Thursday, September 24, 2015

Uncharted territory.

Good luck figuring out what U.S. foreign policy is. Enthusiastic support for the Muslim Brotherhood appears to have been part of the plan initially according to Andrew Korybko's article referenced below[1], and apparently that was true under Bush '43 as well.

Seriously? I thought we were supposed to be led by the nose by AIPAC and the spawn of Netanyahu but this looks a lot more like we're in thrall to that most progressive and enlightened population on planet earth -- Salafist Muslims.

I'm all in favor of Realpolitik as long as the emphasis is on "real," but the "real" component isn't coming down through my antennae these days. Mindless, reckless, arrogant adventurism seems closer to the truth.

Consider Mr. Korybko's article a thoughtful attempt to figure out what the heck we're doing in the Middle East. The cost in civilian lives, the attempt to bring down a government that clearly has the support of the Syrian people, and rolling around in the pigsty with animals like ISIS all make Korybko's reference to "American arrogance" simply inadequate to describe our disgraceful conduct there. Hillary Rodham's crowing that "We came. We saw. He died." was a disgraceful thing to say about the death of a man we had stupidly driven from power. And this from a woman whose status as a prominent public figure and then U.S. Secretary of State is just a joke. Hillary?

Remind me what we had in mind as a replacement for Gaddafi after we'd achieved our nutty "regime change." Oh, wait! I remember. Nice, compliant "rebels" were going to take over and all would be as before, except better.

It's an understatement to say that we're engaged in tinkering with the lives of other people and wasting what little good will still exists toward America. Rather, it's a very dirty enterprise that we're engaged in in Syria, from which there has been enormous "blowback" to use a term that dates back to the U.S.- and U.K-instigated 1953 Iranian coup. Sixty years later and we're still playing this mindless game.

Whatever it is that "leaders" think is attractive and useful about "regime change," the results thereof have been, um, mixed. Remember the Czar? Invariably, the toll in blood and suffering is high when small factions gain the upper hand and nothing exists to dilute their fanaticism, their malice, or their benevolent stupidity. Heck, maybe we had "regime change" in the U.S. in 2008 with the bloodshed part delayed until millions more invaders from the third-world have safely been imported and installed on the welfare and voter rolls.[2]

The U.S. political class's attitude has its roots in the constitutional transformation in the U.S. The federal government was never intended to be as huge as it is now, and the details of life were to be left to the people and the state and local governments that were close to them. The U.S. president's views (or those of the Congress or the Supreme Court) on what a good regime in any state might be were irrelevant. All that's changed now and the president now wants to tell U.S. citizens whether and under what circumstances they can build a stock pond on their ranches, how much of their resources they must transfer to the nation's parasites, that they have to live in neighborhoods with negroes and to send their kids to schools with negroes, and what obeisance must be shown to homosexuals.

Whatever you think U.S. foreign policy is about, you can be sure that it wasn't a policy that ever saw the light of day in any newspaper, TV program, or public congressional hearing prior to its implementation. That rush to extend the reach of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (note the words "North Atlantic" in there) to the boundaries of Russia – you remember the hearings on that aggressive and provocative move, don't you? And you do remember the freak asking Congress for a declaration of war against Libya and Syria, don't you?

When you abandon the idea that there is anything benign about U.S. policies (foreign or domestic), you're in uncharted territory. Official bullshit abounds regarding the events surrounding and significance of the Benghazi murders, and on the matter of our support for and financing of ISIS. Every advantage we gained in Iraq has been squandered by the freak in charge and we are busily engaged in creating a human disaster in both Iraq and Syria. In doing this there is an enormous risk that ISIS will take control over Syria and portions of Iraq, which will, at a minimum, almost certainly alarm the Russians and see them move to protect their interests in Syria. Aggressively. An ISIS takeover would also send the neocons into a new frenzy that will involve their earnest consideration of the advisability of a new adventure in Iraq with U.S. ground troops. For God's sake, yes! Let's have more war.

It's anything but clear that U.S. "leaders" have the sense to pour gravy out of a boot where it comes to our strategic interests anywhere in the world, let alone the Middle East. This post most certainly isn't the dernier cri on what the heck we're doing but it's obvious we're causing enormous damage, wasting our blood and treasure, and pursuing no goal more lofty than control or hegemony.

Is it clear to you that no modus vivendi can be worked out with China and Russia? Is it clear that what we are doing is focused like a focused laser beam on eradicating Muslim terror in this world? Is it clear that we are taking effective action to keep ourselves and our European brothers and sisters from sinking under a civilization-destroying mass of unwanted immigrants?

Is it clear, simply stated, that what we are doing is as a consequence of thinking things through in any way? The Pentagon and, I presume, the State Department, have people who prepare contingency plans for any event on the planet except maybe liver spots. Does what we are doing look like it's pursuant to any such contingency plan? Or does it look like we're playing entirely by ear, and a very badly attuned ear at that?

[1] "Assad Must Go? No, American Arrogance Must Go!" By Andrew Korybko, Sputnik News, 9/15/15.
[2] Just a thought.

No comments: