=0
There is no speculation here. Glenn was ABSOLUTELY referring to ISIS.
Nate, you are frustrating the hell out of me. You don’t have to agree with my point, but I at least want you to get it. Look at the phrasing in the article. If someone says “side”, that is open to different groups. I.e., if we talk about the “side” fighting against Germany in WWII, that actually encompasses many different countries. If Greenwald’s point was that we are opposing the SIDE Assad is on or the side fighting him, that is not a specific reference to ISIS. The ‘side’ fighting Assad could be any number of groups – what defines them, in this argument, is that they are opposed to Assad. It could be ISIS, or rebels, or a local group of angry Girl Scouts or whoever – again, defining feature = Other Side, or Side Fighting Against Assad. Switching sides = backing Assad vs. backing group fighting Assad, whoever that may be. Does that make sense?
And for clarity, yes, I think he is referencing ISIS NOW – but when he talks about ‘switching sides’, I think he means switching from Assad’s side to Assad’s opposition’s side, which encompasses both rebels (earlier in time) and ISIS (now). Side = opposed to Assad. So help me, if it doesn’t make sense this time I am coming to your house with elaborate Power Points Nate… ;)
Nic – I responded but it hasn’t posted. It has probably triggered some post-length filter…Should be up tomorrow at some point.
Ok thanks – and after reading Steb’s comment, I think I understand what you were saying with the ISIS reference, I just wasn’t understanding the way you phrased it. There’s a sort of muddy referencing there, with “very same side” being used to lump ISIS in with other groups that the US has provided arms to. I *think – don’t want to pretend that I’m reading anyone’s mind and could be totally wrong – Greenwald was essentially saying “Look, we’ve been arming the opposition, now we want to airstrike the opposition” – the essential point being that he’s talking / categorizing in terms of ‘opposition’ vs. specific groups. But I agree that the way it’s phrased is a bit unclear.
Nate um sorry to inform you, but Saudis beheaded 19 people in one week, they are the only people left on earth to continue with this practice. A lot of those ISIS members were saudi crims and I remember perusing a document that authorised their release to go and kill Syrian women and children. They were in jail for violent offences, as was Bagdhadi in jail, Obama released him. He is a cia agent, then recruited by Mossad. Not too clued up on the situation Nate are we? You want to bomb syria and its people after your country created the deaths of 190,000 people, the majority Syrian soldiers and civilians of syria supportive of the president. How is bombing a country who is defending their sovereignty going to help them, or dont you care about that?
It was 19 people over 16 days to be exact. But why stop here. China has scores of undocumented executions, Iran publicly hangs criminals, Pakistan and Afghanistan stone women, the US uses ineffective intravenous drugs, and the lost goes on.
So what is your point?
As for your claims about Obama releasing Baghdadi? FALSE
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/19/jeanine-pirro/foxs-pirro-obama-set-isis-leader-free-2009/
And the death of the Syrians is the US’ fault!? Don’t lecture me on being “clued up.”
Zionists sticking up for the Saudis just illuminates the wacky political discourse in the Zioworld of divide and conquer,and misdirection..
You say: …”after all the Saudis are not trying to slaughter people who don’t convert to their 7th century version of Islam, nor are they performing mass executions of unarmed civilians, or cutting off journalists heads and kidnapping women.” Are you kidding? They do all these things. In fact, the very day jounalist James Foely was beheaded, Saudia Arabia beheaded NINETEEN citizens on trumped up charges. This is the most backward country in the region. You don’t hear about their savagery in our media because they are our “friends.” Just like Israel now that I think of it.
Why don’t you get verification for all your claims,before spewing obvious fallacies and Zionist talking points?
The Saudis just beheaded 19 civilians for various reasons,one being the guy was an alleged sorcerer.
Didn’t we blow up a an alleged propagandist,and his son,with drones?i say alleged,because truth is not propaganda.
And therefore ISIS isn’t a problem right!? Good logic, sport!
Bombard bombard bombard bombard bombard
“Arab FMs in Saudi Arabia for talks on Syria, ISIL” http://en.alalam.ir/news/1626726 Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall?!
Our former enemies are now our friends and war partners. No wonder the US Military has banned reading The Intercept. If they did, they wouldn’t know whom to fight next.
Thomas the warrior cat has been turned over to the federal government.
“The war, therefore if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that the hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word “war,” therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that is exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This–although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense–is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.”
? George Orwell, 1984
War explained in 10 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRB4dVk4kK0
@ Mr. Liberty:
Thanks for posting that.
Yup…that’s the problem. War is always for the exclusive economic profit of the ruling class to the detriment of everyone else. And those being lead by that class are too dumbed-down to grasp that simple fact. So they buy into the status-quo thereby refusing to see the truth even when it keeps punching them in the face.
Expanding a bit…..
“It’s Not Just Politics That’s Broken–The Status Quo’s Model of “How the World Works” Is Broken”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/just-politics-thats-broken-status-quos-model-world-works-broken.html
Don’t get me wrong. Sometimes war is necessary. For example the American Revolution. But you are right, 98% of wars are for profit.
The American Revolution was also about profit. However, in that case, our forefathers were fighting defensively to retain the right to live without economic oppression. “Taxation without representation is Tyranny.”
Yes…sometimes it is necessary to fight back. Oppressed people have the right to defend themselves against tyrannical governments.
@ Lyra1.
Agreed, well said.
Maybe the best thing to do is for the Pentagon to declare war on itself?
Didn’t a character in Catch-22 bomb his own airfield for the profits of “the syndicate”? Milo Minderbinder, I’m thinking. Been a long time since I read the book.
That is US gear we are bombing. It has all the appearances of a war on ourselves.
>”Maybe the best thing to do is for the Pentagon to declare war on itself?”
I think they did – about 13 years ago – at least they blew a huge hole in it, the Pentagon. The profits are still growing exponentially.
Proof of this?
Of what? That their profits are still growing exponentially.
“I think they did – about 13 years ago – at least they blew a huge hole in it, the Pentagon.”
Now don’t be coy, you know exactly what I’m asking you for.
John, they’ve destroyed the evidence, or at least hidden it well. But I saw that hole with my own eyes and it weren’t made by no aeroplane I ever done seen in my long, long life.
Then there’s that other indication – cui bono? And that takes us back to them profits still growing exponentially.
Well, you have a stated a fact that I agree with: profits growing etc. But a hole you saw in a building and immense profits prove nothing. Are you an expert on what a hole should like in a building that has been hit by a plane? Any other “evidence” that might be more convincing to a skeptic now that you have stopped being so coy?
make no mistake, regime change in syria is still the goal. ISIL is just the latest apparatus to that end
Syria appears to be equal to the storm. The majority of Syrians (for whatever reasons) support the current government as shown by the high integrity, moral and operational, of the Syrian military. With or without Assad, Syria may come out of this stronger than ever.
I.E. How to squander TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS and laugh while the brides collapse… FU** ALL YA’ LL
“It seems pretty clear at this point that U.S. military action in the Middle East is the end in itself”
You’ve been steering your agenda in this direction for a few years now. Good to see you say it explicitly.
“You’ve been steering your agenda in this direction for a few years now. ”
I’m not sure what you mean here. Was GG “steering his agenda” towards recognition that America engages in wars of choice primarily to enrich politically powerful war profiteers? That should have been obvious years ago to anyone paying attention.
I believe the agenda is exposing the machinations and idiocy of the American govt in its ridiculous attack on the worlds energy reserves,and its linkage with nations that occupy and expand their territory in contravention of humanity and modern international law.
Pointing out that doesn’t imply any other agenda but truth,which can’t be bad,unless you are a serial liar
In addition to the opinion polls and UK Parliament, John Kerry’s “rhetorical argument” suggesting Syria could avoid an attack from the United States if they turned over their chemical weapons really screwed over the administration’s plans. Kerry found a workable solution for Syria, when the only solution they wanted was to attack. They were unlucky that time around. The war machine will push harder, better this time.
An interesting development. Who woulda thunk it? http://en.alalam.ir/news/1626726
How long do you think that will last, I wonder? Until what objective is met, or what incident takes place? As Isaiah mentions earlier, WWIII is begun and war is good for the state.
“The “War On Terror” Is A Fraud – It Is Not Meant To Be Won, It Is Meant To Be Continuous”
http://www.activistpost.com/2014/08/war-on-terror-is-fraud-it-is-not-meant.html
I think that the content of this video is Mr. Greenwald’s main point in this article albeit subtile.
I know Lyra that the WOT is eternal. I am responding to news of the reported union between Damascus and the US via Russian and Iraqi channels.
“The cooperation has already begun and the United States is giving Damascus information via Baghdad and Moscow”
Sorry seer….
Meant that to be a new comment but got in a hurry.
No problem. We’ve all been sent askew at times by this, ahem, comment system.
But ya know, if Obomber decides to bomb Syrian military installments, that agreement is already toast only hours after having been made.
“In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.”
“‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink'”
— 1984 by George Orwell
” … His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker’s hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot.
” … Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. A large part of the political literature of five years was now completely obsolete. Reports and records of all kinds, newspapers, books, pamphlets, films, sound-tracks, photographs — all had to be rectified at lightning speed. Although no directive was ever issued, it was known that the chiefs of the Department intended that within one week no reference to the war with Eurasia, or the alliance with Eastasia, should remain in existence anywhere.”
— 1984, Chapter 9
Thank you Glenn. Great information.
More is needed to expose the calculated insanity of the puppet leaders. They are leading us deeper and deeper into a living HELL for Humanity. All for their profit$ and elite control of a debt slave humanity.
From what I have heard, if we, USA, are at war our debts are not recoverable, {we are bankrupt} thus the endless war, rolling war or you could call it is the war of the elite psychopaths.
They must be stopped. This is a global problem. WE really need the good guys from every country etc to forcefully step forward and bring the world back to common sense and common law.
WE have had enough of these maniac$. What are they?
“An insane person, especially one who suffers from a mania.
A fanatic, a person with an obsession.”
Mania (plural manias) is the Definition of the vast majority of our world leaders today
“Violent derangement of mind; madness; insanity.
Excessive or unreasonable desire; insane passion affecting one or many people; fanaticism. ?
(psychiatry) The state of abnormally elevated or irritable mood, arousal, and/or energy levels.”
People – we can’t let this insanity go on any longer!
Here is a very accurate observation by Benjamin Fulford.
“Think about it for a minute, the so-called leaders of the West we have now are not visionaries trying to turn dreams of an ideal future into reality. Instead they are murderous gangsters who stage fake events in order to manipulate public opinion, start wars and steal resources. The politicians we see on public display in the West are merely their puppets.”
Piss poor analysis that doesn’t even take into consideration Russian forces in the area. Libertarian capitalists should probably stick to vague speeches to “young” libertarians about destroying the working class cloaked as “liberty” and “freedumb.”
Russia still has a battle-ready naval flotilla close enough to Syria to nip any imperialist adventurism in the bud. And that flotilla can be amply protected by Russia, from Russia. My guess is that Western air strikes in Syria will only take place if Putin and Assad request them and approve of each target on a case by case basis.
Isn’t Greenwald a libertarian capitalist though?
See number 2:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#
Yet he gives speeches to libertarians to this day and has never renounced capitalism. He’s also never renounced the horrible shit he said about Chavez supporters when Bush went to South America, he was supporting Bush!
Supporting stuff like Social Security? There are capitalist factions supporting Social Security. Who cares? Social Security is one of the buffers the ruling class uses to prevent mass uprisings. It’s a suck to the working class. If Greenwald actually believes Social Security is protecting the working class, he’s clearly uninformed or just willfully ignorant. I’m guessing he supports privatization of same.
He supports campaign finance laws? By definition, that places him in the status quo camp, sorry. It means he supports and legitimizes the voting process in itself, meaning that he gives legitimacy to the capitalist elites.
He collects a salary from an elite billionnaire who funds Neonazi coups in Ukraine. And Greenwald has no problem with it. It’s “not his concern.” He “never knew about his boss’ actions” and “wouldn’t care anyway.” Who is he fooling?
Greenwald is on the record saying he supports the NSA. How is that a radical position? Somebody needs to explain why this isn’t supportive of imperialism. Gee maybe Greenwald himself can explain it, but I doubt he ever would.
He supports Citizens United.
He came out in favor of the fast food franchise Chick Fil A when community groups tried to shut down the franchise in Chicago after learning the owner was a homophobe.
He also defends NeoNazis, if there is any more obvious anti-working class group than NeoNazis, let’s hear what they are.
In 2005, (maybe it was 2006?) he was bashing Chavistas for protesting against George Bush. And Greenwald had some pretty ugly things to say about them, like “dirty hippies, ” “unemployed losers,” and “desperate hooligans” or whatever ugly spiteful terminology he was using. He also spewed the same shit about Comandante Castro. And he never apologized for it. He never renounced it. He never even said he no longer believes it. He also referred to Comrade Ghaddafi when he was at Salon as an “evil dictator.”
There is not a single position he has taken according to your “article” that indicates he’s not a capitalist. He’s certainly no radical leftist.
Anything else?
Wow…and I thought my reply was off topic. Well played.
I will add a “thank you” for pointing out that 2005 article, though. http://bit.ly/1q2Y87v
Not only disappointing but it looks as if it was written by any of the same chickenhawk “foreign policy elite” Greenwald criticized on a regular basis. I know most thinking people change their views as years go by, but WOW does this criticism of US Eastern policy seem hypocritical when compared to his tacit approval of US Southern policy.
Oh well. Another “baby with the bathwater” situation.
UR really 2 lame to give much attention… but UR limited understanding needs a rebuttal… which I’ll give 2 sec of a duckduckgo search. Greenwald speaks at socialism conferences, 2. And has for several yrs.
http://www.socialismconference.org/speakers/
All that proves is that he knows how to play to an audience. He’s not a socialist in any way shape or form and I’m sure he’d be the first to proudly admit that. He’s a capitalist. Accept it. He wears his imperialism on his sleeve FFS.
It’ll be interesting to see if Greenwald has these comments deleted in light of his ironic article about corporations deleting videos.
Yes it’ll be interesting because i’m sure Glenn is really concerned about some random dude’s deceitful comments
You’ve been snorting too much Daily Kos.
Daily Kos is for reactionary capitalists. Just visiting that site makes me want to take a shower. It’s as filthy as this one.
Greenwald is a capitalist hack.
A familiar troll this way comes. The hate hard-on is strong with this one. You have been debunked on multiple occasions, yet here you are like Herpes-Simplistic trying to track shit into the living room again. What a fine human being. Don’t ever change.
I think you’re flat out wrong. There have been three sides in the Syria Civil War for a while, and the US has demonstrably been on one of those sides, the same side which has been fighting ISIS for almost a year, the FSA. There are other Islamist groups fighting in Syria that are fighting ISIS too. The chemical weapon attack was just one of many and Obama was in the right to want to bomb. I was sorely disappointed in the popular movement against that, as I feel like most people have no clue what has been happening in Syria. They would even equate the FSA with ISIS, as it almost seems like you’re trying to do, and this is just flat-out wrong. I hear your points on war for its own sake, but I think there’s a willful blindness to the facts on the ground in a lot of the left in this country, not to mention just plain ignorance.
Do I think the US is a moral and just and innocent actor? Nope. But I have been paying close attention to what’s been happening in the Middle East for a few years, and damn man, Syria is more complicated than this. Just because you called the US out on all of its lies in one sphere doesn’t mean the cause it advances now has to be a lie.
And importantly, the fact that Obama hadn’t done much till now speaks a lot to his awareness of how this worked out in Libya, in Iraq before, in Afghanistan. But what are the options? Let ISIS overrun Syria and Iraq? You seriously think that scenario is even tolerable? There will be genocide, for sure, and that’s just part of the problem.
I sincerely hope that this situation will quickly result in the Syrian government making peace with the rebels as a sort of precondition to working with the Americans and not getting bombed by them. But seriously, there are *three sides* in that war, not two.
“From The New Hitler (*) to U.S. Partner in less than a year: an impressive feat for both Assad and U.S. propaganda.”
FOX snooze often resembles that tune in 2 consecutive segments…
Here is the Pentagon budget for one day in August:
http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=5348
That should open a few eyes Isaiah Earhart.
The numbers are too big. They induce narcolepsy. ;)
My eyes are blistered. What’s the total Butcher’s Bill?
Thanks, Isaiah. That is an eye opener. Hmm. Deduction to be made? War is HUGE business.
Good link, everyone that has read this far and clicks on link will see in $$ what all the wars are about from a reliable source.
Thank you, Glenn, for another great article.
The United States has started WWIII. The US citizen will be the last to know WWIII has started because every aggressor nation that starts war tells its citizens that it is not war that has been started, but a humanitarian campaign designed to save lives.
Destroying States, making mayhem and violence in the streets, and making $billions in the process- is called spreading freedom and democracy, American Style- since 1948.
And not only started WWIII, but *created all the conditions in which it seems reasonable.
In the words of that great protector and upholder of peace and freedom – “To those who scare peace loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends.” John Ashcroft
I’d put the start date of WWIII at October 7, 2001 but in any case I’d say it’s been here for a while.
“It seems pretty clear at this point that U.S. military action in the Middle East is the end in itself…” That’s some line.
Why not? A perpetual state of war keeps the military contracts rolling, which keeps the owners of those corporations, and their politician puppets, rolling in the dough. Who cares about some petty morality play about “Thou shalt not kill,” or other flavors of the same sentiment? /s
And we have always been at war with Eastasia……
Someday we may have to bomb ourselves. John McCain will be all for it.
Someday we’ll have to bomb ourselves. John McCain will be all for it.
We certainly already have the ground troops with the equipment in place, don’t we. And, obviously, much is already being utilized here.
To support McCain’s legions, how many local police departments will be required to return those tanks and automatic weapons?
Have you been following what’s been highlighted in Ferguson, MO? The militarized police will be McCain’s legions.
Really? The Strong element for bolding? For shame.
Well, McCain did bomb his own aircraft carrier, after all.
Good thing his sister married into the Morgan family (JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, etc.).
McCain married into the Meyer Lanski mob,covering the bases,I guess.
Yea, McCain will be for it, and Hillary will implement it.
Ever wonder what the Syrians think? Here, take a look… http://en.alalam.ir/news/1626584
i am surprised Obama did the smart thing (this time) and contacted Assad…http://en.alalam.ir/news/1626726
Glenn, a temporary expediency. I expect it will dissolve like muscovite in rain water, especially in light of this impudent assault on petro-dollar integrity as BM (Bad Man) points out – China’s Iran oil imports rise 50% in five months
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/06/24/368366/chinas-5month-iran-oil-imports-up-50/
Perhaps, but the NSA has a special intel sharing relationship with those beheading-loving Saudi Arabians!
I should have added a smiley or sumptin.
Paid with bitcoins? BRICS on the march.
I have no doubt, none at all, that we are heading into a major confrontation. And I think it is already underway. The West vs Muslims in it’s simplest description. Call it the third world war if you like. Eventually it will become a joining together of Western countries to fight against the Muslim countries. The Western countries will win because they have more powerful weapons that the Muslims don’t have. Welcome to reality. I’m not praising this future. Just recognizing it.
From Hitler to a partner. —– Impressive indeed.
May be he had a personality change.
On the ‘humanitarian’ (one could say ‘humanitarian violence’, as Eyal Weizman had noted) aspect, noting Susan Rice never encountered a conflict she did not approve of, I expect it is quite fair to say democracy has killed more Iraqis and Syrians, by far, than Saddam and Assad, left on their own, ever would have. What the Russians have recognized in the positive for a very long time and the western democracies are discovering in the negative is, where there is no national tradition or cohesiveness in tribal groups organized by clan, particularly in state of diverse tradition (Sunni, Shia, Marionite, Orthodox and more), and artificial or colonial borders on top of that, there is no stability outside the secular strongmen who’d held what amount to artificial nations intact.
And Brian Fishman’s:
“The country must be ready to accept the sacrifices necessary to achieve grand political ends. Until then, any call to “defeat ISIL” that is not forthright about what that will require is actually an argument for expensive failure”
perhaps overlooks the USA as a ‘country’ or wholistic entity, does not necessarily play in the equation. What we have is a sort of self-feeding insanity similar to the mentally ill parent who insists a child is ill to a point the child believes it must be ill, to draw attention to the parents importance as a care-giver. This, I believe, best describes the USA’s leadership and obsession with ‘terror.’
And although the article stating:
“to know that bombing Bad People out of existence accomplishes little in the way of strategic or humanitarian value. If one really wants to advocate that the U.S. should destroy or at least seriously degrade ISIS, then one should honestly face what that actually entails…”
is pointed to the right direction, what we have seen is more than an anemic response militarily, there have been tools available, and time as well, to radically slow IS expansion that has not been utilized. Why? I would propose it is because of the collective mental disorder as posited previously, demanding the state of illness must be critical in order to draw importance to those who would ‘save’ us.
http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/08/24/the-islamic-state-for-dummies/
^ For once, the facts and the satire are integrated ;)
This is one of the best analogies I have seen regarding the political class’s (and the elite class which bought it) stance on “terrorism”. If you keep harping on it, the hope is that eventually it will become true.
All I want to know is how Ronald knows my mother! :)
I must have met her as a clinical case in developmental psychology class…
Just part of the never ending war against “terror” that can never be won. I can see the bean counters adding up the cost of every bomb that will be dropped while their creepy masters wring their hands in delight at the misery they can inflict. No matter what is going on in the world, you can rest assured that the criminal elite are behind it. I think it is time to go for the jugular of these rats. Just follow the money and it is not hard to see who is calling the shots. This is not the government our forefathers envisioned and it is indeed the thing they feared most. The politicians are just their henchmen, time to go after the profiteers.
Wholeheartedly agree.
Death and destruction. Good for business as usual! :(
Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?
It turns out that American Realpolitik is actually a case of political schizophrenia exacerbated by the convergence of Neo-Conservative, Neo-Liberal and R2P zealots as they close ranks as a prelude to WWIII. If the American Empire is in decline, then it will take all of humanity down with it, in a series of wars fought in the oil rich ‘Middle East’ with help from our unruly, nuclear armed ally Israel?
One reads in journals like the Financial Times, Politico, the Economist, the New York Times the unapologetic war mongers, in a concerted campaign for war over Ukraine, ISIS, with both China and Iran waiting in the wings. Mr. Huntington’s Clash and The Yellow Peril seem to be the narrative templates of our disordered politics, endlessly extemporized upon by the apologists for the American National Security State.
StephenKMackSD
But hasn’t Oceania always been at war with Eastasia?
Smedley Butler would concur :-)
Illegal, immoral and unnecessary made by the band name USA…
…paraniod by overperception, overdesign and overreaction…
It looks like Mr. Obama main Capacity is to Promote Chaos, and he seems very efficient in this Trade.
– to know that bombing Bad People out of existence accomplishes little in the way of strategic or humanitarian value.
This sums up the essential facts here though the hawks will make military action sound like the only viable solution. Meanwhile the military industrial complex sits and counts their gold.
“Anything short of that is just self-glorifying deceit: donning the costume of Churchillian Resolve and Moral Purpose without any substance. It seems pretty clear at this point that U.S. military action in the Middle East is the end in itself, and the particular form it takes – even including the side for which the U.S. fights – is an ancillary consideration. ”
I share your dislike of form without content and think it is something to guard against. If you teach anyone surface or superficial behaviors (or they try to develop a particular way by emulating surface behaviors) – rather than letting behavior develop as a natural consequence of knowledge, experience, and understanding – it’s like training doctors by teaching them to spout common medical phrases and walk around with a physician-like air. That should be an effect, not a cause. So yes, I think the attitude adopted at the end of an argument should be heavily contingent upon the substance of an argument – and at least in 2014, anything involving mass loss of life should not be undertaken with anything less than a heavy heart (I suspect the heavy heart part would read as pretentious to you as well, but to me it at least seems more the logical attitude toward utilitarian sacrifice).
Disagree that switching sides is necessarily a bad thing as I think is implied here (maybe not) – it depends on *why you’re switching sides. I would prefer a society in which people look at all sides and sometimes side with this one, sometimes side with that one, based on what is most beneficial to society and well-being as a whole. As with anything, the balance of factors there will shift frequently and yesterday’s vice can be tomorrow’s virtue. The reverse, after all, is some degree of decision by tribalism. I think it’s more the driving factor behind that process that’s important. I think there is clearly an argument to be made that ISIS is a new factor and this tips the balance of harm in a different direction, but I read you as saying this harm must be considered in an even larger context, i.e., the effects of interventionism and long-term military action.
It feels like we are in a uncontrollably downward spiral. We bomb whole cities and towns kill thousands of innocent people and then try and sell our citizens on a idea that it’s all in the name of democracy. We implement neoliberal economic policies on countries in the region at break neck speed and expect them to survive,and when they don’t and the people begin to embrace a more nationalist our fundamentalist regligious beliefs to gain some power back the United states tells it’s citizens that the people are out of control and should be punished again. We are suppressing and detroying other human beings in the name of greed/power which I suppose is as old as time. People of the United States walk around with blinders on as a few people of enormous wealth drive our society into a ditch and all along the way where signs showing us the right way to go. It’s hard to not have sadness in my heart when I think about all this shit. I wish it was all different.
when are we going to see the list of names that you promised???
Glenn you are past due on your promise…
So the U.S. bought-off another dictator, and now he’ll acquiesce to our (Israel’s) whims.
What else is new?
Your ennui is boring.
Ennui
Tea leaves thwart those who court catastrophe,
designing futures where nothing will occur:
cross the gypsy’s palm and yawning she
will still predict no perils left to conquer.
Jeopardy is jejune now: naïve knight
finds ogres out-of-date and dragons unheard
of, while blasé princesses indict
tilts at terror as downright absurd.
The beast in Jamesian grove will never jump,
compelling hero’s dull career to crisis;
and when insouciant angels play God’s trump,
while bored arena crowds for once look eager,
hoping toward havoc, neither pleas nor prizes
shall coax from doom’s blank door lady or tiger.
SYLVIA PLATH
She was a great poet. She killed herself, leaving her children to grow up without a mother. She made a fateful choice, an unknowing choice, like choosing one from the two blank doors. She lost.
But that is not what Greenwald has done. And Assad going nicely or otherwise, will not end what GG describes. So what else is new, Marian, is what are you going to do about it?
Why, thank you for noticing!
Now go back to licking between Glenn’s toes….
LOL! No way you could know just how funny that is.
When I become discouraged and want to give up on diplomacy, I can’t see why we don’t just let Iran take care of this problem. It’s Sunni inspired. I am sick of Saud as much as Israel.
But then I think of Baku, the sweetest crude on the planet and why Ukraine is a Russian gambit. So I get out my RISK board and go to global town with the whole Enterprise.
Yes, Glenn, to get rid of the New Black, we are going to back Assad, unless you prefer Iran does it. I do. I’m sick of this shite. Just spent a whole day online in a 1755 Pennsylvania cloister of the Shaken and Stirred and found it more soul food than the corn in this big fat can. You think you got problems? I still can’t believe what others endured just to get us here. Those fucking Marylanders, as bad as the Delaware.
If you didn’t tell us all this shite, then we wouldn’t feel responsible for it and we wouldn’t agitate. But I am sick of being held accountable for the unaccountable, Glenn. When do we give in?
Never. Fish gotta swim…look out for the Water Barrier! Oh, it’s just Aquarius. Learn to spell!
I just don’t buy this whole ‘ISIS’ thing. I call bullshit, they are patsies. Groups of Muslim extremists exist, seemingly everywhere. This particular group, funded by mountains of gold and cash found sitting in the middle of a combat zone, and armed by what they can salvage from their defeated foes (and Qatar?). Selling millions of barrels of oil ever day (no sanctions here). Some of them may have even met John McCain, before he cookied and dined with the far right in Ukraine. Trained for combat. On twitter every two minutes taunting their foes. I just think it’s hilarious how the public are being openily manipulated. All day today on the BBC, this threat of terrorism is blaring.
” The United Kingdom raised its terror threat level to “severe” on Friday in response to events in Iraq and Syria.
“What we’re facing in Iraq now with ISIL is a deeper and greater threat to our security than we have known before,” U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said in a news conference from 10 Downing Street, referring to the Islamic State by its former name, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
“With ISIL, we are facing a terrorist organization not being hosted in a country but actually seeking to establish and violently expand its own terrorist state,” he added.
There is no specific threat or information suggesting that an attack is imminent, Home Secretary Theresa May said, however, the “severe” threat level indicates a terrorist attack is “highly likely.” Severe is the second-highest of five possible threat levels.
In the U.S., there were no current terror alerts on the National Terrorism Advisory System, according to its website.
“This is not some foreign conflict thousands of miles from home that we can hope to ignore,” Cameron said. It is a “threat to our own security in the U.K.”
I have been ignoring this terrorist threat for years, never seen a terrorist yet. I feel safe.
If the rules say – you broke it, you bought it….How did George Bush retire with over 100 million dollars in his reelection campaign fund…?
what?!?!….oh, yeah…how could I (or the media ever let me..) possibly forget that EVERYTHING is Bush’s fault.
This article stops disappointingly short. It reaches the point of stating that war in the Middle East is a deliberate US strategy (agree), but then concludes that ‘is the end in itself’. War, as enjoyable and profitable as it may be, is never an end in itself – there is always some larger strategic goal. In this case, the goal is to isolate Iran. Originally, toppling the Assad regime (which was friendly with Iran) seemed the best way to do this. However, once ISIL began its incursions into Iraq, capturing large quantities of US made weaponry in the process, the equation changed. If ISIL succeeded in carving out and maintaining a large piece of Syria and Iraq, then Bagdad and the southern (main oil producing) region of Iraq, would become increasingly reliant on Iranian support. That much oil under effective Iranian control would not be acceptable to the US. Maliki was too friendly with Iran and had to go. So the US has effectively committed to provide sufficient support to the new Iraqi regime to resist further incursions from ISIL. Weakening ISIL is now more important than overthrowing Assad.
These are the games that empires play – but if the US gives up its empire, the petro-dollar and strategic control of the Middle East, it then falls back on its manufacturing prowess to maintain its standard of living. However, it has been surpassed in that department by many countries in Eastern Asia, who increasingly are asserting leadership in development of new technologies and creating new business opportunities. So the US has no other option to maintain its standard of living, than to commit fully to empire and control of the world’s ever more valuable stores of natural resources.
I do agree with you Benito Mussolini. Well put.
Well said I would just add that the article also does not mention that all this switching sides or helping both sides is likely part of the strategy of the long game. Keep the fighting going so no advisory can establish any control either. Divide and aggravate every side keep the killing going until the right opportunity comes up then jump in. So 10 – 20 more years of this would be better than to loose total control.
Your last paragraph hits the bullseye. Well done Mr. Mussolini.
So the US has no other option to maintain its standard of living, than to commit fully to empire and control of the world’s ever more valuable stores of natural resources.
I would only add that the standard of living of most concern is not that of Americans in general, but rather that of an increasingly small contingent of people who exercise direct control over the resources acquired. That the means for acquiring them comes from the cash trough maintained via taxes on the populace is just gravy.
Indeed. Case in point:
Shocking Picture of What Life Will Look Like When You Can’t Afford to Retire
http://www.alternet.org/economy/shocking-picture-what-life-will-look-when-you-cant-afford-retire
Thanks for sharing that link, avelna. I had not heard of this phenomenon; but apparently it is growing. Sad to read, but we do need to be aware of what’s happening.
Whether being funny or serious or both, the Duce never disappoints.
Indeed. If one can see around the tongue and go with the flow of the cheek, one might actually learn a thing or two. ;-}
Well, to be fair his tongue is so long, when he uncoils it from his jowls … ‘other’ people trip over it! :)
*they’ve changed the decor here again!
BM reminds me of a commenter back on Salon (can’t remember the moniker) whom Glenn didn’t quite know to take seriously or not.
Vaguely reminiscent of Amity, but not the same. Amity also had people strung out and apoplectic at times. It was often quite amusing.
War doesn’t have to have a strategic goal. War policy can be and often is driven by self-interested and short-sighted idiots simply looking out for their own profit and advancement. The invasion of Iraq was an obvious case. The end of the Austrian empire is a historical example of what happens to violent states filled with self-interested “leadership”.
As to your weak assertion that the US has no other option but to force compliance to its needs through violence – that is simply the refuge of the unimaginative. This refrain of false realism has been repeated ad-nauseum throughout my adult life despite repeatedly being proven false. The issue is that breaking new ground is hard work and offers no immediate gain so its risky to urge others to invest their effort.
One example of this is the idiotic investment in increasing military spending to secure resources like oil around the world instead of pouring more investment into renewables. This was a very conscious choice made at the start of the Reagan administration, and the US lost its leadership in this technology.
The arguments used in the offshoring of manufacturing jobs were equally idiotic as all this has done is reduced wages for workers, and separated the design engineers in many cases from the manufacturing process. How many design engineers have manufacturing experience now? Thats a major limitation on its own, and one that can not last as it undermines entrepreneurialship.
Sorry… lack of imagination is no excuse for throwing good money after bad.
These two statements contradict each other; the strategic goal of war, as your second sentence states, is to maximize profit. Who profits the most from US control over the Middle East? Banking – because oil is priced in dollars, which strengthens its position as the international reserve currency and gives the country which controls the supply of those dollars primacy in the financial pecking order.Arms suppliers – because oil producing countries exchange their oil for dollars, which they must then spend, and a sizable portion is used to purchase arms. The wars in the Middle East make the various government insecure, thus ensuring a continuing demand for American weapons. And of course, contracts to supply the US military itself are just as lucrative. Oil companies – because oil is priced in dollars, American companies avoid any exchange rate risks, and because the local governments are generally client states of the US for military supplies, are more easily persuaded to provide favorable deals to US oil companies.
So the ‘narrow’ interests which profit from wars in the Middle East are the financial sector, oil majors and military contractors – which also by a strange coincidence happen to be the three most profitable industries in the world. Renewable energy producers, by contrast, are generally losing money. So which interests do you think will determine the strategic goals of US military policy? Democracy by the way, was correctly described by Oswald Spengler as the ‘rule of money’.
This has actually worked out quite well for the US. Saddam Hussein had been proposing to sell some oil in Euros; anathema to the US as explained above. The goal of the Iraq war was to replace his regime with a more compliant client state. The Iraqis did not cooperate after the war, but thanks to ISIS, it appears the US will be able to set up two client states in the oil producing areas of Iraq (a Kurdish state in the north and a Shia state in the south). Since these states will be weak, threatened by aggressive neighbors, the end result, in terms of obtaining favorable contracts, is even better than the original plan.
Please provide the proof. To ‘force compliance’ always involves violence or the threat of violence. The alternative is to attempt persuasion, but over the long term, it is not possible to consistently persuade people to act against their own self interest – hence the enduring appeal of forcing compliance.
That is not the way that companies, who are making money hand over fist, see things. And in fact, their profits help to sustain the US economy, so while this may not be true for a particular individual, due to the interrelated nature of the economy, it can be demonstrated that the average US citizen does benefit financially. Many will vehemently reject this assertion, but it is true.
The question of whether these policies are sustainable is a completely different discussion. But as the economists say, in the long term we are all dead.
Once again Mr. Mussolini, I must agree with your astute political observations and excellent strategic insight and acumen.
Those very same corporate entities that you mention above, Central Banking, Oil Companies, and Military Contractors appear to have entered into an alliance with the Intelligence Community of the USG on a new mercenary endeavor in the Middle East.
Please see: https://public.isishq.com/public/clients/default.aspx
Imagine that!
All wars are always about real asset acquisition -land, land resources (food, water, mineral) , and people – for the ruling class, to amass profit for the ruling class to detriment of the rest of humanity.
The US empire is falling. We the People don’t need to conquer; we need water, food, clothing, shelter, and safety. There are plenty of talented people in all of the sciences and arts that are available to pick-up the pieces and put the United States back on the road to freedom….but first we must resume national control of our currency and replace our elected officials with non-partisan, freely elected representatives (not bought) who are willing to uphold the provisions of our Constitution as written.
i have to say that this is a very naive reading of the situation, though you still get much right. ISIS is not a threat: it toppled an Iraqi government that you agreed was, at best, inconvenient to american interests.
regime change in Syria is still the goal, only they are attacking from a new angle now given that fighting against Assad directly is a politically dead idea that couldn’t get off the ground even when the syrian regime was alleged to be behind the damascus chemical attacks. a new, scarier, more cartoonishly evil enemy had to be found.
as for the myth that ISIL obtained US weaponry from fleeing iraqi troops, there may be a sliver of truth in that but we can see in the snippet selected by Glenn above: “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.” that it’s mostly rubbish. it’s just that it would be a tad embarrassing to openly admit that we need to fight the guys we’ve been secretly arming over the past year or more.
I am still waiting for the new Iraqi government to sign the Status of Forces agreement that Maliki refused to sign which would give U.S. government troops immunity from Iraqi prosecutions for war crimes.
Americans killed 1.2 million Iraqis like putting down dogs. So, don’t hold your breath.
I see the ambiguity, but when I said that war is an end in itself, I wasn’t at all implying that it has no benefits for those who wage them.
Quite the contrary: I agree, and have often written, that its benefits are power, control and profit. I can’t repeat that argument every time I write about war propaganda, but I agree completely with your point and didn’t intend to suggest otherwise.
By “war is an end in itself,” I simply meant that the US doesn’t wait around for some “justification” for war: a humanitarian crisis, a national security threat, etc. Instead, war itself is the desired goal: for precisely the reasons you said.
It doesn’t seem that war is governed by the laws of a binary system (means/ends) but a rather more complex phenomenon analogous to some chemical reaction. A process (war in this case) leads to the transformation of elements from a given state (natural resources present in some politically unstable region) to another (the acquisition of such resources by some political power), resulting in the release of energy (damages/misery) and the creation of by-products (profits from war-mongering).
In that sense and should such analogy hold water, war can merely be seen as a process triggered by some catalyst, real or manufactured, such as humanitarian crises or perceived threat. The end game comprises all by-products of the reaction and that’s how I understand Glenn’s sudden jump from cause to effect. In essence the end game cannot be attained in the absence of the process that is war, which makes it harduous to differentiate the two concepts.
On a completely different note, I would like to praise the format chosen by the Intercept: article followed by debate with the author’s participation. Way back when (in the 50’s and 60’s), people used to go to the cinema to first watch some thought-provoking movie and then remained in their seat to debate various issues raised by the story. A similar format was adopted on television (les dossiers de l’écran on French TV), replacing the audience with a panel of aptly-chosen personalities who engaged in a two-hour debate for the benefit of all viewers.
With the advent of propagandist/militant media from the 70’s onward, such needed and informative debate sadly disappeared from view. I therefore wish to thank all participants for reviving that old tradition. Glenn and his team, naturally, for launching the debate, as well as all the intellectual gadflies, or devil’s advocates, such as the Duce for expanding topics to their full scope for the ultimate benefit of all readers. Any article is nothing but a draft until it becomes confronted to scrutiny and review which, when applied with intellectual honesty, blow the former to its complete proportions. Hats off to both for a truly interesting read.
It doesn’t seem that war is governed by the laws of a binary system (means/ends) but a rather more complex phenomenon analogous to some chemical reaction. A process (war in this case) leads to the transformation of elements from a given state (natural resources present in some politically unstable region) to another (the acquisition of such resources by some political power), resulting in the release of energy (damages/misery) and the creation of by-products (profits from war-mongering).
In that sense and should such analogy hold water, war can merely be seen as a process triggered by some catalyst, real or manufactured, such as humanitarian crises or perceived threat. The end game comprises all by-products of the reaction and that’s how I understand Glenn’s sudden jump from cause to effect. In essence the end game cannot be attained in the absence of the process that is war, which makes it harduous to differentiate the two concepts.
On a completely different note, I would like to praise the format chosen by the Intercept: article followed by debate with the author’s participation. Way back when (in the 50’s and 60’s), people used to go to the cinema to first watch some thought-provoking movie and then remained in their seat to debate various issues raised by the story. A similar format was adopted on television (les dossiers de l’écran on French TV), replacing the audience with a panel of aptly-chosen personalities who engaged in a two-hour debate for the benefit of all viewers.
With the advent of propagandist/militant media from the 70’s onward, such needed and informative debate sadly disappeared from view. I therefore wish to thank all participants for reviving that old tradition. Glenn and his team, naturally, for launching the debate, as well as all the intellectual gadflies, or devil’s advocates, such as the Duce for expanding topics to their full scope for the ultimate benefit of all readers. Any article is nothing but a draft until it becomes confronted to scrutiny and review which, when applied with intellectual honesty, blow the former to its complete proportions. Hats off for a truly interesting read.
Please,America,if it returned to its own business,America,will get along quite nicely with American made tools,cars,computers,TVs etc,with price controls and tariffs,as any independent and sovereign nation would.
Yes,the internationalist criminals hold US in thrall at the moment,but anything is possible,with the passage of more and more obvious idiocy by our poohbahs.
Agree.
Please keep trying.
Eventually “America” will pull their collective head out of the dark hole otherwise known as a rectum.
We the People will do just fine. We are intelligent and talented. Our land, although severely assaulted by economically driven mechanical, chemical, and biological warfare, can be healed and is still an abundant resource. We do not need fiat currency to set the value of our worth. We do not need partisan politics or representatives that represent the interests of an International Central Banking Cartel. We need representatives that speak for the sovereign nature of our people and land.
Great comment Duce.
“So the US has no other option to maintain its standard of living, than to commit fully to empire and control of the world’s ever more valuable stores of natural resources.”
I think the situation in Ukraine has stabilised. Big Ag, ( Monsanto, John Deer et al.) have western Ukraine for their activities. I believe Monsanto is already trying to change Ukraine regulations, to allow GMO’s. Putin does not like Monsanto, and has told Obama, “stop Monsanto, or we will”. We’ll see how that goes in the future. With the Ukraine army in retreat from the eastern region and Crimea lost, the oil companies have not been able to start drilling. Russia controls the reverse gas piplines for EU to Ukraine gas. It’s all gone awry in Ukraine.
So now the game of ‘save the dolla’, will intensify in the Middle East.
“In this case, the goal is to isolate Iran. Originally, toppling the Assad regime (which was friendly with Iran) seemed the best way to do this.”
Sorry sir, but this ignores that Israel’s desire to see Syria destroyed, and it also ignores that the US has been hostiel towards Syria decades before even the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
In its insatiable greed for profit, the US moved its manufacturing base & technology to China. You are 100% correct that there is nothing left for the US to fall back on. The financial Ponzi schemes are the last non-military “solution” to its predestined self-destruction.
Maybe I should make this my new email signature…”We have always been at war with Eastasia.”
My 12-year old just showed me the cool books he checked out at the library yesterday: _1984_ and _Animal Farm_. Good timing, kid.
But, but, but, we are the World’s Policeman! An analogy that has gained respect in the last decade since our police are now armed more like soldiers. Too bad our military is employed more as Darren Johnson than as the friendly beat cop from some of those 50′ tv shows.
Every new American enemy is always the most evillest scariest threat EVAR! And Hitler!
Now, last year’s Hilter(Assad) is a US ally against this year’s Hitler(ISIS). Iran, the Israel-threatening Hitler from a few years ago, is also an ally of the US-supported Iraqi regime; meanwhile Vladimir Putin(another notorious Hitler) is allied with with the Assad/Hitler regime and sending jets to the Iraqi air force to protect against ISIS/Hitler.
Ironically, the new US-supported Ukrainian regime, which contains actual neo-nazis, is NOT Hitler.
It seems that the United States and a lot of the Western powers are good at provoking and stoking the fires of chaos in whatever land they deem as an asset. This mindless bombing of foreign land seems to do nothing more than create fundamentalism exponentially quick. Bombs are easy ways to spends millions of dollars a minute and to self-fulfill prophecies of terrorism. Can’t you just see the whole of the Middle East becoming a large typhoon of marauding armies at this point? The land of bedouin armies traveling around in the desert for 40 years practicing guerrilla warfare however they can.
People say that the United States did not attack Syria in the recent past due to public opinion, but I would say that this is an illusion. I would say that the United States government was just a little confused on if Syria was worth invading or how it was going to be accomplished. Does it have oil or a very strategic land value to encircle Iran/ Russia was probably the question of the hour for our heads of state. Either way sometimes these endless wars maybe a way just to keep the grease pumping into the cogs of the war machine, weapons producers, and endless “terrorism” related defense budgets around the world. This world is a very large powder keg at this moment and only needs a sizable match to detonate. Has anyone seen the Archduke Ferdinand lately?
All done by design people.
Will the American (and British, I suppose) populace , comprehend all of these contradictions in rhetoric and actions? I’ve been wondering for the past several weeks where ISIS stands in the eyes of the Assad regime. I guess this answers that question. And in the meantime the US slowly falls apart for lack of real concern for its people and infrastructure. It is to cry for.
It’s just too bad that the voters in this country will still elect ‘their crook’ to congress and repeat until we’re bankrupt just like the USSR was bankrupt when it was dissolved into Russia. I hate to say it but the majority of the US voters are going to deserve everything that happens when the country is bankrupt. Many people think the breakdown will bring a new wonderful government, I hate to bust their bubble but usually people wind up with a more repressive government after the shit hits the fan. I’m just concerned that the elite will start WWIII to keep the sheep (voters) from knowing what is going on with the economy.
We are already bankrupt and it is already happening.
This craziness and destruction will end with the collapse of the empire, like all other empires. It’s too bad so many of the poor believers in it will be hurt. The rich are already moving.
One plausible assumption is that Russia is actually using the US need for Empire against itself. Over 15 years Russia has worked hard to get out of debt, buy gold (as a hedge for international economic chaos) and build military capability, It is now considered on par with France and UK. By annecting Crimea, supporting EU ultra nationalists (that oppose EU and cause destabilization) and poking Ukraine it forces the indebted West to continue investing or reinvesting in military causing us to bankrupt ourselves. Just like we did to the Soviet Union. Russia is leaving petrodollar or at least offering alternatives already, China is starting an oil exchange on the east that will not use dollar and both nations have prepared for economic turmoil by investing heavily in gold.
Bomb the bad guys!
And also bomb the other bad guys!
Also, too, the other other bad guys!
Duty’s way is plain.
Yes, but make certain the bad guys are *our bad guys who are now dispensable after having done a bang up job ruining a whole country and a way of life based, in part, in tolerance of people’s different religious affiliations. After the targeted country is destabilized sufficiently, and pretending our bad guys are now after us (so to mute any oppositional public opinion), return to excising what remains of its tattered government and then proceed to the original goal of destroying its eastern ally and neighbor, the greatest most evil and irrational enemy of Zionism in the Middle East.
This will force the new-sprouting anti-Zionist movement in the US to choose sides between Iran/Russia and Israel/US, generating conditions in which those who prefer integrity and peace-making to be labeled ‘TRAITORS™ against FREEDOM™’.
Why is it so difficult to understand that when you bomb things (like countries) you break them? This happens with such predictability that it is almost willfully ignorant to speak of “unleashing unintended consequences.” To do this on a regular basis, say annually, they know damned well but just don’t care.
I truly do believe they(Western Nations) have a format of bombing the country into complete devastation so the vulchers can swoop in afterwards and obtain government contracts to “fix” the destruction. The nations bombed are thus on their knees begging and selling out their resources for pennies on the dollar. Corporations love bargains.
The Mujahedeen of Afghanistan, The Contras before that, on & on…
This Machiavellian game wont end well…
Machiavellian:
Mujahadeen of Afghanistan funded by CIA back in the 80′ all over again, or the Contras before, and so on & on… this wont end well…
But, if we are to believe that interview given by Zbigniew Brzezinski in France in the 1990s, then it began with the presidential directive of Jimmy Carter to destabilize the then-secular government of Afghanistan, which the Carter administration felt was to friendly to their northern border neighbor, the Soviet Union (according to Brzezinski, a Rockefeller and Kissinger acolyte, Saudi Arabia provided the Wahabist extremists who were relocated to Afghanistan’s northern border to foment trouble among the moderate Sufi Islamics living there at the time, leading to the Sov invasion, etc.).
Meanwhile, the AMERICAN MILITARY INDUSTRY IS DOING ITS HAPPY DANCE!