God Wants A Regime Change, Not In Syria, But In The U.S. To Appoint A Good Shepherd Because The Antichrist Is Coming

 

 

2015-10-05-1444055100-4354253-ScreenShot20151005at9.37.30AM-thumb

We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing-grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender.” – Winston Churchill – August 20, 1940

BY SHOEBAT.COM – AWARENESS AND ACTION

Why does man ignore, that God is in control, despite Obama’s tyranny, before the man of sin arises to cause destruction upon the earth, God will raise “seven righteous shepherds” (leaders) who will utterly destroy the man of sin:

and this one shall be peace. When the Assyrian comes into our land, and when he treads in our palaces, then we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princely men. They shall waste with the sword the land of Assyria, and the land of Nimrod at its entrances; thus he shall deliver us from the Assyrian (Micah 5)

How at times Americans forget: God, not Obama, is in control of this nation.

Even the nations that dig traps for other nations to make regime changes forget that it is God who monitors the affairs of man.

He does a much better job in monitoring the world than the CIA, the FBI or the Pentagon.

Obama wanted a regime change in Syria, but the way things seem these days, perhaps the Almighty does not want a regime change in Syria, but a regime change in the U.S. instead.

Can anyone explain why Americans, on both sides of the isle, are becoming more ticked-off by the day, and they want a regime change, not in Syria, but here in the United States?

They are sick of political parties.

Today President Sissy Obama says the U.S.-led coalition is hitting ISIS “harder than ever”. But Americans are not buying it. They all know too well that Russia is hitting ISIS, and if Putin had a U.S. birth-certificate, he too (had he run) might surge in the poles.

Everyone these days know that the real name of that sissy U.S. President is Obama Ben Lyin.

 

Who can truly explain why Donald Trump is surging in the polls, and while we have a mess in the Middle East where even Putin looks like a savior?

While everyone thinks that a candidate rises or falls in the polls for being nice to Muslims, Trump surged even higher for saying “stop Muslims from coming in”.

And for saying that, Donald Trump (according to Monmouth University poll released today) has crossed the 40 percent threshold in a new national poll, giving the Republican presidential candidate the largest lead he’s held in any survey so far.

If perhaps next time Trump says “screw Allah” his ratings in the polls might just hit the roof.

The explanation to Trump’s success is simpler than what these analysts try to tell us on Fox News: Americans want an all-American burger and hating falafel is not racism, its culture.

This is by far the strangest election in American history. Who knows, it could be that the Almighty wants regime change, not in Syria, as Obama wants, but a regime change in the U.S., the planning headquarters of all regime-changes.

The American love for apple-pie is why I rarely if ever, focus on what falafel-loving Muslim groups like CAIR say or do. I never worry about all the crude things I say at times on my blog. Trump is just as crude,  rude, and belligerent as I can be, and he is still soaring like an American bald eagle.

I knew long ago that in every nice American there is also a hidden General Patton inside, carrying a baseball bat.

I have been hanging out long enough with Americans, and besides Muslims, I can easily profile them too. It is easy to expose American hypocrisy. No matter how often Americans count calories or endure Obama’s camel-faced wife saying that we ought to “solve the epidemic of childhood obesity,” Americans know they are being hypocritical. The Hot Dog and Hamburger is the American idol while Michelle Ben Lying will always secretly be viewed by Americans as “butt-ugly” and “wholly stupid”.

and this one shall be peace. When the Assyrian comes into our land, and when he treads in our palaces, then we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princely men. They shall waste with the sword the land of Assyria, and the land of Nimrod at its entrances; thus he shall deliver us from the Assyrian (Micah 5)

How at times Americans forget: God, not Obama, is in control of this nation.

Even the nations that dig traps for other nations to make regime changes forget that it is God who monitors the affairs of man.

He does a much better job in monitoring the world than the CIA, the FBI or the Pentagon.

Obama wanted a regime change in Syria, but the way things seem these days, perhaps the Almighty does not want a regime change in Syria, but a regime change in the U.S. instead.

Can anyone explain why Americans, on both sides of the isle, are becoming more ticked-off by the day, and they want a regime change, not in Syria, but here in the United States?

They are sick of political parties.

Today President Sissy Obama says the U.S.-led coalition is hitting ISIS “harder than ever”. But Americans are not buying it. They all know too well that Russia is hitting ISIS, and if Putin had a U.S. birth-certificate, he too (had he run) might surge in the poles.

Everyone these days know that the real name of that sissy U.S. President is Obama Ben Lyin.

Who can truly explain why Donald Trump is surging in the polls, and while we have a mess in the Middle East where even Putin looks like a savior?

While everyone thinks that a candidate rises or falls in the polls for being nice to Muslims, Trump surged even higher for saying “stop Muslims from coming in”.

And for saying that, Donald Trump (according to Monmouth University poll released today) has crossed the 40 percent threshold in a new national poll, giving the Republican presidential candidate the largest lead he’s held in any survey so far.

If perhaps next time Trump says “screw Allah” his ratings in the polls might just hit the roof.

The explanation to Trump’s success is simpler than what these analysts try to tell us on Fox News: Americans want an all-American burger and hating falafel is not racism, its culture.

This is by far the strangest election in American history. Who knows, it could be that the Almighty wants regime change, not in Syria, as Obama wants, but a regime change in the U.S., the planning headquarters of all regime-changes.

The American love for apple-pie is why I rarely if ever, focus on what falafel-loving Muslim groups like CAIR say or do. I never worry about all the crude things I say at times on my blog. Trump is just as crude,  rude, and belligerent as I can be, and he is still soaring like an American bald eagle.

I knew long ago that in every nice American there is also a hidden General Patton inside, carrying a baseball bat.

In this war on ISIS, perhaps if we take Donald Trump acting as Longshanks in the movie Braveheart. Braveheart and his rebels could be viewed as Al-Baghdadi and ISIS, Longshanks’ son as Obama, the scenario where Obama claims he is “doing something” would fit perfectly. Braveheart (ISIS) after sacking York, sends a head to Longshanks, and his son tells the king that he is addressing ISIS “I’ve sent conscriptions” to only see the obvious, Obama was more of a sissy-homosexual than a real man. America will never have love for a sissy.

To top it all off for sissy Obama’s war on ISIS, Germany has denied US requests to provide additional support for the US-led mission against ISIS (Germans would not obey a sissy), with the federal chancellor stressing that “at the moment” Berlin is already doing enough for its part in the combined anti-terror effort.

Strange, even a woman snubs Obama: “I believe Germany is fulfilling its part and we don’t need to talk about new issues related to this question at the moment,” Angela Merkel told the ZDF.

With Obama, even the stale sauerkraut snubbed him.

article-2684147-1F77DA6E00000578-342_634x672

The American answer to terrorism

Remember we are the greatest!

Under Obama, terrorism became rampant to the point that even UN Security Council rejected a Russian motion to condemn a terrorist attack in the city of Homs where at least 22 people were killed and more than 70 injured.

