Friday, September 12, 2014

What the mainstream media (with a long history of reporting deliberate lies and misleading public opinion) won't say about ISIS and the real agenda of the 'long war'.  It's all following the 'strategic plan'. 

Artelligence Inc.

America, ISIS, and Syria: 
We have to bomb the jihadis in order to save them

From The Polemicist
Friday September 5, 2014

Does it take more than one full minute of thought to see what’s going on here?

The short version:

* ISIS is the product of years of American military intervention in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. ISIS is the creature of an imperial enterprise—a global effort to bring down the Syrian state using jihadi proxies that included the U.S and its allies--Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, and Israel, at least—that could only have proceeded, “at the bidding of,” and managed by, the imperial center. It was by surfing the American-directed “cataract” of weaponry and funds directed against Syria that ISIS became an international jihadi movement surpassing Al-Qaeda itself. Without that American intervention, there would be no ISIS.

* In this regard, ISIS is only the latest in a series of worst-ever takfiri groups that has been cooked up in the stew of jihadi proxy fighters the U.S. and its allies have been serving up since the its holy war in Afghanistan in 1979—the one where Zbigniew Brzezinski told Bin Laden’s jihadis, “God is on your side.”1 As Gilbert Mercier quipped, “Just like al-Qaeda, ISIS is the secret love child of United States imperialism and the kings and sheiks of the Gulf states.”2

* An American (“coalition”) military attack on Syria will not destroy ISIS, and will not have the primary purpose of destroying ISIS; it will target and degrade the Syrian military, and its primary purpose will be to destroy the Syrian state’s capacity to resist the onslaught of jihadi rebels, including ISIS—a “rebellion” which hasn’t been going so well recently. 

The Obama administration knows, and says, that an American military attack will not defeat ISIS. It also knows, and says (sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly, depending on the audience), that its main objective will be to help the jihadi onslaught succeed. “A­ssad must go” is still the prime directive; the jihadis are still the most effective instrument for that. 

ISIS changes nothing, except to help sell military intervention to the Western publics. In a number of ways, ISIS has intervened to save the jihadi rebellion from defeat. It’s the reverse of the Vietnam rule: We have to bomb the jihadis in order to save them.

For those who want the details, the long version:

How the West Created the Islamic State
… With a Little Help From Our Friends

By Nafeez Ahmed

"...Missing from the chorus of outrage, however, has been any acknowledgement of the integral role of covert US and British regional military intelligence strategy in empowering and even directly sponsoring the very same virulent Islamist militants in Iraq, Syria and beyond, that went on to break away from al-Qaeda and form ‘ISIS’, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or now simply, the Islamic State (IS).

Since 2003, Anglo-American power has secretly and openly coordinated direct and indirect support for Islamist terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda across the Middle East and North Africa. 

This ill-conceived patchwork geostrategy is a legacy of the persistent influence of neoconservative ideology, motivated by longstanding but often contradictory ambitions to dominate regional oil resources, defend an expansionist Israel, and in pursuit of these, re-draw the map of the Middle East...

The Third Iraq War has begun. With it, longstanding neocon dreams to partition Iraq into three along ethnic and religious lines have been resurrected.

White House officials now estimate that the fight against the region’s ‘Islamic State’ will last years, and may outlive the Obama administration. 

But this ‘long war’ vision goes back to nebulous ideas formally presented by late RAND Corp analyst Laurent Muraweic before the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board at the invitation of then chairman Richard Perle. That presentation described Iraq as a “tactical pivot” by which to transform the wider Middle East.

Brian Whitaker, former Guardian Middle East editor, rightly noted that the Perle-RAND strategy drew inspiration from a 1996 paper published by the Israeli Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, co-authored by Perle and other neocons who held top positions in the post-9/11 Bush administration.

The policy paper advocated a strategy that bears startling resemblance to the chaos unfolding in the wake of the expansion of the ‘Islamic State’ – Israel would “shape its strategic environment” by first securing the removal of Saddam Hussein. “Jordan and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and ‘roll back’ Syria.” This axis would attempt to weaken the influence of Lebanon, Syria and Iran by “weaning” off their Shi’ite populations.

To succeed, Israel would need to engender US support, which would be obtained by Benjamin Netanyahu formulating the strategy “in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the cold war.”

The 2002 Perle-RAND plan was active in the Bush administration’s strategic thinking on Iraq shortly before the 2003 war. 

