https://journal-neo.org New Eastern Outlook Sun, 27 Aug 2017 07:00:12 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1 https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/27/what-do-bombs-bibi-bezos-and-business-have-in-common/ https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/27/what-do-bombs-bibi-bezos-and-business-have-in-common/#comments Sun, 27 Aug 2017 05:06:52 +0000
https://journal-neo.org/?p=79893
Some people are constantly way out of line.
From somewhere in deep space keen alien observers poke elbows and giggle over the state of humanity on Earth. One tiny nation’s hidden leadership pulling powerful titanium stings to cause ongoing crisis for billions of people, the idiocy of rule by the 0.1% must befuddle even big brained beings from Andromeda. ISIL, Putin the archvillain, Trump, a man nicknamed Bibi, George Soros and other evil oligarchs, will humankind ever break free?
I read this morning the headline from the Jerusalem Post “Netanyahu to Warn Putin Not to Cross Red Lines” and rolled my eyes. As a southern boy from America’s South, I could not help asking myself the question; “How is it this tiny piss ant nation emerged to direct on the world stage?” Looking at Israel from a rational point of view, is all the western world’s money, media, investment, and propaganda really that powerful? Clearly it is, for the rivers of blood and the blinding chaos coming out of the Middle East never seem to either stain or darken Zion. At the behest of the Israeli lobby, Russia gets rolled into a trio of “enemies” the US Congress and our president rubber stamped. Washington insiders tell me the AIPAC lobby twisted every arm on Capital Hill to sanction Russia, Iran, and North Korea in one fell swoop. But I ponder the inability of my fellow humans to spot the blatantly obvious. These wars and crises around the world serve only two purposes. First and foremost, profit buys the perpetrators political and economic leverage. Secondly, Israel (and a few other nations) strengthen their own validity and security, while undermining that of neighbors and adversaries.
Looking at defense spending and the coinciding profits since 9/11, it’s not difficult to make the connection in between profit and policy. Israel spending more of its GDP than almost any other nation in the world on defense also bears watching. The SIPRI Military Expenditure Database contains a wealth of data on military spending of countries for the period 1949–2016, and Israel is at the top of many categories. Factor in gifts from the United States, and the Zionists look more like a military junta than a democracy. Not only has Israel been one of the world’s top spenders and arms importers, the country exported more weapons ($1.26 billion) in 2016 than all but a few nations. Embattled Syria, Libya, and all but Saudi Arabia and Oman do not even appear on the lists. With a standing army of over 175,000, and with reserves of almost half a million, the IDF is on par with larger neighbor Saudi Arabia manpower wise. Turning back to the influence of Israel via the AIPAC lobby, this quote from The New Yorker from 2014 concerns the Gaza genocide and the power Israel exerts over the US Congress. When the Obama administration expressed concern over dead Palestinian babies in Gaza, the following was the end political result:
“AIPAC did not share this unease; it endorsed a Senate resolution in support of Israel’s “right to defend its citizens,” which had seventy-nine co-sponsors and passed without a word of dissent.”
While Israel’s role in destroying Syria, and sending millions to the morgue or to Europe as refugees is not altogether clear just yet, its apparent collusion with oil interests is. Back in 2006 Noam Chomsky suggested the convergence of AIPAC and the oil and arms lobbies in a paper entitled “The Israel Lobby?”, and today we read a report from Global Research about Exxon and AIPAC pushing for a partitioning of Syria. Furthermore, author Whitney Webb points out the larger scheme, the Greater Israel project, that coincides with Kurdish interests. So, profit and strategic policy for Israel is in the limelight for those willing to see.
We need not only rely on current events to discover the profit lever the Israelis and others use to pass out death and destruction. This 2006 AP report discusses how CEOs of corporations with big defense contracts were getting paid double what they made before Sept. 11, 2001. The report also brings into the light the fact “normal” company CEOs made nowhere near what the killing machine building contemporaries did. And the weapons game shows no signs of slowing down. A Neil Howe story on Forbes in 2014 tells of vast profits and something more. According to Howe, the “crisis connect” for profits can also be linked to the technocrats we witness leveraging “fake news” to make the Russians the enemy all over again. Quoting Howe on Silicon Valley’s role in war and chaos:
“A 2012 study by Booz & Company, around 40% of what the Pentagon spends on procurement and services now goes to nontraditional companies like Apple and Dell.”
For once my job is made easier simply by connecting the geo-strategy of a tiny militarist nation to the industrial and money interests with interests in war. Syria being wiped out is good for the Zionists strategically, financially, and politically as it turns out. The next time you read a Washington Post piece fostering Russia hate, maybe you’ll be better prepared to trace the propaganda to its roots – to the handlers of Jeff Bezos and back to Bibi himself.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
]]>
https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/27/what-do-bombs-bibi-bezos-and-business-have-in-common/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/26/trump-afghanistan-first/ https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/26/trump-afghanistan-first/#comments Sat, 26 Aug 2017 14:50:02 +0000
https://journal-neo.org/?p=79737
How much peace can America actually bring to Afghanistan?
For those who know from whence real power flows in America’s political establishment, the uninterrupted continuation of America’s 16 year war in Afghanistan came as no surprise.
For those voters who believed US President Donald Trump represented the public’s desire to withdraw from multiple foreign wars and entanglements and place “America first,” President Trump’s announcement that not only would that not happen, but that these wars would be expanded, must have come as a surprise.
However, perhaps it is the first in a long series of hard lessons for the American public to learn – that no matter who they vote for in Washington, it is clear agendas are decided upon and pressed from elsewhere.
The Hill, in its article, “5 takeaways from Trump’s Afghan speech,” touched upon several points regarding President Trump’s recent speech regarding Afghanistan, where the US currently has 8,400 troops deployed, and is poised to deploy thousands more.
The Hill reported:
Trump is expected to send nearly 4,000 more troops, but he neither divulged a number nor said how long additional U.S. forces would spend in the country.
“We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for future military activities,” Trump said. “Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. America’s enemies must never know our plans. . . I will not say when we will attack, but attack we will.”
This is in stark contrast to his campaign promises, which The Hill noted:
“Why are we continuing to train these Afghanis who then shoot our soldiers in the back? Afghanistan is a complete waste. Time to come home!” he wrote on Twitter in 2012.
The Hill also claims:
The United States has about 8,400 troops in Afghanistan now. The forces are on a dual mission of training, advising and assisting Afghan forces in their fight against the Taliban and conducting counterterrorism missions against groups such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
And indeed, that is precisely what policymakers, politicians, and military leaders have stated regarding the Afghan conflict for well over a decade and a half – spanning the presidencies of George Bush, Barack Obama, and now Trump.
President Trump would claim that the goal was no longer withdrawal within a certain time frame, but would be dictated by conditions on the ground:
“A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I’ve said it many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin, or end, military options.”
The “conditions” apparently require the US-backed client regime in Kabul “to take ownership of their future,” despite claims that the US is not engaged in “nation building” countries in America’s “own image.” They are conditions that are – even at face value – contradictory and repetitive of promises made and broken by President Trump’s predecessor, former President Obama.
Flirting With Further War in Pakistan
President Trump – like Bush and Obama before him – also threatened neighboring Pakistan, accusing the nation of undermining its military presence in Afghanistan. President Trump would ultimately warn:
“We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will change immediately,” Trump vowed.
“It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order and to peace.”
In reality, the US never invaded Afghanistan nor remains there today to fight terrorism. The organizations that it is allegedly fighting are not funded or directed by Afghanistan, they are funded and directed by the United States’ closest and oldest allies in the Middle East – including Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Instead, the US is occupying Afghanistan for the same reason the British Empire invaded and occupied it multiple times – in a bid to expand hegemony over Central and South Asia.
Afghanistan conveniently borders Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and even China. A permanent US military presence in Afghanistan and control over the regime in Kabul, gives the US a springboard for direct and indirect geopolitical influence – including military operations – in all directions. Evidence indicates that exploiting this strategic foothold in this manner has already long-ago begun.
The US has sought to pressure Iran and Pakistan for decades, with long-drawn plans regarding both nations.
Regarding Pakistan, before the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the US had very few options in terms of coercing Islamabad. With the US military now on Pakistan’s border and with special operations and unmanned drones regularly conducting missions within Pakistan’s borders, Washington’s ability to coerce and influence Islamabad has drastically increased.
Should President Trump announce direct military action against Pakistan for whatever reason, the US already conveniently has multiple military bases on its border to launch it from – bases that have developed their infrastructure over the course of 16 years and counting. Should the US decide to expand covert support for separatist movements the US is sponsoring within Pakistan currently, it can also do so conveniently from Afghanistan.
Target China
While it may not seem obvious at first – Washington’s ability to project influence into Pakistan from Afghanistan poses a direct threat to China and its regional interests as well.
China’s emerging One Belt One Road initiative includes extensive infrastructure in neighboring Pakistan involving ports, rail and roadways, pipelines, power production, and more.
The Gwadar Port in Pakistan’s western Baluchistan province is located right at the center of efforts by US-backed terrorists and opposition groups to carve the entire region off from Pakistan’s control and establish an independent state.
Movements in Baluchistan – both political and militant – have enjoyed immense US backing, including US National Endowment for Democracy programs promoting independence movements, political organizing, protests, and anti-government media.
Within the pages of US policy papers, policymakers have openly conspired to organized and array armed resistance against Islamabad in Baluchistan, noting how strategically compromising to both Pakistan and China’s rise the move would be.
In a 2012 paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled, “Pakistan: The Resurgence of Baluch Nationalism” (PDF), it would be stated unequivocally that (emphasis added):
If Baluchistan were to become independent, would Pakistan be able to withstand another dismemberment—thirty-four years have passed since the secession of Bangladesh—and what effect would that have on regional stability? Pakistan would lose a major part of its natural resources and would become more dependent on the Middle East for its energy supplies. Although Baluchistan’s resources are currently underexploited and benefit only the non-Baluch provinces, especially Punjab, these resources could undoubtedly contribute to the development of an independent Baluchistan.
Baluchistan’s independence would also dash Islamabad’s hopes for the Gwadar port and other related projects. Any chance that Pakistan would become more attractive to the rest of the world would be lost.
Not only would it be Pakistan’s loss regarding the Gwadar Port, it would be China’s loss as well, enhancing America’s attempts to reassert regional primacy over Eurasia.
However, should US troops withdraw from Afghanistan – these plans would be seriously compromised, if not entirely foiled. Thus, yet another American president who promised to withdraw from the endless war in Afghanistan has predictably backtracked – and instead of fighting Al Qaeda and the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) at its source – in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or even Washington itself – President Trump has proposed to Americans to spend additional blood and treasure to fight them in Afghanistan.
And while President Trump has promised no “nation building,” it is clear that the conditions that must be met in order for the US to withdraw is the existence of a regime in Kabul created in America’s own image and beholden to US interests, including continuing efforts to undermine political stability in neighboring Iran, Pakistan’s Baluchistan region, and ultimately against China’s growing regional influence.
President Trump and his supporters find themselves standing next to a geopolitical chessboard where US special interests are engaged in a game for influence and domination in a region on the other side of the planet – a game in which they are not participants, but spectators.
The Hill would also quote President Trump as saying:
“My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts, but all of my life I’ve heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.”
Indeed – when one sits behind the desk in the Oval Office, presidents realize they are spokespeople not for voters, but for unelected corporate-financier interests on Wall Street. Withdrawing from wars that are about long-term efforts to establish and expand global hegemony are not decisions Wall Street would be expected to make – because Wall Street is the benefactor of the trillions being spent on such an endeavor.
For voters, they should realize that the only “vote” they have that actually counts is when they open their wallets after receiving their monthly paycheck, and decide to pay it either to local businesses to strengthen their communities, or to large multi-billion dollar multinational corporations who have hijacked their nation, their resources, and their destiny.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
]]>
https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/26/trump-afghanistan-first/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/26/when-democracy-backfires/ https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/26/when-democracy-backfires/#comments Sat, 26 Aug 2017 02:07:56 +0000
https://journal-neo.org/?p=79751
You can salute your civil rights now that Trump is in power.
The US media focuses on the fact that President Trump failed to win the popular vote, although he did manage to rake up more delegates to the Democratic Convention than Hillary Clinton. Clinton believes a ‘Russian intervention’ in some unspecified way, skewed the results of the election. (That ‘intervention’ is the focus of an investigation by a Special Prosecutor. The last time such a person was employed in Washington was when Bill Clinton’s’ sex life was deemed an appropriate reason for impeachment. The Congress ultimately failed to gather enough votes to evict him from office.)
During the 2016 campaign, progressive journalists like myself warned that Trump would ultimately lead to fascism, but we didn’t realize he would do so with the help of his voters.
We imagined a police state, but what we have (so far) is a demonstration of how ‘democracy’ can be a God that fails. As with Hitler, enough poorly educated people voted for Trump to bring him to power ‘democratically’. That having been accomplished, it’s not so much that he is able to pursue policies that most educated Americans reject, it’s that he can work up huge crowds who dream of ‘taking back their country’ …. by any means.
Yesterday Trump spoke to one such crowd in Phoenix, Arizona, suggesting he might pardon a racist sheriff who forced his inmates to live in tents under 110 degree heat and was finally slapped with contempt of court charges. More importantly, but somewhat confusingly, the President threatened to shut down the government over the border wall, although it’s not clear what role the government would play in preventing it from being built, since he claims that Mexico would pay for it.
President Trump goes from one non-sequitur to another, but what is most alarming is that his based doesn’t seem to hold against him his failure to deliver on key campaign promises, believing that the fault lies with Congress (which came up one vote short to pass so-called health care ‘reform’) or with the media, which ceaselessly criticizes him. Notwithstanding its failure to report any story that is inconvenient to the government, America’s fractured left wing has been unable to bust its lock on the American people. Ironically, it is Trump who is accomplishing that feat in the name of a populism whose boundaries with fascism are uncertain.
Just as the media literally ‘made’ Trump the candidate, while mainly backing Hillary, since he was elected, it has been relentlessly trying to ‘unmake’ him, succeeding only in looking worse than ever. Today, it alternates coverage of Trump’s events with coverage of Hillary Clinton’s book explaining why she lost the election, focusing on how her ‘skin crawled’ when Trump paced back and forth behind her during one of their televised debates. Clips of those moments easily suggest that Trump was being discreet, leaving her the spotlight.
Meanwhile, at a rally in Reno, Nevada, Trump focused on veterans, emphasizing a tribute to the American Legion, a right-leaning organization founded in 1919 to defend veteran’s interests, by signing a bill mandating shorter waiting times for veterans to get answers to appeals. That “psychological operation” illustrates the path that Trump is charting toward fascism: it involves an alliance between active duty and former military, and the minimally educated, pro-military civilians who constitute his base.
Added to this disquieting picture is the fact that thirty-one states allow citizens to openly carry a handgun, some without a license or permit. Different states have different restrictions, but all 50 states allow people to purchase guns. Hitler’s voters didn’t have guns, but they had the SA, also known as the ’brown shirts’, not to be confused with the SS, which broke off from it to surveil and kill citizens at will in Germany and German-occupied Europe. That job is likely to be carried out by an amalgam of militias such as those seen in the protests in Charlottesville.
When history repeats itself, it does so under many different disguises. The question at this point is whether the Neo-Cons and their Deep State will succeed in toppling Trump, using accusations of collusion with Russia, before he gives his voters free rein. Or whether fascism will be served to us as ‘law and order’ by a Vice-President who has moved up after Trump is impeached or forced to resign for ‘inability to govern’.
More worrying for the world at large is the fact that the man who insisted during the campaign that America should not be the world’s policeman, agreed to increase US troop levels in Afghanistan, hiding the country’s vast mineral potential behind the magic word ‘security’. The generals who convinced him to do this also regard Russia as an enemy, following the Neocon playbook. Although the American public is no more in favor of continuing war in Afghanistan than it would be in favor of war with Russia, it’s difficult to see how ‘one man, one vote’ will prevent that from happening.
Deena Stryker is an international expret, author and journalist that has been at the forefront of international politics for over thirty years, exlusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.
]]>
https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/26/when-democracy-backfires/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/25/there-s-a-reason-why-washington-and-london-won-t-quit-the-business-of-killing/ https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/25/there-s-a-reason-why-washington-and-london-won-t-quit-the-business-of-killing/#comments Fri, 25 Aug 2017 14:59:29 +0000
https://journal-neo.org/?p=79834
The god of war is a greedy beast all right.
On August 23, a coalition of Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia, carried yet another barbaric bombardment in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a, which resulted in the death of at least 35 people.
On July 18, at least 20 civilians fell victims of a Saudi air strike in the Yemeni Taiz Governorate, as it’s been reported by the Daily Mail with a special reference to the United Nations.
Since the beginning of the civil war in Yemen in 2014, more than 10,000 civilians perished in the poorest country of the Arabian Peninsula, while another 3 million were displaced. In March 2015, Saudi Arabia unleashed an armed aggression against this state without any sort of approval from the UN, but with an extensive amount of military and political support coming from the United States and Britain. Such acts of aggression have for a long time been a trademark of Washington, but now it’s allies seem to be willing to follow in its footsteps. The Saudi coalition carries on air strikes against targets of the Houthis resistance to this very day, which results in massive civilian casualties, with hundreds of victims being added regularly to the rising death toll.
As a result of continuous attacks carried out by Saudi armed forces schools, hospitals and other vital civil infrastructure are being routinely reduced to the ground, while electricity and drinking water supplies are getting increasingly scarce even in large cities. With the silent approval of Washington and London, the Saudi coalition is taking every effort to make sure that no Yemeni national survives this conflict, using the tactics that can only be described as genocidal.
And the list of war crimes committed by the Saudi coalition is getting large by the day largely due to the ever-growing flow of various weapons sold to Riyadh by the United States, Britain and other Western powers. Today, the British and American arms manufactures receive fabulous profits from their indirect participation in the Yemeni military campaign.
Saudi Arabia alone in recent years received over a hundred billion worth of arms from American military manufacturers, while Donald Trump pledged to carry on the business tactics pursued by his predecessors by signing a deal on the shipment of another 110 billion worth of arms to Riaydh.
The latest annual report issued by the British Committee for Defense and Security shows that in 2016 alone the UK received 6 billion pounds from the sale of arms, with a half of this some coming from to the Middle East, where violent conflicts are raging. For more than 10 consecutive years the UK remains the second largest arms supplier in the world after the United States.
At the same time, London keeps training pilots for the Saudi Air Force, the very people that would bomb Yemeni residential areas. The British Supreme Court, which usually defends “human rights”, did not even want to consider the formal appeal issued by the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), which had previously urged the kingdom to put an end to the supply of military equipment to Saudi Arabia.
In turn, Amnesty International would accuse the United States and Britain for handing over weapons to Saudi Arabia for it to be able to carry on its aggression against Yemen since March 2015, delivering more than five billion dollars worth of weapons.
The fact that for London any armed conflict is perfect opportunity to sell its weapons is vividly confirmed by the recently declassified documents of the National Archives of the United Kingdom showing, in particular, that the British government considered Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 to be an “unprecedented opportunity” to obtain super profits from the sale of weapons to the countries of the Persian Gulf . Back in the day UK’s Minister for Defence Procurement, Alan Clarke would use exact same words in his letter to British PM of the time Margaret Thatcher, noting that this was an unprecedented opportunity for DESO (the Department of Defense Export Administration).”
As declassified documents show, “an unprecedented opportunity” for Clark was the expected response of the US and its allies to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the outbreak of military conflict in the region. The fact that wars have always been considered as a chance to sell more arms to other states has recently been confirmed by The Guardian.
Mind you that last May former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted that the US invasion of Iraq launched in 2003 had nothing in common with establishing democracy in this country, the goal was to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a pro-Washington regime in this country . This invasion would then result in a civil war that gave birth to ISIS.
Of the other declassified documents of 1983, it follows that Britain had not interest in stopping Iraqi production of chemical weapons, since British exporters were involved in this trade, according to the documents of the UK Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
So, if for residents of the Middle East wars means death, poverty and grief, Washington and London believe that wars is a perfect opportunity to get even richer at the expense of somebody else’s blood!
Vladimir Odintsov, expert politologist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
]]>
https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/25/there-s-a-reason-why-washington-and-london-won-t-quit-the-business-of-killing/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/25/trump-and-afghanistan-a-hidden-agenda/ https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/25/trump-and-afghanistan-a-hidden-agenda/#comments Fri, 25 Aug 2017 12:07:49 +0000
https://journal-neo.org/?p=79715
If you not sad to see Bannon leave, you must answer yourself a question: Is there any reasonable people left on the team?
On Monday 21 August 2017 US President Trump made his long awaited statement on future US policy in Afghanistan. There was considerable speculation beforehand that as to whether Trump might announce a US withdrawal. The basis for that speculation appeared to be various statements that Trump had made both before and during his candidacy for the presidency.
Even closer to the time of the speech there was further speculation that he would announce an increase of 4000 US troops. The basis for that speculation appeared to be leaks from unspecified sources.
In the event the speech was an anticlimax. Although Trump conceded that his views had changed, there was essentially no change to US policy. Any change would have been a surprise as there are long established continuities as to US foreign policy generally, and in this case to Afghanistan.
The only voice in the administration making a different case was Steve Bannon, and his departure the previous week confirmed not only that there would be no change in policy, but that the takeover of the administration by the generals was now complete. Trumps three closest advisers on national security matters, Kelly, McMaster and Mattis have never shown the least interest in a reduced American military footprint anywhere in the world, much less in Afghanistan.
The figure of 4000 extra troops, although not specified by Trump, nonetheless remains the favoured figure by most commentators. Quite why this number would make any significant difference has never been explained. It is significantly fewer troops than the more than 100,000 the Americans had at the height of their troop engagement, and that number was conspicuously unable to defeat the Taliban or even exercise effective control over more than a small percentage of the country.
Trump’s statement and the mainstream commentaries that have followed have barely mentioned if at all the more than 100,000 mercenaries that are operating in Afghanistan. Perhaps because their role is unencumbered by the normal rules of engagement they enjoy a media silence that is inconsistent with informed debate and discussion about an effective resolution of what is transparently an unwinnable quagmire.
There were two policy elements in Trump’s speech that are worth a further comment. The first was his disclaimer that the United States was engaged in “nation building” but rather was there “to kill terrorists.” Apart from the inherent implausibility of this claim, it creates difficulties for allies such as Australia whose politicians continue to sell this unpopular enterprise on the equally implausible claim that they are there to “train” Afghan troops to a level of self-sufficiency. This claim is maintained in the face of overwhelming evidence that after several years of such “training” the Afghan army remains a byword for corruption, “ghost” soldiers, and a compete inability to sustain any kind of effective military combat.
The second point in Trump’s speech worth noting is that he said that the Rules of engagement would be relaxed. The detail was not specified, but such terminology usually prefaces the commission of war crimes and a war in which civilians are the main casualties. The Afghan civilian population has already suffered years of bombing, drone attacks and being experimental guinea pigs for the first ever use of the so-called ‘mother of all bombs’. The military efficacy of that particular attack has never been revealed.
In short, there was no substantive change at all in Trump’s policy announcement. Nor was there ever likely to be as US policy in Afghanistan is part of a consistent policy being played out around the world. Only some of the details vary to reflect particular local circumstances.
In Afghanistan’s case there are three principal local conditions, an understanding of which is critical to any realistic appraisal of US policy in Afghanistan. Unsurprisingly, none of these conditions have featured in mainstream analysis of Trumps’ speech.
The first of these is the issue of resources. As even the New York Times acknowledged (25 July 2017) a 2014 report estimated that Afghanistan had as much as $1 trillion of untapped mineral deposits. These mineral resources include rare earth minerals that are essential to a range of high-tech products. At present, China has a virtual monopoly of these valuable resources.
A related resource issue is control of the oil and gas pipeline from the enormous reserves of the Caspian basin. It was the US’s failure to secure the contract for this pipeline in July 2001 that was the reason for the October 2001 invasion, not the fictional narrative of hunting for Osama bin Laden.
The second major issue revolves around the long-standing US policy of confronting China, Iran and Russia. Iran and China share a border with Afghanistan, and three former Soviet republics, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, also border it.
All three of those latter countries have a significant Muslim population, 89%, 79% and 98% respectively. They are therefore prime targets for ISIS and other proxy terrorist groups. It is not a coincidence that ISIS began to play a significant role in Afghanistan at precisely the time when the Taliban were reasserting control over the majority of the country.
The use of terrorist proxy groups in support of US geopolitical objectives in the region date at least from the 1970s when under Operation Cyclone Mujihideen were trained and armed by the Americans for infiltration into Afghanistan, China’s Xinjiang province (also with a significant Muslim population) and the aforementioned former Soviet republics. The Mujihideen el Khalq (MEK) have similarly been used to destabilize Iran.
The third local condition of significance is that Afghanistan supplies 93% of the world’s heroin according to the UN Drug Agency. Opium production, from which heroin is derived, had virtually ceased under the Taliban prior to the invasion in 2001. Production rebounded under American and allied patronage reaching a new record level in 2016.
The use of illegal narcotics to finance CIA and other clandestine operations is well documented (Alfred McCoy The Politics of Heroin 1972, 2003; Peter Dale Scott, Drugs, Oil and War 2003; Scott, American War Machine 2010). Heroin addiction is used as a means of destabilizing target countries, and Russia and Iran have significant addiction problems as a consequence.
Trump’s speech was vague on details, and this was deliberately so. Any discussion of details would risk exposing the whole fabric of deceit upon which the last 16 years of invasion and occupation have been built.
The real underlying message in Trump’s statement was that the US would persist in its policies in the region. Given the above factors, that will inevitably lead to a confrontation with Russia, Iran and China.
Last week the Russian Foreign Ministry issued two statements drawing attention to two areas of major concern to the Russian Federation. The first of these were the activities of unidentified helicopters flying from an Afghan national air base in Mazar-i-Sharif and being used to attack Hazara Shia Muslims without any interference from NATO forces that have total control of Afghan air space.
The second statement drew attention to Afghanistan’s drug cultivation and noted that tonnes of chemicals essential for processing opium into heroin were flown from Italy, France and the Netherlands. All three are NATO countries, and again there was no interdiction by NATO forces. Neither statement received any coverage in the western mainstream media.
At a meeting in Moscow on 18 July 2017 of Russia’s top military command, the Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said that the conflict in Afghanistan poses a threat to the stability of Central Asia. Any move by ISIS into the Central Asian republics would, said Russia’s Ambassador to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov, invite a Russian military response.
China is also alarmed, not only because of the ongoing threat posed by the infiltration of proxy terrorist groups into sensitive areas in south-western China, but also because one of the US’s real objectives is to disrupt China’s enormous One Belt, One Road (OBOR) projects that are transforming countries in the region.
Pakistan is a key component of that project, including through the $45 billion China-Pakistan-Economic Corridor (CPEC) that terminates in the Pakistani (but Chinese controlled) port of Gwador. It is likely that Pakistan’s role in OBOR is the real reason for the threats Trump uttered against Pakistan, rather than their alleged role in supporting the Taliban.
If Trump was serious about bringing about an end to the Afghan conflict he would have taken advantage of the Russian sponsored peace talks with all the other interested parties earlier this year. His failure to do so, and now a speech devoid of real policy substance, but promising more of the same old failed policies, is a truer indication of America’s real intentions.
James O’Neill, an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
]]>
https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/25/trump-and-afghanistan-a-hidden-agenda/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/25/post-isis-geo-political-spins-in-the-middle-east/ https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/25/post-isis-geo-political-spins-in-the-middle-east/#comments Fri, 25 Aug 2017 04:18:46 +0000
https://journal-neo.org/?p=79732
While it’s true that ISIS is almost out of the door, still there’s new challenges for the region looming on the horizon.
It had become quite obvious, even long before the end-game of ISIS had reached its culmination, that the post-Daesh era would see new geo-political alignments taking place on a scale that would necessitate burying earlier hostilities and forging new alliances. This is perhaps the most striking and defining element of power politics that dynamics of power-tussle are never static, but change across the time and space continuum. No surprises as such happen in power-politics when ‘old enemies’ sit together and decide to confront the ‘new enemies.’ As such, while Daesh has almost been defeated, the cardinal reasons that had led to the germination of Daesh and other groups have still not sunk. Saudi Arabia is as hostile to Iran as it ever was, and to counter Iran’s increasing influence in the post-Daesh scenario, the kingdom has now started to approach, trying to recruit, Shi’ite elements in its bid to counter-balance Iranian influence in Iraq (and Syria). Iran, on the other hand, is also in the middle of strengthening its relations with one of its historical rivals in the region: Turkey.
The House of Saud sowing its own seeds in Iraq
This is happening almost simultaneously with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, meeting Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of Sadr movement who was on first ever visit to Saudia in last 11 years, in Jeddah few weeks ago. Let’s not forget that it was only a year ago when Al-Sadr was involved in protests against the kingdom’s embassy in Baghdad for the execution of a key Shi’ite cleric Nimr al-Nimr in Saudi Arabia. At the same time, when Al-Sadr was protesting the execution, he was also calling for the resignation of Syria’s Assad, indicating his willingness to tap into the Saudi block. It was, therefore, no surprise to see him travelling to UAE few days ago where he met UAE’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan—someone who is allegedly the main architect of Gulf crisis and Qatar blockade, and is also widely regarded as Muhammad Bin Salman’s mentor and chief ally.
It is quite obvious that Saudi Arabia is cultivating Al-Sadr to penetrate in the “post-war Iraq” through post-war reconstruction funds. Sadr’s office said in the post-meeting statement that Riyadh had agreed to pay Baghdad $10 million purportedly as aid to rebuild Iraq. Members of Al-Sadr’s movement were also awarded special hajj visas for this year.
Within Iraq, Al-Sadr’s political orientations are anti-regime. Al-Sadr is very critical of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s government. It was in March that he had started a sit-in inside Baghdad’s Green Zone to force the government to enact certain “reforms.” It was, therefore, again not a surprise to see him, right after visiting Saudi Arabia, demanding that the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi had to either “integrate into the army the disciplined members” of the Hashd al-Sha’abi forces or put them under severe government control. Sadr had also called on Iraqi authorities to “seize the arsenal of all armed groups,” without elaborating further. It is not difficult to understand that Saudia Arabia’s is using Al-Sadr to force the Iraqi government to clip Iran’s wings of influence in Iraq, where pro-Iranian forces have played a central role in defeating ISIS.
Besides it, by offering to “strengthen Arab Shiite authority” in Iraq through al-Sadr, the House of Saud seems to be pushing him to become Iraq’s next Prime Minister in the next general elections, due to be held in 2018. Will this happen or not is one thing. What, however, is obvious here is that a Saudi political game is in play and is beginning to leave its impact on Iraq. The objective is obvious: the House of Saud wants to make al-Sadr ‘Saudia’s chosen man’ in Iraq to reverse Iranian influence out of the region. This, however, is unlikely to happen. For one thing, cultivating al-Sadr might not be so easy as it may seem at this point. Secondly, even if this eventually becomes possible, reversing Iran’s influence from the region seems even more unlikely. Iran’s own manoeuvres indicate that the country is not only sensing Riyadh’s games, but also moving towards strengthening its own position by cultivating relations with its historical rival in the region, Turkey, opening new vistas of co-operation and strategic alliance.
Iran mends its Turkish connection
This way, Tehran seems to think, Iran can counteract the extent to which Riyadh can damage Iran through Iraq. Their bond is likely to be initially based upon curtailing the Kurdish influence in the region (Iraq and Syria)—something that would then not only increase Iran’s influence in Iraq, enabling it to align itself more deeply with Iraq’s Shi’ite elements, but also enable it to turn its relations with Turkey into a regional strategic alliance at some future stage.
The reason why Iran and Turkey are coming closer on the Kurdish question is not merely Turkey’s rivalry with Kurdish factions; it is also due to the fact that Kurdish outfits are potential US allies in both Syria and Iraq and source of trouble for Tehran too. Therefore, if Kurdish position can be weakened by extending co-operation to Turkey, not only would, in Tehran’s calculation, Iran’s position gain strength in Iraq and Syria, but Iran would have also have a powerful regional country on its side. Turkish-Iranian co-operation in the on-going Gulf crisis is also one example where their interests have converged, culminating in the recent visit of Iran’s top military brass to Ankara, the first visit of its kind since 1979.
On his last visit to Iran few months ago, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reaffirmed Turkey’s determination to increase trade with Iran to US$30 billion annually, saying Ankara saw no obstacle to increasing cooperation with Tehran. It is gradually becoming clear that the increasing closeness of these two players would create a strong political, security and economic bloc in the Middle East in the coming years. With Russia continually mediating between the two and providing them with building blocks of enhanced co-operation, there remains little doubt that regional politics in the post-Daesh era would be dominated by these powers.
It is also clear that the House of Saud and its allies would continue to vie for power and influence. A lot, however, depends upon the extent to which the House of Saud can cultivate Shi’ite elements in Iraq and Kurds in Syria to force the balance of power to tilt towards them.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
]]>
https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/25/post-isis-geo-political-spins-in-the-middle-east/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/24/is-there-an-end-to-the-afghan-conflict/ https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/24/is-there-an-end-to-the-afghan-conflict/#comments Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:00:24 +0000
https://ru.journal-neo.org/?p=79797
As US mercenaries flood in to replace regular American troops, one cannot help to wonder is there an end?
In recent months, Trump’s hesitations about Washington’s strategy for Afghanistan governed by the skeptical attitude towards the Afghan conflict that Trump has been showing since the days of his election campaign have quite frankly disappointed the Pentagon, while provoking a massive confusion in Kabul that resulted in an internal struggle within the Ghani administration.
However, the absence of any desire to carry on the 16 years long conflict that resulted in the demise of 2,400 American servicemen and drained more than 1 trillion dollars of taxpayers’ money suddenly gone missing after the meeting Donald Trump held in mid-July with Michael Silver, the CEO of American Elements, that is engaged in high-tech production of metals and chemicals. Silver was able to affect the position that Trump occupied on the future of US military presence in Afghanistan by proving that by mining copper, iron and rare metal reserves in Afghanistan, the total estimated value of which exceeds 1 trillion dollars, Washington can achieve an incredible economic growth.
The adoption of the new strategy on Afghanistan has also been affected by the ideas that have been lobbied by Eric Prince, the founder of the notorious private security company Blackwater that bears a new name today – Academi. It’s not a secret that the Afghan war took an abrupt turn the moment American troops were replaced by mercenaries, that would carry out the majority of all missions. Prince’s plan states that Washington must deploy another 5,500 mercenaries to work directly with Afghan forces since, he argues, this will be cheaper and way more cost-efficient than using regular forces.
On August 21, President Trump revealed a revised concept of the American war in Afghanistan, although he did not go into much details about his new policies, without specifying how many additional troops would be deployed and what goals this increase was going to pursue. However, as members of Congress would note with a special reference to the Trump administration, in addition to the 8,500 US servicemen currently deployed in the region, another four thousand men are going to be sent there in the near future.
Trump stressed that he does not give Afghan authorities any room for maneuver, noting that America will work with Afghan authorities until the moment it’s going to see any “progress”.
Trump has also made a formal appeal to the Pakistani authorities, saying that the US will not continue tolerating this country serving as a safe heaven for terrorists. In an ultimatum form, he warned that Islamabad would have something to lose if it does not cooperate with Washington, adding that the US wasted billions and billions of dollars on Pakistan, while it continues hiding the very terrorists America is after.
American politicians, the media, NATO and the largest players in the region have already provided a reaction to the new US strategy in Afghanistan and Central Asia, presented by President Donald Trump.
Leaders of the Taliban terrorist group announced that they don’t find anything new in the plans of Washington to increase its military presence in Afghanistan. The group has also threatened US soldiers with new attacks. “Instead of continuing the war in Afghanistan, Americans should think about withdrawing their soldiers from Afghanistan,” said Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid, as Reuters reports.
Trump’s decision to get America drawn even further into the abyss of her longest war, instead of withdrawing from it, has been the most significant shift in his position on Afghanistan since his inauguration, argues the Washington Post. By this he demonstrated his new willingness to take responsibility for the long conflict, which he would often refer to as a waste of time and resources. As presidential candidate, Trump condemned American actions in Afghanistan, calling them a “total catastrophe,” and complained that this costly conflict in the center of Asia takes up huge resources at a time when US taxpayers face more urgent challenges.
The Foreign Policy notes that Trump hopes to compensate the losses that the US suffered in the course of this war, especially given the information he has gained about the considerable wealth of the country’s natural resources, undoubtedly hoping to gain control over the development of these minerals once the military victory in Afghanistan is achieved.
However, as the New York Times argues, Trump’s plan will not grant him an unconditional victory.
Washington is going to face an “indefinite war” in Afghanistan, the very place where the US empire will come to an end, said a former Member of the US House of Representatives, Ron Paul. According to this political figure, the more the US gets involved in what is happening, the more often the country will be subjected to new attacks, thus such involvement will bring “less peace” to the US itself.
The leader of the British Labor Party, Jeremy Corbin, has already urged Britain to oppose the US strategy in Afghanistan. Corbin believes that the war in Afghanistan is a failure where after 16 years of bloodshed and destruction, the Taliban remain unbeatable. The US policies have led to the constant increase in terrorist threats, Korbin agrues.
Despite the calls of the US President, Germany is not yet going to increase its military contingent in Afghanistan, as it was announced by the German Ministry of Defense.
In any case, the continuation of the war in Afghanistan, proposed by Trump, will continue to be accompanied by new deaths of Americans and European servicemen in Afghanistan that would be sent there to enforce the so-called “new strategy”, along with massive civilian casualties. All this will exacerbate the Afghan conflict and will only strengthen anti-American sentiments across the Central Asian region.
Vladimir Platov, expert specialized on the Middle East region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
]]>
https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/24/is-there-an-end-to-the-afghan-conflict/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/24/wall-street-primitivism-nicaragua-china-the-middle-east-charlottesville/ https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/24/wall-street-primitivism-nicaragua-china-the-middle-east-charlottesville/#comments Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:35:50 +0000
https://journal-neo.org/?p=79725
If you have natural resources chances are Washington is going to try to push “democracy” down your throat.
Wall Street, London, and the Bretton Woods institutions like the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund claim to support development and the eradication of poverty around the world. They also claim to support scientific progress and raising the global standard of living. However, often they seem to make friends and allies with very different goals. As Nicaragua proceeds with a huge construction project that has dynamic global implications, one can see a certain international pattern repeating itself, with quite dangerous implications.
“Native Activists” Fighting To Preserve US Maritime Dominance
Control of the Panama Canal by the United States has been vital in asserting control over the world economy. The US military has intervened militarily in Panama on many occasions to secure its control of this vital global shipping and transportation hub.
While the USA currently allows vessels to pass through, this could easily change in the case of a military confrontation. With so much of the world’s industrial shipping passing through this vital point, control of the canal gives the USA a level of unchecked power in the global economy. At any point they could “veto” a country’s economy by stopping ships.
However, a construction project currently in the works in Nicaragua could change that. The Chinese government and corporations based in China are cooperating with the socialist government of Nicaragua to construct a new canal, parallel to the Panama Canal. This canal will not be under US dominion, but under the dominion of the Sandinista government and the People’s Republic of China.
The announcement of the project was followed by all kinds of reports in western media claiming it would be an ecological disaster and contribute to global warming. Now, as the project proceeds, voices of the establishment are crying crocodile tears for the indigenous people who will be forced to move by the project. The Guardian has run stories bemoaning their plight. Amnesty International is warning Nicaragua not to interfere with their protests.
The USA is in the process of putting sanctions on Nicaragua, for their support of Venezuela. A bill currently in the US congress called the NICA Act aims to cripple the socialist government.
While it is ignored in US press reports, the Sandinista government has done a great deal to improve the lives of its population, a large percentage of which is indigenous. Poverty in Nicaragua has been reduced by 30%. The United Nations World Happiness Index reports the great increase of happiness in any country in 2016, as having taken place in Nicaragua.
The socialist government is asserting public control over major industries, guaranteeing jobs, housing, and education to the population, and moving toward a centrally planned economy. The Sandinistas are cultivating a layer of patriotic small business owners, who cooperate with the state to develop the economy with foreign investment. Their methods are similar to those employed by Deng Xiaoping when opening up China during the 1980s.
Though the Sandinistas are widely popular, the forces who oppose the canal project have found a number of indigenous leaders to align with. 76% of people in Nicaragua have some indigenous ancestry. The overwhelming majority of the country is ethnically “mestizo” meaning it has a mixture of European and native ancestry.
However, the forces being rallied to oppose the project are not from the overwhelming majority of the population which has indigenous ancestry, but rather to a specific group of just over 4% of the population, which is described as “unmixed indigenous inhabitants.” These are individuals who have cut themselves off from Nicaraguan society at large, and much like the Amish or Mennonites in the USA, maintain a lifestyle without technology, immersed in religious tradition. While the majority of Nicaraguans are Christians, these forces are Shamanists and practitioners of polytheistic faiths. They reject all “european” concepts and lump Marxism, dialectical materialism, and Christianity into the same basket.
The relationship between this isolated minority in Nicaragua and the US Central Intelligence Agency is not a new development. During the 1980s contra war, the CIA supplied weapons and military training to the indigenous Mosquito peoples to fight the Sandinistas. In addition to the weapons and funding they received from the USA, a number of Anti-Communist US Native American activists such as Russell Means joined with them. Many of these indigenous, anti-technology, and anti-science fanatics stood against what they called the “Racist European Marxism” of the Sandinista government, which was made up largely of dark skinned people with indigenous blood. While they claimed to oppose both “capitalism and communism” as European concepts, they quietly and sometimes not-so-quietly, worked with the Pentagon and the CIA.
Just as they took up guns in the 1980s in alliance with Washington, they now get promoted by pro-US Non-Governmental Organizations and Non-Profits, who conveniently see maintaining US maritime dominance as the latest, trendy, ecological, liberal cause, done to rescue some “mystical people” with “beautiful ancient traditions” being crushed by “racist” “dogmatic” Marxists.
“Traditionalist” CIA-Allies in China
Western utilization and manipulation of primitivist, conservative, and reactionary social forces in order to stop economic development is not restricted to Latin America. The political allies of the United States on the Chinese mainland, who work against the People’s Republic, often while spouting rhetoric about “human rights” are a rather interesting bunch.
The Chinese government has just cracked down on an extremist cult known as “Eastern Lightning.” The group is also known as the “Church of the Almighty God” and worships a woman who they claim is the second coming of Jesus Christ. They are reported to torture, mutilate, and even execute members who attempt to leave. Members of the group famously murdered a man in a Mcdonalds restaurant for refusing to allow his daughter to give her phone number to them.
While some would dismiss this simply as an obscure religious cult, it is important to note that the lead minister of the Church, along with the woman who claims to be Jesus Christ, both currently live in the USA. In 2001, they sought “political exile” in the United States, and while millions of people die attempting to cross the US border, the US government happily grants visas to anti-China activists, order to help them escape “persecution” from the US government.
Another friend of the USA in China is the Falun Gong, a strange buddhist sect. The group calls for the public execution of homosexuals and opposes inter-racial marriage. Li Hongzi, the group’s founder, lives in Queens, New York. His organization has been presented with awards by the Heritage Foundation.
Much like Eastern Lightning, the Falun Gong preaches that the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership, in particular its policies advancing the position of women, are harmful to society. The Falun Gong argues that the Chinese Communist Party’s rule represents a “Dharma Ending Period” and that its efforts to include women in government positions is one of its most grievous crimes. The group is also known for separating young people from their families, and threatening ex-members.
Following this pattern, the USA has worked endlessly to promote the deposed feudal theocratic monarchy of Tibet. The Dalia Lama, who ruled Tibet with an iron fist and executed and tortured all who questioned him, is presented as a harmless self-help, spiritual guru in US media.
While he is presented as a man of peace, it is widely known that his brother was given military training in Colorado, and air dropped into the Tibet Autonomous Region in the 1950s. With guns and weapons from the USA, the Tibetan separatists waged a violent proxy war in the mountains for years. This is all boasted about in the right-wing, anti-China book “The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet.”
All these bizarre religious groups aligned with the USA in China seem to glorify feudal, pre-Communist China. They all oppose the Chinese Communist Party for its modernization. While they speak different languages, and glorify different traditions, they probably would agree a lot with the Nicaraguan, US-backed “indigenous activists” who oppose the socialism of the Sandinistas. Meanwhile, it is a similar crowd of western liberals who admire them, and would accuse any who criticized them of “racism” and “white-splaining.”
Not only does Washington have a history of aligning with primitivist and feudalist forces, so do European fascists. Julius Evola, the Italian far-right ideologue who spoke of a “revolt against the modern world” had a particular admiration for feudalism and primitive societies around the world. In his book “Man Among Ruins” he speaks of “the demonic nature of the economy” in western countries, which people are always trying to advance, create, and become more prosperous. He admires pre-capitalist civilization for its poverty and “stability” amid starvation.
As members of the European far-right, the Nazis also admired primitivism and poverty. Heinrich Harrier, the author of the beloved “Seven Years in Tibet,” practically a holy book for advocates of Tibetan seperatism, was actually an SS officer. The Nazis believed Germans to be descended from Tibetans, and sent scientists to measure ancient skulls in order to somehow prove this. The Nazis had similar admiration for the caste system in ancient India, and adopted the swastika as their symbol for that reason.
CIA Loves Islamic Extremists
It was the British empire that first discovered the political value of Wahabbism. The Saudi monarchy owes its origins to a cleric named Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab. His interpretation of Islam in 1700s enabled the Saudi royal family to establish its brutal, repressive theocratic monarchy. The British cooperated with the Saudi royal family, which conveniently allowed them access to oil in exchange for propping up the barbaric regime. In 1945, the USA joined with the British is coddling the Saudi autocracy.
Today, Saudi Arabia is one of the only countries in the world where housing in bedouin tents, not modern buildings is widespread. The lack of infrastructural development accompanies a government that outlaws women from driving cars, conducts public floggings and beheadings, and punishes crimes with mutilation. Every person and everything in Saudi Arabia is the property of the King. Citizens are routinely executed for “insulting the King” or “sorcery” among other crimes. Sometimes bodies are crucified and left on public display after execution.
A large percentage of the Saudi population are guest workers who live as slaves with no human rights. Even among the Saudi born population, the Shia oil workers face brutal discrimination and exploitation on the job, with their religious freedom often denied.
While the western economic institutions and governments all claim to support “poverty alleviation” and “development” in the third world, they embrace the Saudi Monarchy in all its horror and backwardness. Meanwhile, the targets of the USA and NATO in the Middle East, are not the primitive oil autocracies, but rather, regimes that work toward modernization.
The Iranian revolution of 1979 deposed western capitalism, and established a government under the slogan of “not capitalism, but Islam.” After the revolution, even in the context of a massive war with Iraq, Imam Khomeni launched a “construction Jihad.” In this effort inspired by Stalin’s Five Year Plans and the rapid industrialization of socialist countries, Iranians were mobilized to build highways, schools, hospitals, power plants, and so much else in order to bring the country out of poverty. Despite sanctions and attacks from the west, Iran has utilized oil revenue and central planning to construct a highly modern country, with a comparatively prosperous population. The Islamic Republic of Iran that emerged from the 1979 revolution, and has made huge strides toward modernization, is now the target of western leaders.
The Syrian Arab Republic, born in the Baath Socialist revolution, is also targeted by the west. This is a government that has multiple parties in office, and has worked with Russia and China to construct huge power plants and highways. Syrian industrial workers are organized into labor unions, and have legal protections on the job. The Communist Party and the Communist Party (Baghdash) are permitted to participate in the government process. Religious freedom is guaranteed with Sunnis, Shia, Alawi, Christians, Druze, and other religious groups all freely practicing their faith. The achievements of Syria’s state controlled healthcare system are widely praised by international bodies, with many doctors and medical professionals trained the state run Universities.
Fitting with this pattern, western leaders are now arming and training Wahabbis, a force representing primitivism and barbarism of the Saudi variety, in the hopes of toppling the Syrian government. It is worth noting that prior to 2011, when the USA began working to foment civil war in the context of the Arab Spring, Syria had begun constructing an oil pipeline, connecting Iran to Mediterranean.
Prior to its destruction by NATO bombs in 2011, Libya was the most prosperous country on the African continent. It had the highest life expectancy, and had constructed a huge irrigation system in order to spread water across this dry, desert country. The forces backed by the United States to topple the Islamic Socialist government in Libya were Wahabbis. Now ISIS and Al-Queda have set up shop in the country, and citizens are fleeing on rafts trying to reach Europe.
Different Definitions of Imperialism
In his 1917 book “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism,” Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin argued that capitalism had entered a globalist phase. He talked about the rise of “monopoly capitalists” in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. He spoke of how bankers had triumphed over industrial capitalists, and described how wealthy financial elites in the west teamed up with governments to battle against each other, carving out “spheres of influence” in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere. He described how third world countries were utilized as “captive markets” in which western countries could sell commodities without competition.
Imperialism, as Lenin understood it, was about keeping the world poor, so that western bankers could stay rich. Furthermore, imperialism meant dividing the working class within the western countries. A “labor aristocracy” of well paid workers was created. These were working class people who could be cultivated to identify with the western capitalists against the colonized people. With their rising standard of living, they would see their interests as identical to the interests of the monopolists that controlled their governments.
This understanding of imperialism was developed by Lenin, and adopted by figures like Mao Zedong, Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, Huey Newton. Even non-Marxists like Michel Aflaq, Juan Peron, and Moammar Gaddafi studied and came to understand imperialism this way. For various anti-imperialist figures of the 20th century, third world revolutions against imperialism were about raising their countries up from poverty, modernizing, and developing.
However, a large section of the modern political left has abandoned this understanding. The understanding of “imperialism” taught in Universities across the USA and western Europe is quite different.
Starting in the 1950s, the New Left, specifically beloved “cultural critics” in the Frankfurt School and elsewhere, began speaking about “cultural imperialism.” Suddenly, among western academics and leftist activists, imperialism wasn’t about holding back development and keeping people poor. Rather, it was about eroding “beautiful” “traditions” and “ways of life” and “imposing” supposedly “western” values.
So-called “Mcworld” & Wahabbi Extremists Work Together
When describing the supposed leftist critique of imperialism in his book “On Paradise Drive” New York Times Columnist David Brooks said that “anti-American” and anti-imperialist forces oppose “McDonalds, Barnes and Noble, and boob jobs.” Those who object to Wall Street running the world are depicted as Native American mystics, Islamic fanatics, or others who object to the industrialization, commercialization, and sexual freedom of western life.
This misrepresentation is widespread. The false dichotomy is often stated as “Mcworld vs. Jihad,” and was widely promoted in the USA, prior to, but especially after 9/11. In this “Clash of Civilizations” narrative, the forces said to represent “Jihad” were the Saudi Monarchy and Osama Bin Laden, while the forces said to represent “Mcworld” were the IMF, the World Bank, and Wall Street.
In reality, Mcworld globalizationists and the forces represented as “Jihad” are on the same team. They have never been enemies. Washington has been on friendly terms with Saudi Arabia since 1945. The CIA worked with Wahabbi extremists in Afghanistan to topple an independent, modernizing government called the People’s Democratic Party. The USA and Saudi Arabia worked with Wahabbis in Chechnya to fight against the Soviet Union and afterwards the Russian Federation. The USA currently funds and arms Wahhabis in Syria, and cooperated with these forces in Libya to topple the Islamic Socialist government.
The conservative forces in the Middle East that oppose modernization and development, and embrace the Wahabbi ideology of the 1700s are not enemies of Wall Street or the London Stock Exchange. Unlike the Shia revolutionaries, or the Baath Socialists, which represent legitimate resistance, the Wahabbi forces do not wish to modernize or industrialize the region. They want to keep it a mess of impoverished oil plantations ruled over by autocratic vassals. Wall Street has no objection to this setup, and it can largely be traced back to the Sykes-Pickot agreement, crafted by western colonizers.
However, in the west, especially in circles considered to be “progressive” there is a strange mystical and cosmopolitan admiration for the forces of primitivism. For example, those who defend the Syrian government, and point out the terrorist nature of the anti-government forces are labelled “Islamophobic.” Liberal crowds in the United States swoon over the pro-Saudi demagogue named Linda Sarsour as she wears a headscarf, uses exotic sounding Arabic words, accuses those who oppose her of racism, and holds rallies calling for the USA to topple the Syrian government.
This degeneration of leftist politics has been a long time in the making. In the 1960s, the Hare Krishna movement, an extremely right-wing Hindu sect in India, suddenly became a beloved staple of Peace Marches. Gurus from India, figures who promoted drug use for “spiritual” purposes, all suddenly became the fixture of the left. Previously these kinds of bohemian elements had been embraced by the far-right and fascists.
In the 1950s, it was Republicans and the “China Lobby” that rallied support for the Dalia Lama and his insurgency in the Tibet Autonomous Region. Republicans accused the democrats of “losing China.” However, in the present context it is liberals who sport “Free Tibet” bumper stickers, while the right-wing is less interested in foreign meddling and applauds to the words “America First.” No matter what region is being discussed, in the present context, it is the liberals, not the conservatives, whose hearts bleed the loudest for US proxy fighters around the world.
While in the 1980s, it was conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Oliver North who championed the fight against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, it is now liberals who moan for the “indigenous cultures” that are supposedly being “oppressed” by the Marxist government, which dares challenge the hegemony of the Panama Canal.
The US Central Intelligence Agency is probably the most involved with supporting forces of primitivism around the world, as they work to battle independent modernizing governments that threaten the monopoly of western capitalism. It should be no surprise, that since the 1950s, the CIA has also been heavily involved in supporting the anti-communist political left, which seems now fully dedicated to their latest crusade.
The CIA began its infamous “Congress for Cultural Freedom” in the 1950s, hoping to direct anti-capitalist activists and artists away from the pro-Soviet Communist Parties in the USA and Europe. The CIA funded the art of Jackson Pollack, experimental music, and all kinds of cultural strata intended to clash with Marxist-Leninist dialectical materialism and socialist realism. The CIA also launched a program called “MK-Ultra” which involved distributing drugs on college campuses.
The Monument Fights in the USA
The media in western countries, as it champions various primitivist forces, has essentially embraced Julius Evola’s critique of the “demonic nature of the economy.” Like Mother Teresa who infamously said “There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering,” the non-Marxist, “liberal” element now sees social, economic, and technological progress as its enemy, and looks on poverty, ignorance, and primitivism in a condescending admiration.
While once it was the right-wing that pushed malthusian ideas about “overpopulation” it is now billionaire liberals like Bill Gates that work to decrease the global population. Often in the name of ecology, liberals will boast about how they refrain from shopping, and live frugal lives.
Now in the USA, a political clash that is very dangerous is unfolding. The fight involves monuments to various historical figures who did reprehensible things, such as owning slaves or fighting for the Confederacy in the hopes of preserving the slave system.
While it easy for anyone who hates racism and the racist mythology of films like “Gone With The Wind” and “The Birth of a Nation” to celebrate the destruction of Confederate Monuments, and they are absolutely right to do so, the context of their destruction, and who is destroying them, presents a new danger.
The forces that seek to defend the Confederate monuments are white supremacists, Ku Klux Klansmen, admirers of Hitler, traditionalists, and others. These are forces that want the USA to return to segregation, racial division, and other things overcome through decades of struggle. These forces are known to use violence, and they are widely hated and unpopular, though their prestige is slowly growing due to the absurd political context.
The problem is not that reactionary symbols are being destroyed. This is a positive thing. The problem is rather that the forces who line up against them do not seek to replace their hateful ideology with something new. In Charlottesville and elsewhere, the battle is taking place in which bigots who think Robert E. Lee was a hero are facing and off and violently clashing with those who believe society should have no heroes at all.
Racism Battles Post-Modernism
While the racist, hateful messaging and views of White Nationalists fill the airwaves, and become the subject of debate, what does Anti-Fa believe in? The media refers to crowds opposing the “Alt Right” as “anti-racist activists.” The White Nationalists are quick to call them “Communists.” But what ideas does “The Resistance” believe in? What alternative vision do they hold up to combat the right-wing?
The crowds of post-modern, non-ideological leftists largely do not seek to replace statues they destroy with statues of progressive figures like Frederick Douglas, Huey Newton, or William Z. Foster. Rather, they rally around the concept that “no one should be worshipped” and “there is no truth.” Images of Abraham Lincoln, the man who defeated Robert E. Lee and led the fight against slavery are now being destroyed, alongside the Confederates.
While “Anarchists” and liberals who destroy monuments are quick to point out and emphasize these leaders real crimes, the slogan they rally in opposition with is “No Gods and No Masters.” They fall back on concepts like “think for yourself” “question everything” and more subtly: “don’t believe in anything” “there is no truth.”
As media eulogized Heather Heyer, who was murdered by a white nationalist in Charlottesville, very few reports mentioned that she was a member of the Industrial Workers of the World. The IWW, an anarcho-syndicalist labor union formed in 1905, also known as “the wobblies,” indeed has an ideology and belief system of its own. The IWW believes in creating a society in which the major industries and workplaces are controlled by those who work in them. Throughout its history, it was known for working in favor something, it syndicalist vision, not simply for the destruction the old. Not surprisingly, US media, which largely cheers for the opposition to the Alt-Right, obscures this important aspect of the woman who recently died opposing them.
As the media champions the fight against the Alt-Right, they work to obscure any solid ideology that would oppose them. The primary voices opposing the Alt-Right are post-modernists from middle class backgrounds, trained at elite Universities. They tear down the statues of confederate monuments as they cheer for the “Syrian revolution” that reduces Syria to chaos, or the various “oppressed” primitivist groups that fight against China or the government of Nicaragua.
Bill Maher, a left-wing TV commentator interviewed Leah Remini about her painful history in the Church of Scientology. In the interview, Maher outrageously compared scientology to Communism. The outrageous comparison was in reference to the low income of scientology practitioners.
As the polarization continues, the dangerous reality is that this is not the 1930s. The fighting fascists are not armed with Marxism-Leninism and guided by the Soviet Union, fighting for the ideal of Communism. Unlike the anti-fascist of the 1930s, anti-fa and the liberals who support them are not fighting to impose their own ideology onto society. Rather, they are fighting in the hopes of destroying ideology itself.
This is a hopeless mission. Every society since the dawn of agriculture has involved ideas, religions, and some concept morality, however, incorrect or distorted they may have been. These things are the foundation of human civilization. Even pre-historic tribes of hunter gathers had some rules or beliefs to guide their actions. Post-modernism and relativism cannot lay the foundations of a healthy society.
As Americans, like all human beings, long for something to believe in, and long for their lives to improve, not get worse, they are likely to rally around forces who offer them such things. If no alternative is presented, only the now marginal far right-wing will be available to offer such things.
While its easy to call Trump a fascist, something far more deadly, and far closer the reactionary regimes of Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy could gain support. A population told to chose between either anarchy, chaos, and nihilism, or the hateful “truths” of reaction, could be pushed toward a very dangerous trajectory.
Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
]]>
https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/24/wall-street-primitivism-nicaragua-china-the-middle-east-charlottesville/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/24/out-of-control-the-washington-war-making-machine/ https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/24/out-of-control-the-washington-war-making-machine/#comments Thu, 24 Aug 2017 04:41:39 +0000
https://journal-neo.org/?p=79683
Do you trust Trump enough to allow him to start a nuclear war “on an assumption”?
The alleged DNC leaks and the so-called “Russiagate” are a hoax concocted to perpetuate crisis, and nothing more. Most people sense this, but cannot effectively argue with the massive propaganda machine drumming in every American ear. The most powerful country in the world is now a runaway war making machine. Here’s a new and sentient look at the supposed Russian election meddling.
Washington is “off the reservation” since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 race for president. The government of the United States is now making policy and law based on what groups of elites want, and not on what is best for the American people. Most of my friends in the US will not even argue this point. We’ve always known that politicians lie, only now have the lies threatened the foundations of liberty. Presenting no tangible evidence whatsoever to the American people, US legislatures ask the people to take on faith allegations that effect billions of people around the world. Corporate, government, and foreign interest corroborate without any shred of proof. If we had not overused the spooky “Big Brother is Watching” message these last few years, then this Orwellian reality could at least have a moniker. The sequence of recent events should have peaked our interest, but they have not. Trump goes to Europe and meets Putin. Immediately afterward Congress is whopped over the head by the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) to draft and vote a law lumping Russia in with North Korea and Iran. All the while concrete evidence is withheld from the American people, and contravening evidence is ignored. Some even say the presidency has been usurped, and the crisis machine stampedes onward. Russia’s Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev said:
“Trump’s administration has demonstrated total impotence by surrendering its executive authority to Congress in the most humiliating way.”
We should feel as if we are caught on a hamster wheel right now, but somehow the masses move on in numb apathy. The Nation reports on a group of former US intelligence officials saying the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computers in 2016 was an inside job, and the mainstream deconstructs. The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or VIPS, said there was an insider leak that occurred thanks to someone with access to a DNC computer. Quoting author Patrick Lawrence:
“The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.”
In short, we accepted the lies and the liars are further emboldened. What else do liars on a mission for themselves do? Authoritative discourse is being shunned in favor of wild speculation and malicious machination. Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi characterizes the whole Russiagate affair and the new Red Scare as “an ongoing freakout” for anyone truly in the know about Russia. His report unmasks the hysterical mind melt surrounding these issues citing people like former DNC chair Donna Brazile tweeting this week, “The Communists are dictating the terms of the debate”. Excuse me, but are American’s really dumber than bread? “The Communists?” Taibbi’s story brings up the likes of Vladimir Potanin, Boris Berezovsky and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which in turn reveals the true motivations behind all the anti-Putin and anti-Russia narrative – financial skullduggery. And we all know it by now. Russiagate is just another part of the globalist battle plan for chipping away at mother Russia for her wealth. But back to cases with no evidence.
In the case against Russia, the world has on the one hand professional liars, AIPAC puppets, military industrial complex pawns, and the same military geniuses that swore WOMDs existed in Iraq. This side has produced nothing but some drummed up story that the Romanian hacker “Guccifer 2.0” hacked the election. On the other side there are researchers a plenty including William Binney, formerly the NSA’s technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis and designer of many agency programs now in use; Kirk Wiebe, formerly a senior analyst at the NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center; Edward Loomis, formerly technical director in the NSA’s Office of Signal Processing; and Ray McGovern, an intelligence analyst for nearly three decades and formerly chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch. The latter group, who are joined by the likes of Robert Parry and a cadre of independent investigative journalist, have presented compelling arguments that have never been addressed by Washington. For Parry’s part, this report contains all that is needed to understand the situation. I quote from the letter VIPS sent to President Trump, which was shared by Parry on Consortiumnews concerning a request for proof sent to President Barack Obama:
“Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”
Obviously, this was an effort by the outgoing president to excuse himself should proof against Russiagate be uncovered. In the letter to President Trump, the former spooks of VIPS also warn of CIA and NSA capabilities of astounding capability. Significant in this section of the letter, and from the WikiLeaks Vault 7 revelations, was something called Marble Framework, which is a digital development apparently suppressed by the New York Times and other media. The Marble Framework is a secret anti-forensic Marble Framework, which is basically an obfuscator or a packer used to hide the true source of CIA malware. So, what WikiLeaks revealed about Marble is essentially the CIA framework for framing the Russians or anyone for the agency’s own clandestine efforts. Short version, the CIA probably used Marble to implicate Putin and Russia and nobody in “owned media” broke the story properly. Furthermore, when the news did surface legislators ignored it just as if they were involved in the frameup.
For the full story on the US intelligence community’s efforts and capability, this Hacker News story provides a wealth of information. What significant here is the fact that Russia has been implicated with no substantial evidence, while there is a mountain of hard proof showing the US intelligence community (and perhaps even the executive branch) have hacked the truth worldwide. In a familiar “pot calling the kettle black” narrative, Washington seems caught on its own “rat wheel” that is spinning out of control. Unbridled Washington politicians would not be so devastating if their capability to destroy us all were not so apparent. I recall a Counterpunch article by Andrew Lavine about all this recently in which the author recollects just how freaky US intelligence operations can be. With regard to US hacking capability and willingness, Lavine recalls:
“The best known example occurred some ten years ago when the United States and Israel introduced the Stuxnet virus into Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility, destroying roughly a fifth of that country’s nuclear centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control.”
Nuclear facilities set to “critical” by the Americans at the behest of the Israelis? Like I said, America is a runaway war making machine. And only Americans can stop it.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
]]>
https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/24/out-of-control-the-washington-war-making-machine/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/23/is-there-any-difference-between-those-who-fell-victims-of-terrorist-attacks-and-us-bomb-raids/ https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/23/is-there-any-difference-between-those-who-fell-victims-of-terrorist-attacks-and-us-bomb-raids/#comments Wed, 23 Aug 2017 13:39:02 +0000
https://journal-neo.org/?p=79706
How come the world refuses to mourn thousands of lives lost across the Middle East?
The acts of terrorism committed by fanatics of the outlawed “Islamic State” (ISIS) in recent years have become more common and more widespread. This year alone has been marred by an ever increasing number of terrorist attacks committed in Europe: the Westminster Bridge attack of March 22, the Drottninggatan Street attack of April 7, the Champs-Elysees attack of April 20, the Moscow Metropolitan attack of April 13, the Manchester Arena attack of May 22 shortly followed by the London Bridge attack of June 3, and, finally, the EDEKA mall attack of July 28.
This wave of hate crimes has recently reached Spain, which was struck by a series of terrorist attacks last Thursday. The responsibility for these cruel attacks that claimed a total of 15 lives and left another 130 individuals wounded, was claimed by ISIS.
An example of the thousands of official letters of condolences sent from all over the world to the Spanish authorities in order to express solidarity with the people of Spain would read: “We strongly condemn this cruel and cynical crime committed against civilians. These tragic events have once again underlined the need for the entire international community to join efforts in an uncompromising struggle against the forces of terror.”
It seems that the whole world expresses its condolences in the aftermath of these brutal attacks, while demonstrating sincere support toward efforts in fighting international terrorism aimed at stopping the continuous bloodshed at the hands of extremists groups like ISIS. People gather in large numbers in mosques, synagogues and cathedrals across the world to pray for the victims and express their resilient opposition to those taking innocent souls in a bid to spread terror across the world, while demanding the harshest punishment laws can provide for the perpetrators of these attacks. International organizations, law enforcement agencies and the special services of a handful of states have recently intensified their activities and mutual cooperation, introducing additional measures to prevent new attacks from ever occurring again.
However, against the backdrop of this unanimous reaction shown by the international community, is the somewhat puzzling absence of a similar reaction regarding the routine slaughter of considerably larger numbers of innocent civilians carried out by the so-called US-led coalition across the Middle East.
For instance, just a couple of days ago, according to the Syrian news agency SANA, an international coalition led by the United States would bomb residential areas of the city of al-Raqqah, leaving a total of 78 civilians dead.
Two days prior to that, US coalition aircraft struck the village of Al-Jiza, murdering 20 civilians in broad daylight.
On August 17, at least six civilians, including three children, fell victim to US airstrikes in the province of Deir ez-Zor. Later on the same day, coalition warplanes would continue sowing deadly mayhem, killing murdering 17 more civilians, mainly women and children, in al-Raqqah.
At the end of July, the Western coalition operating illegally in Syria murdered another 30 civilians.
Mind you that those numbers represent an incomplete summary of US-led operations over the last 30 days in Syria alone, not civilian deaths in other theaters of war the US and its allies are currently engaged in.
According to the Syrian Human Rights Watch, headquartered in the UK, for the period from April 23 to May 23, 2017 alone, over 355 people fell victims of the US-led coalition. Among them, 225 civilians, including 44 children and 36 women. And if we are to take a look at the reported number of civilians who died at the hands of the US-led coalition over the last three years in Syria, we would learn that Washington is responsible for the deaths of at least 1,256 civilians.
The above mentioned figure far exceeds the loss of civilian lives inflicted by terrorists across Europe over the same period of time. However, European elected representatives prefer to ignore those facts avoiding any condemnation of Washington’s actions in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
One cannot help but question such a contradiction and the open disregard shown in the West toward the lives of third-world nationals. One must wonder why existing international law is applied differently to the perpetrators of terrorist attacks in Europe versus those who bear direct responsibility for the deaths of thousands of civilians across the Middle East?
Valeriy Kulikov, expert politologist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
]]>
https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/23/is-there-any-difference-between-those-who-fell-victims-of-terrorist-attacks-and-us-bomb-raids/feed/ 0
No comments:
Post a Comment