Why did they reject it? Because it says: “The Syrian government reiterated that most of the terror attacks “would not have happened without … generous support with money, weapons and ammunition to the terrorist organizations as well as the political and media support provided by known countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar,” the Ministry said, reported official news agency Sana.”

To say “Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar” are the main instigators of terror is an anathema. Under Obama, its not only ISIS that gets special protection, but the beast of Turkey and the whores of Arabia, cannot be pointed as the culprits for spilling the blood of saints.

And just to show how messed up the foreign policies are, here, I will explain the small-nail on what sparked the rise of this Muslim beast.

There was once a little nail that held this humpty-dumpty named Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. He was elected with 90% of the vote on 25 October 2009. On 18 December 2010 a revolution sprang which led to the ousting of longtime president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in January 2011.

It eventually led to a thorough democratization of the country and to supposedly free democratic elections. Instead of democracy, Tunisia saw the victory of a coalition of the Islamist Ennahda Movement (sister of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood).

The vent caused a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests (both non-violent and violent), riots, and civil unrest in the Arab world.

The hoopla was not much different from the demonstrations caused by the Muhammad-mocking movie, Innocence of Muslims.

Had everyone ignored the Muslims, things would have calmed down. In reality, it was Muslims who wanted what is called the Turkish Model of Islam as an ideal.

So on January 14, 2011, taking refuge in Muslim Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration quickly adapted, expressing its support for the demonstrations. The U.S. could live without the Tunisian regime.

In Egypt, the 2011 uprising was effectively internationalized, with foreign media devoting countless hours to covering every turn and, in the process, putting the issue at the top of the Western policy agenda.

The United States, making use of longstanding military-to-military ties, pressured the Egyptian army to refrain from using force against Muslim protesters.

Then Obama supported an intervention by NATO forces in Libya, which ultimately led to the end of the revolution and death of leader Muammar Qadhafi.

The naive Americans were jubilant, of course.

Non-politicians who had experience with foreigners overseas like businessman mogul Donald Trump knew better. Just as any kabob stand in the Middle East knew, the hoopla wasn’t about dictators, it was about Islam, stupid.

The U.S. condemned the governments of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen for their actions in dealing with the Islamist demonstrators.

However, it has stopped short of calling for regime change in Bahrain alone among those states. Why? Because Saudi Arabia knew that the majority in Bahrain are Shiites and with democracy, it would end up as a Shiite government allied to Iran.

And if Shiite-happens, in Egypt Sunni-happens.

It was no different from the Shiite Iranian Khomeni revolution in Iran than it was in Sunni Egypt. The Persians were for the revolution. The government of Iran condemned the Egyptian government’s response to protests during the Arab Spring even though Egypt is Sunni. They too, in Iran, wanted an Islamic revolution despite the Sunni-Shiite divide.

As a result, Sunni-happened, especially, approximately 10,000 Egyptians took part in The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID training in social media and nonviolent organizing techniques.

For example, one former Egyptian policeman named Omar Afifi Suleiman. He was coordinating the Tahrir Square protests in Cairo from his office in Washington DC. According to Wikileaks, NED paid Suleiman a yearly stipend of $200,000 between 2008-2011.

The tactics of the Arab Spring was introduced by one American non-violent guru, a son of a Protestant minister, Gene Sharp, the godfather of nonviolent revolution. His links with the Pentagon and US intelligence which played the major role. His work was reportedly taught in training workshops for Egyptian revolutionaries long before the events in Tahrir Square. And it has been used by activists in Zimbabwe, Estonia, Serbia, Vietnam, Burma and Lithuania.

The US goal in the Arab Spring revolutions was supposedly to replace unpopular despotic dictators while taking care to maintain the autocratic US-friendly infrastructure that had brought them to power. All initially followed the nonviolent precepts Sharp outlines in his 1994 book From Dictatorship to Democracy. In Libya, Syria and Yemen, the US and their allies were clearly prepared to introduce paid mercenaries when their Sharpian “revolutions” failed to produce regime change.

Sharp, contrary to the claim, was not simply a “practitioner of nonviolent movements” but rather a “theorist of power”. Some participated in the same State Department trainings as the Middle East opposition activists and instigated nonviolent Facebook and Twitter protests to coincide with the 2011 uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

Others, in exile, underwent guerrilla training sponsored by the CIA and a few months after Gaddafi’s assassination, some of these same militants would lead Islamic militias attempting to overthrow Assad in Syria.

How much mess can happen as result of the disobedience of God?

I will give just two simple biblical instructions. The first was to believe that the Protestant support for contraception was wiser than the Pope’s. The second was that “civil disobedience” and “non-violent protesting” is a God-given right.

Making contraception halal, and we have Protestant Germany and Protestant England in population-decline with more old geezers demanding to be taken care of by Muslim immigrants who will supposedly take on the work-force in Europe.

The reality was that these Muslims did not mind impregnating European girls and produce more Muslims and more welfare.

The other bad instruction was that we all have the right of “civil disobedience” which resulted is the worst tyranny in recent history: the Arab Spring.

The Bible never taught “civil disobedience” just for simply opposing a kingdom or a dictator. On the contrary, Christians are to obey the rules of the government so long they are allowed to observe God’s mandates and be allowed to worship Jesus freely.

God never told Moses to oust the Pharaoh. He simply wanted to be worshiped freely. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s does to mean we stop rendering unto God what is God’s.

You take away that second duty (rendering unto God what is God’s), and the second amendment kicks in with “violence” if reason and non-violence fails.

This is America. This is that apple-pie that can never be taken away. America will never have a love for Allah and will turn on any politician when they start dictating how we theologically believe to render unto Allah and Islam some burnt incense.

In fact, it was the condemnation of Trump on his Muslim comments that ticked off many Americans who are afraid to come out of the closet and confess his/her hypocrisy.

I profile Americans daily. An American is a hypocrite. He will never tell you that he hates falafel after you give them a taste. They will simply say that trying falafel “was interesting”. They will never say that they hate Islam, they will simply say they do not want Syrian immigrants when what they truly mean “Muslim” immigrants. An American is not an Arab where burping is polite and women open the door for men is the norm.

Besides Donald Trump, every Republican candidate, to cover his utter-hypocrisy had to bend the knee for Allah and the Muslim.

Trump was brilliant. Trump made them all work like the chicken-pecking on Trump’s head for saying the word “Muslim”. Fortunately, his pure golden hair cut their beaks and the Americans are responding in the polls, while Obama sought to differentiate Islam from the practices and beliefs of terrorists.

“[ISIS] does not speak for Islam,” Obama said. “They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology.”

Alright then, perhaps if Al-Baghdadi does not speak for Islam, who then does? Al-Azhar University in Egypt? The Wahhabist Saudis? Turkey?

There is no one on the face of the earth who can deny that every major Muslim institution that speaks for Islam is not void of teaching that Jihad is a holy-war against the infidel.