According to US private intelligence firm Stratfor, in late 2002, then vice-president Dick Cheney and deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz had co-authored a scheme under which central Sunni-majority Iraq would join with Jordan; the northern Kurdish regions would become an autonomous state; all becoming separate from the southern Shi’ite region.

The strategic advantages of an Iraq partition, Stratfor argued, focused on US control of oil:...

The expansion of the ‘Islamic State’ has provided a pretext for the fundamental contours of this scenario to unfold...

In 2008, the strategy re-surfaced – once again via RAND Corp – through a report funded by the US Army Training and Doctrine Command on how to prosecute the ‘long war.’ 

Among its strategies, one scenario advocated by the report was ‘Divide and Rule’ which would involve:
“… exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts.”
Simultaneously, the report suggested that the US could foster conflict between Salafi-jihadists and Shi’ite militants by:
“… shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes… as a way of containing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.”
One way or another, some semblance of this plan is in motion...




To evoke yet another stated policy for which today’s jihadis are conveniently helpful, we should recognize that ISIS is finishing off the destruction and breakup of the Iraqi state that the U.S. began with its invasion in 2003. 

In Iraq, ISIS is executing an American plan, proposed by Joe Biden and Leslie Gelb in 2006, and endorsed by the U.S. Senate in 2007, to split into three parts—Sunni, Shia, and Kurd.30

That plan is itself uncannily similar—pure coincidence, I am sure—to an Israeli plan, The Yinon Plan of 1982, which “stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states….[and] called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states.” Which also means ISIS is executing an Israeli plan. Yinon-to-Biden-to-Baghdadi, a triple play in which there’s no Chance for Iraq.31  

Remember that the U.S. sat back while ISIS put the finishing touches on the Sunni-Shia split in Iraq, and only intervened when ISIS threatened the already effectively-independent Kurds—who are very close allies of the U.S. and Israel.32

Once Iraq is, like Gaul, divided into three parts, the jihadis can move on to help with the Syrian extension of that plan, “Syria’s fragmentation into provinces,” as gleeful predicted by former Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, who also suggested that “the Arab world is passing through a phase that will restore it back to the way it was before World War I ….[ruling] out the possibility of the emergence of an Arab alliance that would stand in opposition to Israel in the next 10 to 15 years.”33 

Extract from The Polemicist, 
"America, ISIS, and Syria: We have to bomb the jihadis in order to save them" 

Why 'Forever War'?

The untruthful and simplistic propaganda narrative spun by President Obama about ISIS and everything else, is nonsense. 

It is repeated by the mainstream media, but it does not help to explain what is really going on in our world, because they do not intend it to. They intend to confuse and manipulate public opinion.

Perceptively, Russian President Putin recently said: "Anything U.S. touches turns into Libya or Iraq."

Certainly, the only result of U.S./Western intervention seems to be more terrible death and destruction, more terrorism, more failed states, more insecurity and endless war.

The 'Empire of Chaos'
(Pepe Escobar) is also clearly a 'Vampire Empire'. (James Petras)
How else can we describe a system which is sucking the life out of all that is decent, and destroying the environment of our planet, to satisfy and enrich a few?  

This failed system is even destroying its own indebted, bankrupted economies and militarised, corrupted societies, in which the rich just get richer while everyone else goes backwards.

Can the 'powers that be' really be that stupid? I don't think so.

Surely, the only way to understand what is really happening is to understand that this is not the result of 'stupidity'; it is all very deliberate. It is following some long term, strategic plan. 

While millions of ordinary people lose, there are of course beneficiaries, including the war-crazed neo-cons who are safely well away from the battlefields, the military-industrial-security complex, the promoters of imperial oil and gas pipelines, and the Zionist State of Israel.

To understand war, follow the money.

Bruce McPhie

What is taking place in the Middle East & North Africa, today, is precisely what has been clearly stated in various U.S. neo-con strategic plans: region-wide chaos, 'regime change', and Muslim-on-Muslim violence, for imperial control of vital resources, and in order that Israel establish hegemony over the entire region. 

The idea repeated regularly that the Iraq wars were 'a terrible mistake' is either based on ignorance of these strategic plans, or is an attempt to whitewash them from public consciousness. 

The same goes for U.S. military attacks on Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and, soon, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. It's all part of a regional plan, clearly outlined in at least three well known documents: 

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC)

A Clean Break: A new strategy for securing The Realm  

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East 

Excerpt, Oded Yinon: “The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation …" 

No comments: