Saturday, August 1, 2020

An essay on "proxy" forces.

It is inconceivable that the British government believes harboring thousands of terrorists within its borders will not result in terrorism.

It harbors these terrorists in order to cultivate and deploy them in future proxy wars and in the meantime prevents them from being liquidated abroad when targets of Western aggression get the upper hand.[1]

The use of proxies or indigenous troops is as old as the Khyber Pass but the hypocrisy about their use of late can be cut with a knife. If Mr. Cartalucci is correct then we see that Britain is using the vilest of the vile for its foreign policy games. As does the U.S. in Syria and did in Libya. The attack on the consulate in Benghazi resulting in the death of Ambassador Stevens and other brave (!!) Americans illustrated that proxies are a dangerous tool as likely to buck in your hands as an improperly used power tool. Hillary and Obongo had no appreciation of this at all and scattered like cockroaches in the kitchen when the chickens came home to Capistrano.

The U.S. used ethnic (Montagnards, Nung) and religious minorities (Hoa Hao, Cao Dai) in Vietnam masterfully. I never for a moment feared any kind of a betrayal from the good-humored and effective Hoa Hoa troops with whom I served. Their religion is quasi-Buddhist by which term I mean no disrespect and their hostility to the Viet Minh and the local Cong needed no affidavits of sincerity.

It isn't the cooperation with and support of various groups here and there in the world that are the problem per se. Rather, the national goals served by establishing such relations, the moral obligations created in the process, and the choice of "partners," as the U.S. loves to say, are what are important.

"American interests" is term that's downright rubbery these days and I can't see how sending arms to ISIS troops in Syria advances even the most limited sense of that term. (And it IS obvious those arms came from Jordan where we and the Saudis have a presence.) As is true of our primary role in Operation Inherent Resolve with its 500+K civilian casualties and immense destruction in Syria. Massive death and destruction and for what?

In Syria the goal of getting rid of Assad the Mad Dog Ophthalmologist is rotten from the git and allying ourselves with ISIS and al-Qaida there is a move that stains ANY goal we might have for involvement in that country. We've been disgraced by our "partners" in Syria and Cartalucci points out how the British have been bitten by their coddled proxies right in their own backyard. Things not looking good for their and our arrogant dabblings in the lives of various "enemies" here and there.

But, of course, there are those Iranians and their proxy forces in Iraq and Syria. We can't have that. That's just wrong.

[1] "Reading Stabbings: Deliberate Product of UK Foreign Policy." By Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer Report, 7/12/20.



I am an exceedingly amateur student of history, so take my recollections with a grain of salt the size of Gibraltar, but... from memory, there are numerous instances of a "ruling class" inviting/importing outsiders to assist with their domestic opponents.

And as memory serves, that never ends well.

Col. B. Bunny said...

I had external operations in mind when I wrote this piece. I don't like the adjective "proxy" actually. It's of recent vintage and, as least as used by our current scourge of Western propagandists, suggests that evil things flow forth merely because there is a relationship of some kind. Iran assists Shiite militias in Iraq therefore they're "proxies" of Iran and infernal by definition. Soleimani orchestrated or facilitated military operations in Iraq THEREFORE he was engaged in terrorism against American troops in the field. Military activity = terrorism.

Be that as it may, my point is that anything to do with foreign troops, regular or irregular, in foreign arenas should be analyzed from the standpoint of goals, obligations incurred, and moral character of those troops. A particular smidgen of dishonesty involves our harping on Iranian "proxies" while maintaining the silence of the grave over our obvious support for the ISIS and al Qaida filth in Syria. So major moral transgression in Syria in that regard. On us.

With regard to your general point, Syria, specifically, had its back to the wall thanks to US, French, British, German (milk delivery services), Danish, Saudi, and Israeli aggression. So it did not have any choice about accepting foreign help just to survive. That seems to have worked out well for them (greasy, arrogant U.S. sanctions aside) as the jihadi/US/Israeli/Saudi/European/Uighur/Turkish plans for dismemberment have been frustrated and it cannot be seriously argued that Russia, Iran, or Hezbollah will remain to control Syria.

The scumbag Turk fanatics intend to remain, of course, but that's another matter.