And while Obama fiddles around with ISIS, Erdogan of Turkey insists to “change set-times and laws”. While Turkey can undertake separate referenda for a new Constitution and a switch to an executive-style presidential system (in reality a Caliphate) President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan told reporters on his private plane en route from an official visit to Turkmenistan.

There are all sorts of foreign policy messes at hand and they are all as result of U.S. Administration. Messing with Syria caused Russia to intervene. Russia intervening messed up Turkey’s plans for a Neo-Ottoman hegemony which caused Turkey to mess with Russia. Turkey messing with Russia caused a rift where Turkey is not looking to change it dependency on Russian gas. Changing Turkey’s dependency on Russian gas made Turkey look to the Central Asian countries like Azarbeijan and Turkmenistan that holds the world’s fourth- or fifth-largest natural gas reserves. All this is helping create a new Muslim block with Turkey and the Muslim states in the Caucasus. These, including Iran would constitute tens of Nazi Germanies. All this was caused because some supposed genius wanted “democracy” in the Middle East.

However, Russia is building a natural gas route to China that could rival Turkmenistan’s. This leaves the Trans-Caspian pipeline as the last option for diversifying Turkmenistan’s customer base which will ease the need of Turkey to depend on Russia’s gas.

And now Erdogan wants to become Caliph.

“If they [opposition] want to take this [proposal] to the people they can do so. I believe that a huge proportion of the people will say ‘yes’ to a new Constitution,” Erdogan said.

“The people” will finally give him “allegiance” and the dead-man of Europe will arise from the dead.

But technically, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) would need the support of 367 of the 550 deputies to amend the Turkish Constitution directly, and only 330 to take the proposal to a nationwide referendum.

But in August, Erdoğan argued that Turkey’s government had already been changed into a “de facto” presidential system, as he called for a constitutional framework to “finalize” this transition.

“You can either accept it or not. Turkey’s government system has been de facto changed in this regard. What should be done now is to finalize the legal framework of this de facto situation with a new Constitution,” Erdoğan said during a speech in his hometown of Rize.

Turkey has enjoyed nearly 140 years of constitutional experience since the inception of the Ottoman Constitution of 1876, known in Turkish as the Kanûn-u Esâsî, and the parliamentary system has been the defining characteristic of all constitutions to follow.

Even in the 60-odd years of multi-party politics Turkey has seen, witnessing four military coups and even having a prime minister executed, Turkey has never taken a step to change its system of governance to a presidential one.

Erdoğan has emphasized the superiority of the presidential system (Caliph-Erdogan) many times in the past and said that he wants to change the current parliamentary system of government to a strong presidential system (Sultan-Erdogan).

Claiming that most developed countries are governed by a presidential system, although this is not actually the case, he said in January: “That shows that this [system] produces [better] results. Given this, why should we put shackles on our feet [by sticking with a parliamentary system]?”

The next argument will be that if Catholics have a Pope, why the Muslims cannot have a “Caliph”?

This will be as if Caliph-Baghdadi of ISIS, but he is running the second largest and most powerful army in NATO after the U.S.

Anyone else (besides Obama) dare say that Islam is not the most dangerous religion on earth?

Anyone wants to ignore that God is in control and that He might have Trump win? God even chose Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man, to spend three days in His grave. God does not hate the rich man just because he is rich.

In the end, somethings just never change. Especially when it comes to my three decade observation of Americans. From its discovery of the Hamburger, Americans will always stand in long lines because they love the Hamburger and is why they stand in long lines to see Donald Trump.

 

Author: God in heaven

Why Obama’s assurance of ‘no boots on the ground’ isn’t so reassuring

PHAFGHAN13_10_0_163384204

A U.S. Marine on patrol. (Rebecca Sell/For The Washington Post)

Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, was an Obama administration appointee at the Defense Department from 2009 to 2011. She is married to an Army Special Forces officer.

Each time I hear President Obama assure us that there will be “no boots on the ground” in Iraq or Syria, I think of my husband’s Army boots, lying in a heap in the corner of the downstairs study. They’re covered in fine dust from his latest Middle East deployment, one that came nail-bitingly close to being extended by an unplanned stint in Iraq.

In the end, he wasn’t sent back to Iraq. He came home in July, though a last-minute change in assignments left most of his civilian clothes stranded in some Army transport netherworld. Deprived of his sneakers and sandals, he wore his Army boots pretty much everywhere this summer, even on playground outings with the kids. Watching grass stains from the local park gradually displace nine months of Kuwaiti dust gave me more happiness than I can say.

Even so, I can’t help feeling queasy every time I hear the president pledge that there will be “no boots on the ground” in America’s newest war. I wonder what that pledge really means — and just why we’re supposed to find it reassuring. It’s a pledge that seems to have everything to do with politics and little to do with the imperatives of strategy or security.

Here’s what “no boots on the ground” apparently doesn’t mean: It doesn’t mean that no U.S. troops will be sent to Iraq or Syria. Reportedly there are already 1,600 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. True, they’re present in an “advisory” role, not in a combat role — but surely one lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that combat has a habit of finding its way to noncombat personnel. Enemy snipers and IEDs don’t much care about a soldier’s mission or occupational specialty, and you can bet that fighters of the self-proclaimed Islamic State would be content with the heads of a few American advisers.

It’s also hard to know what publicly reported troop numbers really mean. When the Pentagon issues a Boots on the Ground report (known colloquially as a “BOG report”), it often excludes military personnel on “temporary duty” in combat areas, even though temporary duty may mean an assignment spanning five or six months. Similarly, Special Operations personnel assigned to work under CIA auspices are often left out of the BOG numbers. This makes it hard to know just who’s being counted when officials say there are 1,600 military personnel in Iraq.

“No boots on the ground” also ignores the many nonmilitary American boots (and shoes and sandals) present in Iraq and Syria. Our Baghdad embassy personnel presumably wear some kind of footwear, as do thousands more civilians working as U.S. government contractors in Iraq. In both Iraq and Syria, scores of American civilians also work for nongovernmental organizations and humanitarian aid groups.

The Pentagon keeps careful count of dead and wounded U.S. troops, but the government doesn’t systematically track dead or injured civilians or contractors (many of whom, of course, are U.S. military veterans). Though few Americans know it, there were often more contractors working for the U.S. government on the ground than there were U.S. troops at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and some estimates suggest that there were as many U.S.-employed contractors who died in those conflicts as there were U.S. troops killed.

Cynics might even suspect that this heavy reliance on contractors was part of an effort to keep those BOG numbers down while outsourcing military risk. After all, no one likes high BOG numbers — the very acronym is suggestive of that most dreaded military outcome, the “quagmire.”

If “no boots on the ground” means playing games with numbers and offloading military risk onto U.S. government civilians and contractors, we should take little solace in presidential reassurances.

And we should feel even less comfort if “no boots on the ground” ends up putting vulnerable local civilians at risk. Remember Kosovo? President Bill Clinton’s refusal in 1999 to put U.S. troops on the ground forced us to rely solely on airstrikes to prevent Serbian ethnic cleansing. To further minimize any risk to U.S. military personnel, we mainly flew sorties at a safe 15,000 feet above the ground. This worked out well for us: Aside from two Americans killed in a helicopter accident in Albania, there were no U.S. fatalities in the 78-day air campaign. It worked out less well for some of the civilians we were trying to protect; in several cases, for instance, NATO pilots mistook convoys of refugees for troop transports, causing scores of civilian deaths.

The primary goal of the current U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq isn’t civilian protection, but Obama has suggested that this is at least a secondary motivation. In his speech this past week to the U.N. General Assembly, for instance, he asserted that the Islamic State “has terrorized all who they come across in Iraq and Syria. Mothers, sisters and daughters have been subjected to rape as a weapon of war. Innocent children have been gunned down. . . . Religious minorities have been starved to death. In the most horrific crimes imaginable, innocent human beings have been beheaded. . . . The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death.”

It’s hard to argue with the importance of dismantling a “network of death,” but no matter how careful we are, U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq will also end up killing some innocent civilians. Without eyes and ears on the ground, we’re more likely to make tragic targeting mistakes. We have to hope we’ll do more good than harm, but it’s hard to feel confident of that.

Numerous respected military and defense leaders — from Army Gen. Martin Dempsey , current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to retired defense secretary Robert Gates — have argued in recent weeks that ground troops will probably be required if our strategy is to be effective. So far, events seem to be proving them right: In Iraq, seven weeks of airstrikes have done little to push Islamic State fighters out of the territories they control, despite close U.S. coordination with Iraqi army units. In Syria, we have no similar local force with which to coordinate, creating a risk that U.S. airstrikes will increase the chaos without fundamentally reducing the threat to local civilians — or, in the longer term, to the United States.And that’s most worrisome of all — the possibility that our insistence on “no boots on the ground” also offloads present risks onto the future. Relying on airstrikes alone may merely prolong a bloody and inconclusive conflict, or strengthen other actors who are just as brutal as Islamic State fighters, from the regime of Bashar al-Assad to the al-Qaeda-linked rebels of Jabhat al-Nusra.Insisting that we’ll never commit U.S. troops to this fight plays right into every jihadist narrative, reinforcing America’s image as an arrogant but cowardly nation — happy to drop bombs from a distance but unwilling to risk the lives of our troops. Each time we reinforce that narrative, we give jihadist recruiting another big boost.

 

For a decade, we’ve relied on drone strikes as a top counterterrorism tool in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, but a few thousand dead terrorism suspects later, it’s far from clear that we’ve made ourselves safer. If anything, the global jihadist movement appears to have gained strength. As a former Defense Intelligence Agency director, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, recently noted: “In 2004, there were 21 total Islamic terrorist groups spread out in 18 countries. Today, there are 41 Islamic terrorist groups spread out in 24 countries.” Ultimately, our efforts to destroy the Islamic State from afar may similarly spark the creation of even more jihadist groups.

“I will not commit you . . . to fighting another ground war in Iraq,” Obama told troops at Central Command headquarters this month. I appreciate his desire to do right by America’s military personnel: My husband’s boots, like those of so many other members of the armed forces, have already gathered too much dust in too many dangerous places, over too many years. Right now, I want those boots to stay exactly where they are: here, at home.

But I don’t want to trade the safety of U.S. troops today for the safety of our children tomorrow. If Obama’s promise of “no boots on the ground” means we’ll be fighting a war of half-measures — a war that won’t achieve our objectives and that may increase the long-term threat — I’m not sure, in the end, that it’s a promise I want him to keep.

Even if we defeat the Islamic State, we’ll still lose the bigger war

 

 

2014-09-24T112509Z_01_SYR04_RTRIDSP_3_SYRIA-CRISIS

Residents of Syria’s Idlib province examine building damaged in air strikes on September 24. The United States and its Arab allies have opened a new front in the battle against Islamic State militants. (Ammar Abdullah/Reuters)

Andrew J. Bacevich, the George McGovern fellow at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, is writing a history of U. S. military involvement in the Greater Middle East.

As America’s efforts to “degrade and ultimately destroy” Islamic State militants extend into Syria, Iraq War III has seamlessly morphed into Greater Middle East Battlefield XIV. That is, Syria has become at least the 14th country in the Islamic world that U.S. forces have invaded or occupied or bombed, and in which American soldiers have killed or been killed. And that’s just since 1980.

Let’s tick them off: Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-), Pakistan (2004-) and now Syria. Whew.

With our 14th front barely opened, the Pentagon foresees a campaign likely to last for years. Yet even at this early date, this much already seems clear: Even if we win, we lose. Defeating the Islamic State would only commit the United States more deeply to a decades-old enterprise that has proved costly and counterproductive.

Back in 1980, President Jimmy Carter touched things off when he announced that the United States would use force to prevent the Persian Gulf from falling into the wrong hands. In effect, with the post-Ottoman order created by European imperialists — chiefly the British — after World War I apparently at risk, the United States made a fateful decision: It shouldered responsibility for preventing that order from disintegrating further. Britain’s withdrawal from “east of Suez,” along with the revolution in Iran and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, prompted Washington to insert itself into a region in which it previously avoided serious military involvement.

At the time, oil — not freedom, democracy or human rights — defined the principal American interest, and stability was the goal. Military power offered the means by which the United States hoped to attain that goal. Armed might would keep a lid on things. The pot might simmer, but it wouldn’t boil over.

In practice, however, whether putting boots on the ground or relying on missiles from above, subsequent U.S. efforts to promote stability have tended to produce just the opposite. Part of the problem is that American policymakers have repeatedly given in to the temptation to unleash a bit of near-term chaos, betting that longer-term order will emerge on the other end.

Back in Vietnam, this was known as burning down the village to save it. In the Greater Middle East, it has meant dismantling a country with the aim of erecting something more preferable — “regime change” as a prelude to “nation building.” Unfortunately, the United States has proved considerably more adept at the former than the latter.

Mostly, coercive regime change has produced power vacuums. Iraq offers a glaring example. Although studiously ignored by Washington, post-Gaddafi Libya offers a second. And unless the gods are in an exceptionally generous mood, Afghanistan will probably become a third whenever U.S. and NATO combat troops finally depart.

In place of governing arrangements that Washington judged objectionable, the United States has found itself coping with the absence of any effective governments whatsoever. Instead of curbing bad behavior, spanking induced all sorts of pathologies.

By inadvertently sowing instability, the United States has played directly into the hands of anti-Western radical Islamists intent on supplanting the European-imposed post-Ottoman order with something more to their liking. This is the so-called caliphate that Osama bin Laden yearned to create and that now exists in embryonic form in the portions of Iraq and Syria that Islamic State radicals control.

Want to measure what America’s war for the Middle East has accomplished through its first 13 iterations? The Islamic State has to rank prominently on any list of achievements. If Iraq possessed minimally effective security forces, Islamic State militants wouldn’t have a chance. But the Iraqi army we created won’t fight, in considerable measure because the Iraqi government we created doesn’t govern.

Kurdish fighters defending Kobane warn of a likely massacre by Islamic State insurgents, while Turkey says it will do whatever it can to prevent the Syrian border town from falling. (Reuters)

President Obama did not initiate the long and varied sequence of military actions that has produced this situation. Yet he finds himself caught in a dilemma. To give the Islamic State a free hand is to allow proponents of the caliphate to exploit the instability that U.S. efforts, some involving Obama himself, have fostered. But to make Syria the latest free-fire zone in America’s never-ending Middle East misadventure will almost surely prolong and exacerbate the agonies that country is experiencing, with little ability to predict what consequences will ensue.

Even if U.S. and allied forces succeed in routing this militant group, there is little reason to expect that the results for Syrians will be pretty — or that the prospects of regional harmony will improve. Suppress the symptoms, and the disease simply manifests itself in other ways. There is always another Islamic State waiting in the wings.

Obama’s bet — the same bet made by each of his predecessors, going back to Carter — is that the skillful application of U.S. military might can somehow provide a way out of this dilemma. They were wrong, and so is he.

We may be grateful that Obama has learned from his predecessor that invading and occupying countries in this region of the world just doesn’t work. The lesson he will bequeath to his successor is that drone strikes and commando raids don’t solve the problem, either.

We must hope for victory over the Islamic State. But even if achieved, that victory will not redeem but merely prolong a decades-long military undertaking that was flawed from the outset. When the 14th campaign runs its course, the 15th will no doubt be waiting, perhaps in Jordan or in a return visit to some unfinished battleground such as Libya or Somalia or Yemen.

Yet even as the United States persists in its determination to pacify the Greater Middle East, the final verdict is already in. U.S. military power has never offered an appropriate response to whatever ails the Islamic world. We’ve committed our troops to a fool’s errand.

And worse, the errand is also proving unnecessary. With abundant North American energy reserves now accessible — all that shale oil and fracked gas — we don’t need the Persian Gulf oil that ostensibly made our post-1980 military exertions imperative. For whatever reasons, Washington’s national security elites seem oblivious to the implications these resources have for policy in the Middle East.

No matter how long it lasts, America’s war for the Greater Middle East will end in failure. And when it does, Americans will discover that it was also superfluous.

Conflict Resolution in Syria Impossible Without Assad

 

Friday, November 20, 2015

Conflict Resolution in Syria Impossible Without Assad

Washington, Britain, France, Israel and rogue regional allies are part of the Syrian conflict resolution problem – Russia and Assad key solution partners.
 
Sergey Lavrov stresses Assad’s importance, saying “(a)ll the forecasts made by (rogue Western states) and some other parties that the people would rise up and oust him never came true.”
 
“This means one thing: Assad represents the interests of a significant part of Syrian society (the vast majority, Lavrov stopped short of explaining based on polling data and his overwhelming June 2014 reelection). So no peaceful solution can be found without his participation.”
 
On November 19, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, Obama again demanded Assad must go. He lied calling his premeditated proxy aggression on Syria a “civil war,” saying he “do(es) not foresee a situation in which (it can be resolved) while (he) remains in power” – his latest assertion of rogue state arrogance, adding:
 
“Even if I said that was okay, I still don’t think it would actually work. You could not get the Syrian people, the majority of them, to agree to that kind of outcome.”
Fact: He wants Washington alone deciding who’ll lead Syria, not its citizens democratically.
 
Fact: He knows Assad remains overwhelmingly popular. Syrians want no one else leading them. Claiming he rules illegitimately is a bald-faced lie.
 
Fact: US-controlled puppet rule assures endless violence, instability and chaos – like in all nations where America intervenes. Peace and democratic governance defeat its imperial agenda.
Hopefully Lavrov is right saying growing numbers of world officials are coming around to Russia’s position on combating terrorism, and beginning to distance themselves from Washington’s destructive agenda.
“(L)evel-headed politicians are…realizing the need to concentrate on…stopping ISIS’ attempts to spread (its diabolical) influence globally,” said Lavrov. (It’s) trying to achieve its goal of creating (a) caliphate regardless of what happens in Syria and the attitude that anyone has towards Bashar Assad.”
Russia urges world unity in combating a common scourge. Resolving Syria’s conflict depends on it, impossible otherwise. “We are currently acting in Syria legally and are willing to cooperate in practice with (nations allied with Washington) that are prepared to respect Syria’s sovereignty and the goals of the Syrian government,” Lavrov stressed.
He urged passing a Security Council resolution, authorizing Chapter 7 military intervention to combat ISIS. Russia’s draft proposal seeks it, so far blocked by Washington and rogue partners Britain and France.
They oppose resolution language saying “anti-terrorist operations should be coordinated with the governments of the states, where such operations take place,” said Lavrov. 
“Unfortunately, we see the willingness to band together on an anti-terrorist platform only after tragedies” – often against wrong targets for lawless objectives. 
Lavrov urges mutual cooperation against ISIS and similar terrorist groups, the only effective way to defeat them – including stopping outside financial and military support from reaching them, the way it’s happening now, led by Washington, supported by its rogue partners including Israel, fueling the fire vital to extinguish.
A Final Comment
Russia’s Defense Ministry reported its aerial mission destroyed over 2,000 terrorist facilities in Syria since September 30. America’s 14-month bombing campaign eliminated NONE.
On November 19, Fars News reported top ISIS commanders and hundreds of fighters fleeing their Raqqa headquarters “after sustaining heavy casualties” from Russian airstrikes – according to intelligence assessments and “confirmed” eyewitness sources.
According to Arabic language al-Mayadeen television, ISIS elements are moving their families and remaining heavy weapons to Deir Ezzur. Syrian armed forces and Kurdish fighters continue making slow but steady gains against ISIS in northeastern Hasakah region. 
Russia’s main objective in Syria is neutralizing and containing ISIS enough for Syrian armed forces to continue regaining lost territory, as well as preventing the spread of this scourge elsewhere.
Author: Stephen Lendman
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal

BREAKING: Over 1,000 ISIS and Al Nusra Militants Surrender To Syrian Army In Last 24 Hours

 

 

The development came after President Bashar al-Assad in a televised address in July pardoned all soldiers who have fled the army, saying that his words served as a general decree to relevant officials.

Hundreds of gunmen have been laying down their weapons and turning themselves in to authorities in areas across the country.

This number seems to be on the rise as the army has been making steady gains in the battlefield against the terrorist groups, recapturing an increasing number of regions, including strategic sites, which helped cut off many of the militants’ supply routes and forced them to surrender or run away.

Also in the past 24 hours, the Syrian air raids destroyed concentration centers of the ISIL, al-Nusra Front and other terrorist groups in Hama and Idlib.

The Syrian warplanes conducted airstrikes against positions of ISIL and the so-called Jeish al-Fath terrorists in the countryside of Hama and Idlib.

The airstrikes hit positions of the ISIL terrorists in al-Rahjan village, 50 km to the Northeast of Hama City, destroying a number of terrorists’ vehicles with all arms, ammunition and equipment on board.

The airstrikes also hit positions of al-Nusra Front and other terrorist groups in Aqrab village in the Southwestern countryside of Hama, killing scores of terrorists.

A number of vehicles belonging to Jeish al-Fath terrorists were also destroyed in airstrikes in Abdin village in the countryside of Ma’aret al-Nu’aman in Idlib countryside.

Meantime, the Syrian fighter jets pounded hideouts of the Takfiri militants in the countryside of Homs.

The Syrian air raids destroyed Takfiri terrorists’ hideouts and vehicles in al-Qaryatain, al-Sa’an, and in the vicinity of al-Sha’er field in Homs countryside.

The Russian air group in Syria is using Kh-29L air-to-surface missiles to conduct airstrikes against the ISIL militants, the Russian military said Sunday.

“A Kh-29L surface-to-air missile is equipped with a semi-active laser guidance system. When the launch is conducted, a pilot illuminates a target with a laser sight. At the same time an aircraft can continue the flight,” Aerospace Forces Spokesman Colonel Igor Klimov said.

Also, the Syrian army conducted military operations against the foreign-backed Takfiri militants in Aleppo province, leaving hundreds of them killed and injured.

Hundreds of terrorists were killed or wounded in Aleppo City and its countryside in the past 24 hours, a military source said.

Elsewhere, at least 28 militant fighters of the ISIL terrorist group were killed during clashes with the Kurdish forces in the Northeastern Syrian province of Hasaka.

“The YPG forces besieged the ISIL militants near Mount Abdulaziz and killed dozens of terrorists and destroyed several vehicles,” a spokesman for the YPG Media Center told ARA News.

Also, gunmen from the Jeish al-Fath coalition of extremist groups are pulling out their forces from Idlib and other towns in Northwestern Syria.

The radical group started moving towards the Turkish border on Saturday after having experienced “the efficiency of the Russian aerospace forces’ strikes,” the As-Safir Arabic-language daily reported.

The coalition is led by al-Nusra terrorist group, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, which is sponsored by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar. The group seized the Idlib province this spring.

The report said field commanders fear at any moment the attack of Syrian forces supported by Russian warplanes on the key town of Jisr al-Shugour, on the Lattakia-Aleppo highway.

The Propaganda War against Syria Led by Avaaz and the White Helmets

October 02, 2015
Region: Middle East & North Africa, Russia and FSU
Theme: Media Disinformation, US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO’S NEXT WAR?

1-52a0ad6527Propaganda is the spreading of information in support of a cause. It’s not so important whether the information is true or false or if the cause is just or not — it’s all propaganda.

The word propaganda is often used in a negative sense, especially for politicians who make false claims to get elected or spread rumours to instigate regime change [my edit]. In fact, any campaign that is used to persuade can be called propaganda.

Russia’s involvement in Syria has caused a flurry of “cold war”, Assad/ISIS co-dependency propaganda, all being produced by the usual suspects and all with the primary objective of invoking a No Fly Zone in Syria and stoking the “Russian Bear threat” fires that have been smouldering for some time.

I am going to attempt to dismantle this propaganda edifice one brick at a time.

Russia Attacks Moderate Rebels in Syria

In a Telegraph article dated 1st October 2015 with the headline British Troops Head to Saudi Arabia to train Syrian rebels it was stated:

The FSA is considered the most moderate of factions fighting Bashar al-Assad’s government, but has been increasingly side-lined on the battlefield by more extremist Islamist factions. It has also been riven by leadership disputes.

American-led attempts to train up moderates to hold ground against Isil are months behind track because of the difficulty of finding groups which were not linked to the extremists.

The term “moderate rebels” has become one of the most significant misnomers of this coming up to five year conflict. The hijacking of any semblance of a legitimate opposition to the Syrian Government by NATO, the US and regional allies including Israel in order to achieve their desired regime change has been well documented.

Who are these elusive “moderate rebels”?

You may well ask. Traditionally it is the FSA that has been marketed as the cuddly, viable alternative to the Assad government which incidentally is the internationally recognised government of Syria, supported by the majority of the Syrian people. However we don’t have to dig too deep to reveal the hard line Islamist, Salafi affiliations of this so-called moderate group of brigands.

Journalist Daniel Greenfield puts it most succinctly: “Few media outlets are willing to say that out loud, but it’s quite true. There is no Free Syrian Army. It’s an umbrella for providing Western aid to a front group run by the Muslim Brotherhood.” He deplores the shaky Pentagon math that Obama and Congress have used in an attempt to downplay the reality that even in 2013 Pentagon sources were reluctantly admitting that extremist groups constituted over 50% of Syrian “opposition” and that these numbers were steadily increasing.

This map clearly shows the weakness of this “moderate rebel” argument as it unequivocally demonstrates the minor FSA presence at the frontline of Syrian opposition. They compose of fragmented mercenary groups largely unable to operate without extremist logistical support.

syria-forces-map

So this rather dispels the “moderate” myth and leads to the conclusion that in reality Russia was targeting areas north of Homs that contained few civilians and is an area controlled by a number of combined Muslim Brotherhood, Jihadist opposition fighters supported by the US alliance. It must also be remembered that the majority of civilians will flee an area infested by such mercenaries and seek refuge in government held areas. This is another fact conveniently omitted from most mainstream media reports. 90% of IDPs are in Government held areas.

It also makes a mockery of Defence Secretary Ashton B Carter’s claims in the New York Times yesterday:

“By supporting Assad and seemingly taking on everybody fighting Assad,” Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said Wednesday, Russia is “taking on the whole rest of the country that’s fighting Assad.” Some of those groups, he added, are supported by the United States and need to be part of a political resolution in Syria.

“That’s why the Russian position is doomed to fail,” Mr. Carter said.

Russia is effectively exposing US policy in Syria as naked hegemony and America is not happy. While the US has been supplying TOW missiles and a variety of arms/equipment to extremists and deliberately funding any group that will secure regime change, Russia is actively deploying its military to target the nests of terrorist mercenaries and opportunists waiting eagerly for the political vacuum that would be created by the “removal” of Assad, in order to inflict their extremism upon the Syrian people. They may not be technically called ISIS but they are cut from the same cloth of US/Israeli proxy terrorism and should be eliminated from any sovereign nation. Failure to do so has catastrophic results as seen in Libya and Iraq.

The Propaganda Trail

Now let’s examine the unsavoury marketing aspect of the propaganda campaign being waged by a frustrated and increasingly infuriated US alliance. Of course the usual triad has leapt into action. HRW, Avaaz and the White Helmets. Avaaz has produced one of its most poisonous and misleading petitions to date. The inevitable eyewitness statements claim that Russia targeted civilian areas utterly free of ISIS operatives. These statements are already rendered questionable by the evidence I have submitted above.

When we watch the videos, particularly the longer Liveleak version, it is hard to detect the women and children that are being described. The majority of protagonists appear to be male and of fighting age. There is no evidence of “civilian” life among the deserted buildings, the only movement is of males, some on foot, some on scooters and presumably some taking the time to film events even as the bombs are falling. Not the actions of terrified, innocent civilians.

Live Leak Video of Russian bombing of Homs:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eb9_1443646193

There is one other video that does show about 2 seconds of a young boy crying and obviously injured. However this video must be questioned as to its authenticity as the claims are that the initial shot of planes overhead is not even of Russian planes. The quality of the video is poor and apart from the footage of the one child, again demonstrates that the majority of people involved are men of fighting age in a deserted built up area to the north of Homs.

In this disgusting display of blatant propaganda calling for the long sought after no fly zone, Emma Ruby-Sachs, deputy director of Avaaz makes the extraordinary statement “Russia says it’s bombing ISIS, but eyewitnesses say their brutal attacks targeted areas way outside of ISIS control. This will only sow instability and radicalisation and should be an urgent wake-up call to the US and its allies to enforce a targeted no-fly zone to save lives, counter ISIS and alleviate the refugee crisis. Syrians civilians need protection now, not further attacks from Russian bombs.”

Speaking to one Damascus resident this morning, I asked for their opinion on this statement. His reply was simple, “I am just relieved that the Russian Air Force is in action”. The hypocrisy of this statement from Ruby-Sachs perfectly mirrors the hypocrisy of Congress, Obama’s Teflon speech at the UNGA, Pentagon’s barefaced obscurantism over the US role in creating exactly this instability and radicalisation in Syria and bringing misery, terror and bloodshed to the people of Syria with the sole aim of securing their interests in the region [and those of their staunchest partner in crimes against Humanity, Israel]

If we wish to speak of civilian casualties perhaps we should turn the spotlight on the pre- existing Coalition bombing campaign. The civilian death rates from these strikes is rarely discussed and often concealed by the Pentagon and US/European associated analysts like the SOHR. Where for example was the Avaaz petition calling for a No Fly Zone when the coalition air strikes resulted in a multitude of non-combatant deaths including children? This report from Airwars reveals the disturbing numbers:

screenshot-305

Syria has also seen a number of troubling mass casualty events attributed to Coalition actions. On the first night of bombing on September 23rd 2014, US aircraft killed as many as 15 civilians in the village of Kafar Daryan. On December 28th at least 58 civilians reportedly died when the Coalition struck a temporary Daesh prison at al Bab (see report). And on April 30th 2015, 64 civilians died in a likely Coalition airstrike at Ber Mahli. In these three incidents alone, 106 non-combatant victims have so far been publicly named – 38 of them children. It remains unclear whether any of these events have been investigated by the Coalition.

Syria’s civilians need a spanner putting in the spokes of this crushing propaganda vehicle that rides roughshod over their genuine needs with devastating consequences. Those needs are simple: stop lying, stop fabricating and stop creating, funding, arming and incubating the terrorist cancer in Syria.

The White Helmet element.

Now we come to perhaps one of the most insidious and damaging elements of the propaganda machine. The White Helmets, created by Svengali of PR giants, Purpose.com. The White Helmets with the debonair, Sandhurst educated James Bond of humanitarianism at its helm, James Le Mesurier, whose CV reads like a NATO regime change itinerary and whose connections delve deep into the Empire’s underworld of media manipulation and strategy cultivation.

The first slick photo campaign was hot off the press almost immediately after the first Russian air strikes in the Homs region:

syria-campaign-russia

Unfortunately for them, perhaps White Helmets are exhausting their supply of heart string tugging images as their twitter campaign almost immediately came under attack by those who are waking up to this cynical propagandization of human misery.

screenshot-296

Quote from Sott.net ~

“The White Helmets in their haste to point the finger of blame at Moscow, managed to tweet about Russia’s air strikes several hours before the Russian Parliament actually authorized the use of the Air Force in Syria.”

This image was also picked up and run with by RT who accurately pinpointed the deep-rooted deceit that lies at the heart of the majority of White Helmet publicity campaigns. The flurry of activity on the White Helmet twitter page must have taken, even them, by surprise. For so long they have enjoyed the fruits of their marketing campaign depicting them as selfless heroes, saviours of humanity, impartial protectors of kittens and Syrians in equal measure. Unarmed, neutral, demi-saints climbing the “Mount Everest of war zones”. Unfortunately so many of their masks have slipped that they can no longer bask in their Purpose reflected glory.

Yesterday like HRW before them they were exposed to be the fabricators and deceivers they really are. Anyone can make a mistake I hear you say, yes sure, one mistake is acceptable, 2 is questionable but a consistent conveyer belt of misleading, perception altering, “nudging” images ceases to be innocent and enters the realm of manipulation on a terrifying scale with horrifying ramifications for the people of Syria who so far, have resisted their country being plunged into the same abyss as Libya or Iraq.

Just one other example of the White Helmet duplicitous image use:

aleppo-white-helmet

Another image was brought to my attention this morning that further shatters the high gloss White Helmet image. Whilst it is well known that far from being neutral, the White Helmets are in fact embedded with Al Nusra [the Syrian arm of Al Qaeda], it is perhaps not so well known that their southern Damascus depot is situated at the heart of ISIS held territory, to the south of the notorious Palestinian Yarmouk refugee camp.

This image shows their insignia and emblem clearly on the wall and gates behind the selfie taking ISIS mercenary in the foreground. It is becoming harder and harder for White Helmets to maintain their veneer of impartiality, a fact that is borne out quite effectively by the fact that the majority of Syrians in government held areas have never heard of them, even unbiased civilians in Aleppo have not come across them. Their association is exclusively with the extremist elements of the Syrian opposition. Their purpose is to facilitate calls for a No Fly Zone, cue Avaaz, and destabilize the region in the manner demanded by their masters in the US, UK and Syrian National Council.

Conclusion

We can safely conclude that the US, Israel and their allies are furious that they have been out manoeuvred and outsmarted by Russia and Syria. Their No Fly Zone plans have been consistently thwarted and derailed. Russia has effectively demanded a US coalition No Fly Zone which is the ultimate insult to US hegemony and self-proclaimed world police status. Russia, unlike the US IS targeting ISIS in all its distorted guises and nomenclature. And yes Mr Defence Secretary, Russia is bombing US supported “rebels” in Syria for the very simple reason, the US has funded all extremist factions in Syria since they first started down the blood strewn road of regime change.

If we lived in a just world we would see Avaaz and their ilk clamouring for an end to interventionism and demanding diplomatic solutions to support internal, sovereign nation, peace processes [as in fact Russia has unwaveringly called for in Syria]. However we do not live in a world based upon a universal understanding of justice, we live in a world governed by the powerful and the greedy, devoid of compassion, intent only on their geopolitical prowess and humanity exempt colonialism. For the sake of the Syrian people and all other nations being crushed by this well used, well-oiled propaganda machine we must question, we must demand answers, and we must wake up to our responsibility to reject calls for the destruction of nations and peoples who ask only for their basic human right to determine their own futures.

Avaaz, HRW, White Helmets and their associates have no place in that brave new world.

The U.S. Is Destroying Europe

 

europe-usa-eu-flags-400x199In Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and other countries at the periphery or edges of Europe, U.S. President Barack Obama has been pursuing a policy of destabilization, and even of bombings and other military assistance, that drives millions of refugees out of those peripheral areas and into Europe, thereby adding fuel to the far-rightwing fires of anti-immigrant rejectionism, and of resultant political destabilization, throughout Europe, not only on its peripheries, but even as far away as in northern Europe.

Shamus Cooke at Off-Guardian headlines on 3 August 2015, “Obama’s ‘Safe Zone’ in Syria Intended to Turn It into New Libya,” and he reports that Obama has approved U.S. air support for Turkey’s previously unenfoceable no-fly zone over Syria. The U.S. will now shoot down all of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s planes that are targeting the extremist-Muslim groups, including ISIS, that have taken over huge swaths of Syrian territory.

Cooke reports:

Turkey has been demanding this no-fly zone from Obama since the Syrian war started. It’s been discussed throughout the conflict and even in recent months, though the intended goal was always the Syrian government. And suddenly the no-fly zone is happening — right where Turkey always wanted it — but it’s being labeled an ‘anti-ISIS’ safe zone, instead of its proper name: ‘Anti Kurdish and anti-Syrian government’ safe zone.

The New York Times reported on July 27th, that,

“the plan calls for relatively moderate Syrian insurgents to take the territory, with the help of American and possibly Turkish air support.”

However, the Times, stenographically reporting (as usual) from and for their U.S. Government sources (and so propagandizing for the U.S. Government), fails to define “relatively moderate,” but all of the “relatively moderate insurgent” groups in Syria cooperate with ISIS and help them to find and decapitate, or sometimes hold for ransoms, any non-Muslims there. Under Assad, Syria has been a non-clerical state, and has enjoyed freedom of religion, but all of the Syrian opposition to Assad’s rule is alien to that. The U.S. is now, even more clearly than before, anti-Assad, pro-Islamist.

Seymour Hersh reported in the London Review of Books on 17 April 2014, that the Obama Administration’s Libyan bombing campaign in 2011 was part of a broader program to bring sarin gas from Libya to the al-Nusra Front in Syria, in order to help produce a gas-attack upon civilians, which the U.S. Administration could then blame upon Assad, as being an excuse to bomb there just as Obama had already so successfully done in Libya. Both dictators, Gaddafi and Assad, were allied with Russia, and Assad especially has been important to Russia, as a transit-route for Russia’s gas supplies, and not for Qatar’s gas supplies — Qatar being the major potential threat to Russia’s status as the top supplier of gas into Europe.

Obama’s top goal in international relations, and throughout his military policies, has been to defeat Russia, to force a regime-change there that will make Russia part of the American empire, no longer the major nation that resists control from Washington.

Prior to the U.S. bombings of Libya in 2011, Libya was at peace and thriving. Per-capita GDP (income) in 2010 according to the IMF was $12,357.80, but it plunged to only $5,839.70 in 2011 — the year we bombed and destroyed the country. (Hillary Clinton famously bragged, “We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!”) (And, unlike in U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, that per-capita GDP was remarkably evenly distributed, and both education and health care were socialized and available to everyone, even to the poor.)

More recently, on 15 February 2015, reporter Leila Fadel of NPR bannered “With Oil Fields Under Attack, Libya’s Economic Future Looks Bleak.” She announced: “The man in charge looks at production and knows the future is bleak. ‘We cannot produce. We are losing 80 percent of our production,’ says Mustapha Sanallah, the chairman of Libya’s National Oil Corporation.”

Under instructions from Washington, the IMF hasn’t been reliably reporting Libya’s GDP figures after 2011, but instead shows that things there were immediately restored to normal (even to better than normal: $13,580.55 per-capita GDP) in 2012, but everybody knows that it’s false; even NPR is, in effect, reporting that it’s not true. The CIA estimates that Libya’s per-capita GDP was a ridiculous $23,900 in 2012 (they give no figures for the years before that), and says Libya’s per-capita GDP has declined only slightly thereafter. None of the official estimates are at all trustworthy, though the Atlantic Council at least made an effort to explain things honestly, headlining in their latest systematic report about Libya’s economy, on 23 January 2014, “Libya: Facing Economic Collapse in 2014.”

Libya has become Europe’s big problem. Millions of Libyans are fleeing the chaos there. Some of them are fleeing across the Mediterranean and ending up in refugee camps in southern Italy; and some are escaping to elsewhere in Europe.

And Syria is now yet another nation that’s being destroyed in order to conquer Russia. Even the reliably propagandistic New York Times is acknowledging, in its ‘news’ reporting, that, “both the Turks and the Syrian insurgents see defeating President Bashar al-Assad of Syria as their first priority.” So: U.S. bombers will be enforcing a no-fly-zone over parts of Syria in order to bring down Russia’s ally Bashar al-Assad and replace his secular government by an Islamic government — and the ‘anti-ISIS’ thing is just for show; it’s PR, propaganda. The public cares far more about defeating ISIS than about defeating Russia; but that’s not the way America’s aristocracy views things. Their objective is extending America’s empire — extending their own empire.

Similarly, Obama overthrew the neutralist government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014, but that was under the fake cover of ‘democracy’ demonstrations, instead of under the fake cover of ‘opposing Islamic terrorism’ or whatever other phrases that the U.S. Government uses to fool suckers about America’s installation of, and support to, a rabidly anti-Russia, racist-fascist, or nazi, government next door to Russia, in Ukraine. Just as Libya had been at peace before the U.S. invaded and destroyed it, and just as Syria had been at peace before the U.S and Turkey invaded and destroyed it, Ukraine too was at peace before the U.S. perpetrated its coup there and installed nazis and an ethnic cleansing campaign there, and destroyed Ukraine too.

Like with Libya before the overthrow of Gaddafi there, or Syria before the current effort to overthrow Assad there, or the more recent successful overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, it’s all aimed to defeat Russia.

The fact that all of Europe is sharing in the devastation that Obama and other American conservatives — imperialists, even — impose, is of little if any concern to the powers-that-be in Washington DC, but, if it matters at all to them, then perhaps it’s another appealing aspect of this broader operation: By weakening European nations, and not only nations in the Middle East, Obama’s war against Russia is yet further establishing America to be “the last man standing,” at the end of the chaos and destruction that America causes.

Consequently, for example, in terms of U.S. international strategy, the fact that the economic sanctions against Russia are enormously harming the economies of European nations is good, not bad.

There are two ways to win, at any game: One is by improving one’s own performance. The other is by weakening the performances by all of one’s competitors. The United States is now relying almost entirely upon the latter type of strategy.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.