Category Archives: Radical Islam

“Pentagon Begins Low-Intensity, Stealth War In Syria,” by Mike Whitney

Via Global Research.

Everything I wrote about yesterday is born out once again in this article by Mike Whitney. The bombing of Syrian troops at Deir Ezzor was a decision by the Pentagon that could only have been approved at the highest levels, and I mean Ash Carter, Secretary of Defense, who has a near-psychotic hatred of Russia. Before this happened, Debka informed me that the Pentagon and the CIA were already rebelling against the new deal that would have required the US and Russia to cooperate against Syrian Al Qaeda. But Syrian Al Qaeda is our strongest ally in the war against Assad. Most of our weapons go to them and groups like them. How can cooperate against our Al Qaeda buddies? We can’t. Hence the rebellion where the Pentagon renounced civilian control of the military and decided to bomb Syrian troops against the wishes of the Commander in Chief. It’s a dirty game these bastards are playing.

I’ve talked a long time about the Deep State. Well part of the Deep State is the Pentagon and the CIA. It’s the Pentagon and the CIA who are behind all of these attacks in violation of civilian authority over the army. So the Deep State is defying the President and his Administration, but that would not be unusual as it’s the Deep State that really runs the country, not whatever Administration or certainly Congress is in power. Dirty game.

You must understand the mindset of the CIA. The CIA believes that US Administrations come and go, but none of them really affect the CIA’s overall goals much. Nor do CIA directors. The CIA believes that directors come and go, but the CIA still does whatever it wants no matter who is in charge. If an administration tries to put one of their guys in charge of the CIA like Panetta in order to reign in the CIA, the CIA will simply disobey him or they will make it so that the CIA Director obeys the CIA and not the other way around. Dirty game.

They can’t get a UN Security Council resolution for attacking Assad or for their insane no-fly zone, so they are thinking about attacking Assad surreptitiously, possibly via third parties, and then denying that we did it. Dirty game.

Of course soon after these threats were issued, our main ally on the ground, Syrian Al Qaeda, launched a mortar strike against the Russian Embassy in Damascus. We might as well just say that the US military launched a mortar attack on that embassy, but we did it via our jihadist pals on the ground so we’re not responsible. Dirty game.

The idea here is to ramp up support for Al Qaeda and the rest of the headchoppers by flooding them with weapons including MANPADS to take down jets, thereby trapping Russia in a quagmire in Syria. The model here would be Afghanistan, where we flooded maniacal jihadis not too different from the ones in Syria with the explicit goal of trapping the USSR in a quagmire, which is precisely what happened. Dirty game.

After the bombing of Syrian troops at Deir Ezzor on September 17, US jets bombed two bridges over the Euphrates River in ISIS territory. There was no objective military reason for these attacks except that Syrian troops need to cross those bridges if they are going to attack the core of ISIS held territory. So here we are once again carrying out airstrikes in support of ISIS as we did at Deir Ezzor. We should change the name of the US Air Force to the ISIS Air Force. So we are attacking ISIS and supporting them at the same time. It all seems so insane, but this is standard practice for US military foreign policy skullduggery. Dirty game.

At the end, Whitney points out that Russia has just threatened to attack any air forces attacking Syrian forces on the basis that Russian forces are embedded with Syrian troops all over Syria, so Russia says an attack on the SAA is an attack on the Russian military. They will shoot down any jets, drones or cruise missiles that attack Assad. Checkmate.

I can’t believe we are doing this. We are threatening to go to war with in order to support Al Qaeda of all people. What the Hell happened to my country.

Pentagon Begins Low-Intensity, Stealth War In Syria

pentagone

“Last Wednesday, at a Deputies Committee meeting at the White House, officials from the State Department, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff discussed limited military strikes against the (Assad) regime … One proposed way to get around the White House’s long-standing objection to striking the Assad regime without a U.N. Security Council resolution would be to carry out the strikes covertly and without public acknowledgment.” – Washington Post.

Call it stealth warfare, call it poking the bear, call it whatever you’d like. The fact is, the Syrian war has entered a new and more dangerous phase increasing the chances of a catastrophic confrontation between the US and Russia. This new chapter of the conflict is the brainchild of Pentagon warlord, Ash Carter, whose attack on a Syrian outpost at Deir Ezzor killed 62 Syrian regulars putting a swift end to the fragile ceasefire agreement.

Carter and his generals opposed the Kerry-Lavrov ceasefire deal because it would have required “military and intelligence cooperation with the Russians”. In other words, the US would have had to get the green light from Moscow for its bombing targets which would have undermined its ability to assist its jihadist fighters on the ground. That was a real deal-breaker for the Pentagon. But bombing Deir Ezzor fixed all that. It got the Pentagon out of the jam it was in, it torpedoed the ceasefire, and it allowed Carter to launch his own private shooting match without presidential authorization.

Mission accomplished. So what sort of escalation does Carter have in mind, after all, most analysts assume that a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia will lead to a nuclear war. Is he really willing to take that risk? Heck no, but not everyone agrees that more violence will lead to a nuclear exchange. Carter, for example, seems to think that he can raise the stakes considerably without any real danger, which is why he intends to conduct a low-intensity, stealth war on mainly Syrian assets that will force Putin to increase Russia’s military commitment. The larger Russia’s military commitment, the greater probability of a quagmire, which is the primary objective of Plan C, aka–Plan Carter. Take a look at this clip from an article in Tuesday’s Washington Post which helps to explain what’s going on:

“U.S. military strikes against the Assad regime will be back on the table Wednesday at the White House, when top national security officials in the Obama administration are set to discuss options for the way forward in Syria… Inside the national security agencies, meetings have been going on for weeks to consider new options to recommend to the president to address the ongoing crisis in Aleppo…

A meeting of the National Security Council, which could include the president, could come as early as this weekend. Last Wednesday, at a Deputies Committee meeting at the White House, officials from the State Department, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff discussed limited military strikes against the regime… The options under consideration… include bombing Syrian air force runways using cruise missiles and other long-range weapons fired from coalition planes and ships… One proposed way to get around the White House’s long-standing objection to striking the Assad regime without a U.N. Security Council resolution would be to carry out the strikes covertly and without public acknowledgment, the official said.” (Obama administration considering strikes on Assad, again, Washington Post).

Don’t you think the Washington Post should have mentioned that Carter’s sordid-little enterprise is already underway? Consider the bombing of Deir Ezzor, for example. Doesn’t that meet the Post’s standard of “U.S. military strikes against the Assad regime”? Sure, it does. And what about the two Syrian bridges US warplanes took out over the Euphrates last week (making it more difficult to attack ISIS strongholds in the eastern quadrant of the country)?

Don’t they count? Of course, they do. And let’s not forget the fact that Carter’s jihadist buddies on the ground launched a mortar attack on the Russian embassy in Damascus on Tuesday. That’s another part of this low-intensity war that’s already underway. So all this rubbish about Obama mulling over these “new options” for “military strikes” is complete hogwash. Plan Carter is already in full swing, the train already left the station. The only thing missing is presidential authorization which probably isn’t necessary since Il Duce Carter decided that it was his turn to run the country. Now check out this clip from a Memo to the President from a group of ex-U.S. intelligence agents who compelled to warn Obama about (among other things) “asserting White House civilian control over the Pentagon.” Here’s an excerpt:

“In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov deal. We can assume that what Lavrov told his boss in private is close to his uncharacteristically blunt words on Russian NTV on Sept. 26: “My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the US military machine.

Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the US Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia… apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.” Lavrov’s words are not mere rhetoric … Policy differences between the White House and the Pentagon are rarely as openly expressed as they are now over policy on Syria.” (Obama Warned to Defuse Tensions with Russia, Consortium News)

How shocking is that? When was the last time you read a memo from retired Intel agents warning the president that the Pentagon was usurping his Constitutional authority? That sounds pretty serious, don’t you think? Bottom line: The Pentagon is basically prosecuting their own little war in Syria and then chatting up the policy with Obama when they damn well feel like it. Here’s more from the Washington Post:

“The CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff … expressed support for such “kinetic” options, the official said … That marked an increase of support for striking Assad compared with the last time such options were considered.” (Washington Post)

Of course they want to bomb Assad. They’re losing! Everyone wants to bomb someone when they’re losing. It’s human nature. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. It’s a very bad idea. Just like supporting Sunni extremists is a bad idea. Just like giving shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) to fanatical crackpots is a bad idea. How crazy is that? And how long before one of these religious nutcases use their new toys to take down an Israeli or American jetliner? Not very long, I’d wager. The idea of doubling-down on homicidal maniacs (by providing them with more lethal weapons) is really one of the dumbest ideas of all time, and yet, the Pentagon and CIA seem to think that it’s tip-top military strategy. Here’s one last blurb from the WA Post article:

“Kerry’s deputy, Antony Blinken, testified last week that the U.S. leverage in Russia comes from the notion that Russia will eventually become weary of the cost of its military intervention in Syria. “The leverage is the consequences for Russia of being stuck in a quagmire that is going to have a number of profoundly negative effects,” Blinken told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.” (Washington Post)

See? There it is in black and white. “Quagmire”. The new “Plan C” strategy is designed to create a quagmire for Putin by gradually ratcheting up the violence forcing him to prolong his stay and deepen his commitment. It’s a clever trap and it could work, too. The only hitch is that Putin and his allies appear to be making steady headway on the battlefield. That’s going to make a lot harder for Syria’s enemies to continue the provocations and incitements without triggering massive retaliation. But maybe Carter hasn’t thought about that yet.

NOTE: Russia Issues Warning to Pentagon; Hostile Aircraft That Threatens Syrian Troops Will Be Shot Down.

This is from a Thursday report on Sputnik International:

“The Russian Minister of Defense said “that “Russian S-300, S-400 air defense systems deployed in Syria’s Hmeymim and Tartus have combat ranges that may surprise any unidentified airborne targets. Operators of Russian air defense systems won’t have time to identify the origin of airstrikes, and the response will be immediate. Any illusions about “invisible” jets will inevitably be crushed by disappointing reality.” No More Deir ez-Zors. “I point out to all the ‘hotheads’ that following the September 17 coalition airstrike on the Syrian Army in Deir ez-Zor, we took all necessary measures to exclude any similar ‘accidents’ happening to Russian forces in Syria,” Konashenkov said. (Sputnik)

Mike Whitney  lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

4 Comments

Filed under Democrats, Eurasia, Geopolitics, Government, Middle East, Obama, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Syria, US Politics, USA, War

“US Ponders Whether to Go to War with Russia to Salvage Al Qaeda in Syria,” by Eric Zuesse

Via Global Research.

I would say that just about everything you read below is 100% correct. Of course every word below is directly contrary to the lying narrative of the Syrian War being propagated by the US propaganda system.

The first incident discussed is the “accidental” US bombing of Syrian forces in Deir ez Zour, killing 80 Syrian soldiers. Except it was no accident.

Next he talks about an attack on a UN aid convoy in Aleppo for which the US immediately blamed Russia and Syria and then Russia. The truth is that neither Russia nor Syria attacked that convoy and it was not a UN convoy anyway, instead it was a Red Crescent. As a matter of fact, that convoy attack was an actual US false flag attack presumably ordered by Ashton Carter yet again as in the previous assault on the Syrian Army at Deir ez Zour.

The reason was that the cooperation deal between the US and Russia to jointly attack Al Qaeda in Syria, which the Pentagon and CIA were mutinying against, was dependent on a clause that said that they needed to cooperate on aid to besieged areas and that any attacks on aid convoys would immediately kill the deal. Wa-la! Suddenly there is a mysterious attack on an aid convoy and no one knows who did it, which coincidentally just so happens to kill the Russia-US cooperation deal!

I will go into my evidence proving without a doubt that this was a false flag attack in a later post.

Later he discusses how the US has been supporting Al Qaeda in Syria for years now mostly via its allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and especially Turkey. As a matter of fact, recent excellent evidence proves that the US actually has military advisors on the ground in Syria working directly with Syrian Al Qaeda!

About the “Gulf” threatening to up its arms provisions to the rebels, for “Gulf”  read Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and of course the US. This is how it works. The US gives weapons shipments to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. These three countries then ship the weapons into Syria. It is done this way so the US will not be directly responsible for arming the rebels.

It is true that the US and its allies are threatening to arm Al Qaeda and the rest of the jihadists with SAM’s to shoot down jets, which means Syrian and surely Russian jets too. So the US is now effectively getting ready to shoot down Russian warplanes in order to save Al Qaeda!  I cannot stress how irresponsible it is to give Al Qaeda and the rest of the maniacs SAM’s. They can easily use them to shoot down passenger jets. Also ISIS will surely get some of these SAM’s as ISIS gets quite a few of the weapons that come into Syria. So the US is now threatening to arm Al Qaeda and ISIS with surface to air missiles which can be used to shoot down passenger jets. How insane!

It is probably correct that Russia is using the same technique to attack the rebels in Syria as it used in Chechnya, that is, exterminating the rebels along with their civilian supporters. In Chechnya, they destroyed whole neighborhoods housing rebels along with their civilian supporters.

That is a war crime, correct, but US allies do the same thing.

It appears that Mr. Putin and Mr. Assad fight wars in a very dirty way.

And yes, Pentagon spokesman Kirby is indeed threatening to kill Russian soldiers in Syria but also threatening to launch attacks in Russian cities. Presumably these attacks will be done by some of our pet jihadists that we have been using against our enemies since the Afghan War in 1979 when the US-Wahhabi alliance began.

Moon of Alabama (one of the greatest blogs out there) is correct when he says that the only reason that the US has been negotiating all of these ceasefires with Syria and Russia is in order to buy time to rearm Al Qaeda and the rest of the rebels. One long-lasting ceasefire was used to flood the rebels with guns along with 3,000 new men. The US has never been serious about these ceasefires.

And yes, Russia is saying that if the US attacks Syrian forces anywhere in Syria, Russia will consider it an attack on Russian forces. This is because Russia states that there are Russian forces embedded with Syrian troops all over Syria, so any US attack on Syrian troops presumably endangers Russian forces also. I believe it is true that Russians are embedded all over Syria with the SAA. I also believe that there is a large force of 3,000 Russian soldiers to the southeast of Aleppo. I am not sure exactly what they are doing there, but they are there all right. There are a lot more Russian troops in Syria than most people think. It’s not just a few Air Force pilots.

And Russia has indeed placed S-300 and S-400 antiaircraft missiles in Syria for the purpose of shooting down US or other aircraft that attack Syrian troops. These are the most advanced anti-aircraft missiles on Earth with an incredibly long range and I believe that they are perfectly capable of taking down a USAF plane. In addition, Russia placed S series anti-aircraft battery in Tartus which specifically targets cruise missiles. Yes, it can shoot a US cruise missile right out of the sky.

 

US Ponders Whether to Go to War with Russia to Salvage Al Qaeda in Syria

 

Members of Al Qaeda's Nusra Front gesture as they drive in a convoy touring villages in the southern countryside of Idlib

Sources that will be provided here, document the historical narrative now occurring toward all-out war between the US and Russia, up till the present, as that history will be introduced in the following two paragraphs (the first paragraph for background, and the second for a summary of the documentation that will then constitute the main body of the present report):

FOR BACKGROUND:

The US government (Barack Obama) was being led by the Saudi royal family, who own Saudi Arabia, in selecting members for the so-called ‘peace negotiations’ with Russia on the Syrian conflict, and those ‘negotiations’ broke up because the US refused to stop backing Al Qaeda in Syria. As I reported and documented on 6 May 2016:

«These talks broke down on April 18th because Al Nusra was facing imminent defeat in the key city of Aleppo, and because such a defeat was unacceptable to Mohammed Alloush, the Saudi agent, and head of the Saudi-Wahhabist group, the Army of Islam. He was selected by King Saud to lead the rebel side at Syria’s peace negotiations».

FOR SUMMARY OF THE FOLLOWING REPORT:

Al Qaeda in Syria (which used to call itself «Al Nusrah») has been leading the US proxy army of jihadists trying to replace Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, but now that Russia and the US have broken off negotiations after the US bombed the Syrian army in Syria’s Deir ez-Zor on September 18th, Russia and the United States are gearing up for war against each other in Syria.

Both Russia and Syria have now quit trying to work any longer with the United States to defeat Al Qaeda in Syria — they’ve had enough of America’s protecting Al Qaeda in Syria; they are laying down the gauntlet to the US regime, and are saying that the US regime can henceforth choose either to leave Syria (which it has invaded by its illegal entry into Syria), or else to go to war against both Syria and Russia there, because Syria and Russia will no longer continue to be deterred by US pretenses about its support of alleged ‘moderate rebels’, no longer deterred from Syria’s and Russia’s joint goal of destroying all jihadists in Syria, including Al Qaeda there — America’s actually key proxy-force on the ground trying to replace Assad.

* * *

Now will be presented the documented recent developments producing this historic break towards World War III. We start with America’s bombing of the Syrian Army, and continue up through to October 7th:

On 18 September 2016, Reuters headlined, «US-led forces strike Syrian troops, prompting emergency U.N. meeting», and reported that, «The United States military said the coalition stopped the attacks against what it had believed to be Islamic State positions in northeast Syria after Russia informed it that Syrian military personnel and vehicles may have been hit. The United States relayed its ‘regret’».

Russia’s Sputnik News then bannered on the 18th, «Russian FM: Lethal US Strike on Syrian Army ‘Borders on Connivance With Daesh’», and reported that, «The Russian Foreign Ministry released a sternly worded statement following a tense 24-hours of diplomacy after an allegedly ‘unintentional’ US airstrike killed 80 Syrian Army forces ‘paving the way’ for a Daesh offensive». («Daesh» is a synonym for ISIS.)

Russia’s RIA News agency headlined on the 18th, «Assad Advisor Explains How the USAF [US Air Force] Might Coordinate with IG [another synonym for ISIS]», and reported that, «As soon as Washington struck [Assad’s forces], terrorists launched a ground attack [on Assad’s forces]. [It] hit exactly on the territory that was occupied by the Syrian army».

Later on the 18th, Russian Television headlined «‘Unbelievable’ that US strike on Syrian army was mistake – fmr MI5 agent», and reported that a former intelligence officer for Britain’s MI5, Annie Machon, said: «I find it slightly unbelievable that the Americans could hit this target thinking this was ISIS… So it seems just strange that the Americans are just saying it was a bit of a mistake». She asserted that, in the unlikely event the US really believed that it was supporting «so-called moderate groups» (as she put it) in Syria, «Americans are dealing with fire,» because the so-called ‘moderate rebels’ often defect to jihadist groups and bring along with them the weapons that the US had provided.

This US assistance to Al Qaeda in Syria — Al Nusrah — has been reported for years, by many independent sources, such as in Seymour Hersh’s two separate reports about Obama’s lies regarding Al Nusrah’s being the actual source of the 21 August 2013 sarin gas attack that Obama was blaming on Assad’s government. In fact, on 16 August 2016, the US government even admitted that in Syria «We’re not focused on the former al-Nusra Front. We’re focused on Daesh [ISIS], and that’s what we’re fighting». Even while the US was working with Russia and Syria to kill ISIS in Syria, the US refused to cooperate in attacking Al Qaeda there.

Here was the report, also on September 18th, from Ziad Fadel, a Syrian-born US lawyer (in Michigan) who has many sources in Syria, and who writes for his own popular news-site about this war, the «Syrian Perspective» site, based upon his constant contacts with those Syrians:

«DAYR EL-ZOR:

To be specific, at the Al-Tharda Mountain which is still occupied by the Syrian Army – no thanks to the exceptional talent of the Americans for bungling or outright treachery, yesterday, the United States Air Force, flying out of Habbaaniyya AB in Iraq, with 2 F-16s and 2 A-10 Thunderbolts, crossed the Syrian border without permission and entered Syrian airspace without so much as a hint to the government in Damascus, which might have asked the Americans: WHAT IS YOUR TARGET GOING TO BE? And if the Americans responded with something like: ‘Those ISIS terrorists on Al-Tharda Mountain’, the Syrian government might have said: ‘Oh, no. Don’t do that. Our army is on that mountain.’ And the whole mess could have been averted. 62 Syrian soldiers would still be alive……. We will not forget».

He further reported that,

«an enraged Syrian Army with the help of the PDC and Shu’aytaat Tribal militias, acting under the tenacious and ferocious aerial support of both the SAAF [Syrian Arab Air Force] and RuAf [Russian Air Force], quickly restored army control over all Al-Tharda Mountain inflicting at least 100 casualties on the terrorist filth, destroying 10 vehicles, 6 of which were pickups with 23mm cannons. The air forces are continuing assaults today all around the area of Al-Tharda, Panorama and Al-’urfi».

On September 20th, the Wall Street Journal headlined, «US Believes Russia Bombed Syrian Aid Convoy». But the next day, Britain’s Guardian reported that, «US is not revealing what evidence it has to support claim Moscow was responsible». (Russia denied that it had anything to do with that bombing. Whether the US did it is still not known.)

On September 26th, SANA, the Syrian government’s news agency, bannered, «Al-Moallem: The US wanted to lie and change facts regarding what the Syrian government is doing, but it failed», and reported that: «Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Moallem stressed that the United States, France, and Britain called for a UN Security Council session on Syria this Sunday [September 23rd] in an attempt to support terrorist organizations in Syria… He stressed that the aggression of the US-led coalition on a Syrian Arab Army position in Tharda Mountain in Deir Ezzor was deliberated and in coordination with ISIS, as ISIS rushed to take control of the area only one hour after the aggression».

Also on the 26th, Reuters bannered «Gulf may arm rebels now Syria truce is dead: US officials» and reported the likely sharp escalation of support by the oil kingdoms, for the anti-Assad forces, and asserted «the possibility that Gulf states might arm Syrian rebels with shoulder-fired missiles to defend themselves against Syrian and Russian warplanes, US officials said». This report indicated that the US and its allies were now planning to (either by their own forces or by their proxies who are actually led by Al Qaeda there) shoot down Russian and Syrian planes in Syrian air space. Reuters was reporting efforts by the Sauds and their friends, to pressure a reluctant Obama into joining with them in an all-out war against both Russia and Syria, in Syria.

On September 28th, The New York Times bannered, «Russia’s Brutal Bombing of Aleppo May Be Calculated, and It May Be Working» and reported that:

The effects of Russia’s bombing campaign in the Syrian city of Aleppo — destroying hospitals and schools, choking off basic supplies, and killing aid workers and hundreds of civilians over just days — raise a question: What could possibly motivate such brutality?

Observers attribute Russia’s bombing to recklessness, cruelty or Moscow’s desperate thrashing in what the White House has called a «quagmire».

But many analysts take a different view: Russia and its Syrian government allies, they say, could be massacring Aleppo’s civilians as part of a calculated strategy, aimed beyond this one city.

The strategy, more about politics than advancing the battle lines, appears to be designed to pressure rebels to ally themselves with extremists, eroding the rebels’ legitimacy; give Russia veto power over any high-level diplomacy; and exhaust Syrian civilians who might otherwise support the opposition.

This report didn’t mention another possible explanation for what Russia was doing there: the goal might simply be to exterminate the jihadists who had been imported into Syria by the US and its allied Arabic royal families, during five years of such ‘civil war’, in the few areas of Syria where even the vast majority of the local Syrian residents prefer Shariah law and thus favor the overthrow of the highly secular, ideologically non-religious, Assad government.

Those areas of Syria are identifiable by this Western-sponsored poll that had been taken of the Syrian population during July 2015, where, for example, on page 4, Assad’s support is the lowest in Raqua, Idlip, Daraa, Der’-Zor, Sewedaa, and Hasakeh; and, on page 7, Nusra’s support is by far the highest in Aleppo, but also relatively high in Rural Damascus, Hasakeh, Der’-Zor, Homs, and Daraa.

This technique of defeating jihadists — exterminating them and their supporters — was the way that Putin had solved the Saudi-led insurgency by jihadists in Russia’s own Chechnya region (who had been backed by both the CIA and the Sauds): exterminating everyone in the fanatical neighborhoods. It also served as a model in Tatarstan, preventing jihadism there.

Just as the United States participated in the firebombing of Dresden, and carried out the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and slaughtered many non-combatants in the process, Russia destroys entire jihadist-supporting neighborhoods, not only the jihadist mercenaries who have taken over control there (and who have either killed or driven out any residents who oppose them). The reason that The New York Times doesn’t mention such an explanation is that it doesn’t fit what the White House is saying about the matter; it fits instead with what ‘the enemies’ (Assad and Putin) are saying they’re doing. In fact, the NYT report went so far as to actually sub-headline «Blurring Rebels and Jihadists» and assert that, «Aleppo is a metaphor for the larger war.

The northern Syrian city is one of the few remaining strongholds for non-jihadist rebel groups». Even the Western-sponsored poll in July 2015 showed that to be the exact opposite of the reality. Although the NYT said this, the United States government itself had already asserted the opposite: on 20 April 2016, the Pentagon’s official spokesperson on the Syrian war, Steve Warren, said «It’s primarily al-Nusra who holds Aleppo». 

So, the regime sometimes has problems keeping its narrative together (sometimes its press-mouthpieces such as the NYT go even beyond the government’s own lies), but they needn’t really worry much when they slip up like that and state the truth, because, after all, The New York Times reaches far more Americans than does a flunky at an official press conference, and everybody who is involved in the cons knows what the intended story-line is supposed to be (i.e.: Russian government bad; US government good), so such elementary slip-ups are rare, and inconsequential. (But the Pentagon spokesperson, Steven Warren, might miss his next promotion for that error, honesty.)

In other words: the US is allied with Al Qaeda in Syria.

On September 28th, US State Department spokesperson John Kirby was asked in a press conference, «What makes you think that the Secretary’s [John Kerry’s] threat to begin to take steps to suspend cooperation if the Russians don’t act to stop the violence immediately is likely to get the Russians to actually stop the violence?»

Like any professional ‘news’ ‘reporter’ for the regime, this questioner posed his question with the underlying assumption «Russian government bad» «American government good». Mr. Kirby, likewise very professional as a propagandist, replied, «you’d have to ask Foreign Minister Lavrov» (in the ‘enemy’ camp). Then, the ‘journalist’ prodded Kirby further, and Kirby said, «we thought that that could help us advance the fight against a group like al-Nusrah in particular».

He was presenting the US as if it had been against, instead of for, Al Qaeda in Syria. (Actually, Obama is committed to, and highly dependent upon, Al Qaeda in Syria in order to overthrow Assad.) A ‘journalist’ asked: «Can you foresee any options that the US Government could take, short of full-scale warfare and invasion, that would actually stop the Russian/Syrian onslaught on Aleppo?» Then that was refined to «What are the consequences for Russia?» And, finally, after much to-and-fro, and with obvious great reluctance, Kirby handed to the assembled dogmeat-hungry ‘journalists’:

The consequences are that the civil war will continue in Syria, that extremists and extremists groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which will include, no question, attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities, and Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and they will continue to lose resources – even, perhaps, more aircraft.

The US State Department is now officially threatening Russia with war — not only on the proxy-battlefields of Syria, but «perhaps even Russian cities». Was that historic announcement headlined as such in the American ‘news’ media? In such a country, one can’t blame the public for sleepwalking into global annihilation, if that’s where we go.

On October 1st, German Economic News headlined «Großmächte treiben in Syrien auf einen globalen Krieg zu» or «Great Powers Driving in Syria on to a Global war,» and reported that:

The battle for Aleppo can evolve into a direct war between the US and Russia. The situation is extremely dangerous.

The international and Islamist mercenaries are, according to the Syrian army leadership, preparing a counteroffensive against the Syrian army in Aleppo. As al-Masdar news reports, thousands of mercenaries are assembling in the south and west of the city to expel from Aleppo the Syrian army. 

On October 3rd, Zero Hedge headlined, «US Suspends Diplomatic Relations With Russia On Syria», and quoted Kirby saying «This is not a decision that was taken lightly» but «Unfortunately, Russia failed to live up to its own commitments, including its obligations under international humanitarian law».

On October 5th, the «Moon of Alabama» blogger bannered, «Is Fighting Al-Qaeda In Aleppo Good Or Bad? — US Unable To Decide», and he expressed (and documented) the view that the only reason why Kerry and the rest of the Obama Administration had pretended to negotiate with Russia regarding Syria was in order to buy time to enable enough US weapons to be delivered to Al Nusra and its allies in Syria so as to be able to conquer the nation.

Also on October 5th, Morning Consult headlined «Congress Must Vote on Bombing Assad Regime, Lee Tells Obama», and reported that, «If the Obama administration wants to bomb the Assad regime, it must first get a declaration of war from Congress, Sen. Mike Lee said… ‘Should President Obama move ahead without authorization, then Congress must be called back into session to fulfill its obligation to debate and determine whether our nation should once again go to war’». Of course, if America does «once again go to war,» it will be war this time against Russia, and it will be unprecedented, in many ways, perhaps even final (which would be extremely «unprecedented»).

Also on October 5th, Britain’s Daily Mail bannered «Russia claims nuclear war could be imminent as it evacuates 40 MILLION people in drill and warns that ‘schizophrenics from America’ could attack», and reported that:

Russia is evacuating more than 40 million people in drills to prepare for nuclear war after Putin’s Ministry of Defence warned of ‘schizophrenics from America sharpening atomic weapons for Moscow’. 

Citizens have been told a war with the West could be imminent and Kremlin officials have said underground shelters have been built to house 12million people. 

The massive evacuation drill started yesterday and will last three days.

On October 6th, Russian Television bannered «‘S-300, S-400 air defenses in place’: Russian MoD warns US-led coalition not to strike Syrian army», and reported that Russia’s Defense Ministry said that «any missile or air strikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen», as a consequence of which the American invading forces would be shot down.

Also on October 6th, Al Masdar News headlined «Point of No Return as Islamist Rebels Lose More Ground in Aleppo City», and reported that «Islamist rebels of the [Nusra-allied and trained] Fatah Halab coalition have little prospect of breaking the [Syrian Arab Army — Syrian government] SAA imposed siege of eastern Aleppo».

Also on October 6th, Ireland’s RTE bannered «UN Security Council to Meet on Syria — Diplomats», and reported:

The UN Security Council will hold an emergency meeting tomorrow on Syria after a UN envoy warned that eastern Aleppo may be totally destroyed in the next few months by the Russian and Syrian air campaign.

Russia requested the meeting to hear from UN envoy Staffan de Mistura, who will brief the council via video conference from Geneva at 1400 GMT, diplomats said.

Mr De Mistura earlier took aim at Russia, suggesting that Moscow was indiscriminately bombing a city with hundreds of thousands of civilians to flush out just a few hundred jihadists.

«We are talking about 900 people, basically, who are becoming the main reason for which there is 275,000 people actually being attacked», he said.

Would this, he asked, be the excuse for «the destruction of the city?»

«In maximum two months, two-and-a-half months, the city of eastern Aleppo may be totally destroyed,» he told reporters.

The envoy urged fighters from the former Al-Nusra Front – which renamed itself Fateh al-Sham Front after breaking with Al-Qaeda – to leave Aleppo under a deal to halt the regime’s attacks on the city.

«If you decide to leave with dignity … I am personally ready to physically accompany you», Mr de Mistura said.

Security Council members were discussing a French-drafted UN resolution calling for a ceasefire in Aleppo.

On Friday, October 7th, Reuters headlined «Assad offers rebels amnesty if they surrender Aleppo», and reported that, «Rebels holed up in Aleppo can leave with their families if they lay down their arms, President Bashar al-Assad said on Thursday, vowing to press on with the assault on Syria’s largest city and recapture full control of the country».  He was willing to allow the estimated 900 Nusra-allied fighters, «inside Aleppo’s rebel-held eastern sector» to escape, in order for Aleppo’s jihadist-controlled area to avoid being totally destroyed by bombing. «However, rebels said they had no plan to evacuate Aleppo, the last major urban area they control, and denounced the amnesty offer as a deception».

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

1 Comment

Filed under Caucasus, Chechnya, Democrats, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Government, Islam, Jordan, Journalism, Middle East, Near East, Obama, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, US Politics, USA, War

Lie: The US Bombing of Syrian Troops at Deir ez Zour Which Killed 80 Syrian Soldiers Was an “Accident”

On September 18, US planes bombed the Syrian Army at Deir ez Zour, killing 80 soldiers. ISIS attacked at the same time, overrunning Syrian forces on a strategic mountain overlooking the airport.

If you have not heard of the incident, see here, here, here and here.

The US bombing of Assad’s forces in Deir ez Zour was 100% intentional.

  1. The US does not support Assad’s forces with airstrikes. Ever. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever. If Assad and ISIS are fighting or facing off somewhere, the US will not attack. Sure it will attack ISIS sometimes (when we are not supporting ISIS), but we will never attack ISIS to support Assad’s forces. So wherever ISIS and Assad’s forces are facing off, the US will never bomb ISIS. Wherever there is a battle between Assad and ISIS, the US will never bomb ISIS. Ever. In fact, this is the second time the US did this. When the SAA was fighting a close battle with ISIS in North Syria, the US bombed the SAA in support of the ISIS fighters a few hundred yards away. A number of Syrian forces were killed. The US commented that the attack never happened and that the jet that bombed the SAA had not bombed them but had actually bombed a different target. Except that target was 25 miles away. How do you drop a bomb on a target and somehow accidentally miss and bomb a target 25 miles away? You don’t.
  2. The US had been flying drones over that battlefield in Deir ez Zour continuously in the several days before the attack. They had to have known whose forces where whose.
  3. The battle lines in that area had been static for months. Of course the US knew where the battle lines were.
  4. The bombing lasted for a whole hour. An accidental bombing lasting a whole hour? No way.
  5. The US said that they called off the strike when the Russians called them and told them that they bombed SAA forces and not ISIS. However, this is a lie. The US was actually in contact with the Russians the whole hour of the bombing. They were told they were bombing the SAA soon after the bombing started, but they kept doing it anyway.
  6. The US jets flew in with their transponders off. This makes them invisible to radar. The only people in the area that have antiaircraft radar is the SAA. ISIS has no radar. So in flying in with their transponders off, the US was deliberately trying to shut down Syrian radar defenses. Why would they try to shut down SAA radar if they were going to attack ISIS. They wouldn’t.
  7. The attack was perfectly coordinated with ISIS and ISIS launched a huge attack at exactly the same time that the US bombing started. This means that not only were we bombing in support of ISIS, but worse than that, ISIS must have been told about the bombing beforehand so they could coordinate an assault. ISIS knew full well what was going on. SAA troops said ISIS forces were laughing as they attacked.
  8. The SAA had just sent 3,000 fresh troops to Deir ez Zour in preparation for an assault on the city. This attack stuck a dagger in the heart of those plans.
  9. A sociopath named Samantha Power issued a very unprofessional non-apology after the attack on the SAA. That’s the action of a guilty party.
  10. There had been talk before this attack that the CIA and the Pentagon were furious at the deal Kerry cooked up which mandated that the US cooperate with Russia in attacking Al Qaeda in Syria. Ashton Carter, a crazed Russia-hater, was furious about being ordered to work with the Russians. Also the US is supporting Al Qaeda all the way in Syria. We even have advisors on the ground working closely with Al Qaeda in Syria. So no way are we going to attack our Al Qaeda buddies. By attacking the SAA, Carter stuck a stake through the heart of the US-Russia deal. It was nearly dead after that. The fact that this attack was preceded by talk of a military rebellion against the Commander in Chief implies that this attack was part of that mutiny. Apparently Ash Carter resents the fact that we have a civilian controlled military.
  11. After the attack, Obama issued an investigation of who ordered this attack. Obviously Obama is doing that because he thinks it was a deliberate act of mutiny and not an “accident.”
  12. Tenth, Pat Lang, a well-known former US military officer who often appears on TV said it was no accident and that obviously Ash Carter was behind it. A female former MI5 agent appeared on British TV and said that there was no way that attack could possibly have been accidental.
  13. The US made no offers to reimburse the families of the soldiers killed in this attack. That is the act of a guilty party.
  14. The US military conducted no investigation of this attack and further, there will be no investigation in the future. That is the act of a guilty party.

The US quickly stated that this attack had been an “accident.” Except there was no way on Earth that was an accident. Look at the 14 points above and show me that this was an accident. It is simply not possible for this to have been an accident in any way, shape or form.

4 Comments

Filed under Democrats, Eurasia, Geopolitics, Middle East, Obama, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Syria, US Politics, USA, War

Social Democracy for the 21st Century: “A Proposal for an Alt Left Political Program”

From Lord Keynes’ page. This is Lord Keynes’ own proposal for an Alternative Left. He first lists his proposal and then lists Ryan England’s proposal. He critiques Ryan’s proposal somewhat but not too much.

He also discusses yours truly here:

Group (1) doesn’t even belong on the Alt Left at all in my view: these people belong on the Alt Right. The only exception I would make is Robert Lindsay, who seems to have some pretty controversy opinions and is extremely hostile to Cultural Leftism but at least doesn’t seem motivated by Alt Right racial hatred or White Supremacism.

As you can see, he doesn’t think that The Left Wing of the Alt Right or Rabbit’s wing (Alt Left White Nationalism), really one of the original wings, should be seen as Alt Left at all. Instead he says it should be on the Alt Right. Rabbit agrees with me that his wing is the left wing of the Alt Right and says that he started out on the Alt Right, and he may just go back there.

LZ is correct that I am pretty hostile to the Cultural Left. I believe he was shocked at how hostile I am to them because he implied that I am even more hostile to them than he is, and he’s a bit of a Conservative Leftist in that regard also. I definitely hate these people and they are my enemies. I didn’t choose this. They decided to make me their enemy. I hate the Cultural Left even more than the Alt Right people mostly because the Alt Right folks pretty much leave me alone and have done so for quite some time now. In fact, it was from comments on The Right Stuff (Spencer’s site) that I first saw people saying, “The Alternative Left is Robert Lindsay.” So the Nazis pretty much came up with this term Alternative Left but they invented it for me not for themselves.

Oh well. They also invented the Volkswagen. Few things are all bad in this world.

Anyway I would like to thank these folks for coming up with this great term Alternative Left and giving me the idea for this movement in the first place. Thanks Nazis!

LK is also correct that I have some controversial views, though I might be interested in knowing what exactly those are. It’s been a given that I am controversial as Hell since I showed up. The motto of the site used to be “If I’m Not Making You Mad, I’m Not Doing My Job.” Just your basic provocateur out to make the world safe for demogogueracy.

And of course he is quite correct that I am not motivated for race hatred or White Supremacy. This is right, or at least this is how I feel. Every time I read White Supremacist stuff, I want to hit the screen because it makes me so angry. How is it that I am the same as me? If I’m one of them, why do I hate them so much?

I don’t like nasty racism too much either, though sometimes those guys can be pretty funny. VNN is a hilarious site, and even Anglin’s site is a barrel of ticks if you can don’t mind Nazis and handle the humor. I even used to like Chimpout and Niggermania not because they were racist (the people writing there are the most horrible people) but once again, they were so damn funny.

I don’t go there anymore because Alpha keeps spanking me and making me feel guilty every time I go there, and I need to obey my other Mom on this site here. God bless you, Alpha. You keep this boy away from some pretty nasty temptations and help to cleanse his soul.

A Proposal for an Alt Left Political Program

The Alternative Left Facebook group seems to be growing quickly, and I am very glad to see this.

So I have some suggestions for them to create a coherent political program.

First, the Alt Left needs to get a coherent economic theory. This is extremely important. I urge them to read up on why Classical Marxism is a flawed economic theory here and why Marxism is based on the mystical labor theory of value.

At the same time, practically all other economic schools of thought from neoclassical economics (in all its forms) and Austrian economics are also charlatanry and pseudo-science.

The only real and proper economic science for a capitalist economy is Post-Keynesian economics. The Alt Left should adopt this as its economic theory, quite simply because it *is*the only legitimate economic science for market economies.

There are various subschools of Post-Keynesian economics including Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) as can be seen  here.

Post-Keynesianism is a radical development of the theories of John Maynard Keynes but also takes important insights from Classical Economics and the theories of the idiosyncratic Marxian Michał Kalecki.

There are all sorts of other ideas and policies that should be combined with Post Keynesian economics to produce a revitalized, rational, humane, and effective Left for the 21st century, as follows:

Economics

(1) The objectives of economic policy are full employment, high wages, a tendency for real wages to rise with productivity growth, strong aggregate demand, and ideally, a dynamic economy based on manufacturing.

(2) As in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), the Alt Left should reject the myth that taxes are required to finance government spending (see the discussions here and here). Governments with their own central banks and fiat currencies are always solvent in their own currency, and there is even a case for limited Overt Monetary Financing (OMF) (or what is commonly called central bank “money printing” to finance some government spending).

(3) A fundamentally important policy to attain full employment is an MMT Job Guarantee. This is a program in which the government will offer employment to anyone ready and willing to work (but unable to find a private sector job) at a socially-acceptable minimum wage to ensure real full employment at all times.

(4) Governments should generally pursue sensible protectionism and industrial policy not only to protect their manufacturing sectors from the disaster of free trade under absolute advantage but as the best strategy to ensure future economic growth and economic independence.

(5) Governments should reject privatization of social services and infrastructure. Instead, these sectors should be nationalized or run as public utilities and maintained by high government investment, e.g., in health care, education, scientific and technological R&D, infrastructure, etc. There is now even a case for limited nationalization of certain key industries as an industrial policy.

(6) Foreign ownership of public assets, infrastructure, key industries and large-scale foreign ownership of real estate should also be strongly rejected, and instead these sectors should be owned by private domestic citizens, and things like infrastructure should be owned by governments.

(7) The banking and financial sector should be subject to severe regulation and prevented from destabilizing the economy given its tendency to create asset bubbles and inflating the level of private debt to catastrophic levels. There is now a case for nationalization of the commercial banking sector. For many nations, there is a case for discretionary capital controls (see here).

(8) The taxation system should be progressive but particularly concerned with taxing parasitic rent seeking and destabilizing speculative activity.

Social and Cultural Issues

(1) The Alt Left should support reasonable and sensible civil and equity,  women’s rights and gay rights, but strongly reject French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, SJW cults, divisive and extreme identity politics, Third Wave Feminism, and endless cults of victimology from Identity Politics. The combination of all these ideas has created a toxic wing of the modern Left called the “Regressive Left,” which needs to be totally rejected.

The Alt Left should also reject extreme social constructivism and the “blank slate” view of human beings because this is not supported by science.

(2) The Alt Left should strongly defend free speech and freedom of expression from its enemies on the Right, the Regressive Left, and from religious conservatives.

(3) The Alt Left should support a secular state and separation of church and state but not alienate liberal religious people.

(4) The Alt Left should continue the anti-imperialist tradition of the Left and be largely non-interventionist on foreign policy, but not isolationist.

(5) The Alt Left should oppose regressive and illiberal Islamism and religious fundamentalism and promote the assimilation of immigrants in the West.

(6) The Alt Left needs a sane and pragmatic policy on immigration. It needs to reject mass immigration and open borders on economic, social and cultural grounds and support sensible limits on immigration. It also needs to recognize that promoting “diversity” is not necessarily a good thing in and of itself and that multiculturalism has serious problems (see here).

(7) The Alt Left should consider the importance of the nuclear family, promote pro-nuclear family policies and – at the very least – be open to serious and rational discussion of the breakdown of the nuclear family in the Western world and what harm this may have done to our societies but with humane policies free from right-wing viciousness or free market economics.

As a further point of interest, there is an interesting post over at the Samizdat blog on the various subgroups of the Alt Left here.

He divides the Alt Left or the people who are receptive to it into these categories (I have added numbers for clarity):

(1) “The Left Wing of the Alt Right” – Rabbit uses this phrase quite explicitly. They are most open to race realism and most opposed to mass immigration and Islamism but are also inclined towards some kind of economic socialism or social democracy and are otherwise put off the Alt-Right somehow or other. Strasserites might be a more explicitly national socialist variant of this, and National Bolshevism would be even more out there still. Left wing nationalism would be a softer variant of this.

(2) “Gamergate Leftists” – Named from an article I read a while back claiming that most Gamergaters were left-leaning, these are another type. These types need not be big on Gamergate per-se (the more I studied Gamergate personally, the more lost and confused I got) but being anti-feminist (at least against the kind of PC feminist theory you’d find in a women’s studies class or on any left-leaning blog) and anti-SJW is huge with them as is civil and cultural libertarianism.

I found a number of these posting on anti-SJW pages. They come to the Alt-Left usually because of a belief in Leftist economics though they are usually not that far Left. Guys who believe in some regulation and a social safety net. Some too get put off by the tendency of anti-SJWs to drift into genuinely misogynistic and racist territory. Remember kids, SJW and social liberalism are not the same things. Think YouTubers like Sargon of Akkad or the Amazing Atheist, though they don’t use the term Alt-Left to describe themselves. Not yet, anyway. These kinds are defecting less from Richard Spencer and more from Milo Yiannopoluous. I used Gamergate’s colors in the design of my page’s logo and banner in an attempt to attract these types.

(3) “Red Enlightenment” – These are most passionate about rationalism, skepticism, empiricism, and in some cases, transhumanism and futurism. Generally scientifically-minded and technocratic sorts of socialists or social democrats.

(4) “True Liberals” – Antiracist and feminist supporters who think the whole thing has gotten out of hand and are concerned for the SJWs’ lifestyle puritanism and opposition to free speech. They are more pro-feminist and pro-social liberal than the Gamergaters though. “The Democratic Party of the 1990s,” someone once remarked to me when I described the Alt-Left to them, to which I replied, “There were no liberals or Leftists in the 1990’s except myself.”

(5) “Brocialists” – Socialists or social democrats with a penchant for men’s rights and anti-misandry. I seem to have drawn a number of these to my page, and a few of my moderators fall into this category. Hillary Clinton supporters have accused Bernie Sanders of using these as his base of support. Used as a pejorative by the ‘Lorettas’ of the present day Left, I’m a firm proponent that we reclaim the term.

(6) “Red Templars” – Especially and specifically anti-Islamic. We get a lot of these from Sam Harris and Bill Maher’s followings. Unlike the Left Wing of the Alt Right types, these sorts are more standard liberals otherwise.

(7) “The New Old Left” – Would dispense with race, culture and identity all together if they could and make Leftism mostly about economic Leftism. The Realist Left page and the blog Social Democracy for the 21st Century are like this. Farther left, you’d find leftypol on 8chan and some Marxist/Anarchist groups that reject IdPol. A whole separate entry could be made of the economic subtypes one might find on the Alt Left. I’ve also found a lot of labor nationalists and assorted 3rd Positionists: mutualists, distributists, market socialists, state capitalists, syndicalism and so on.

https://samizdatchronicles.blogspot.com/2016/09/sub-types-on-alternative-left.html

Group (1) doesn’t even belong on the Alt Left at all in my view: these people belong on the Alt Right. The only exception I would make is Robert Lindsay, who seems to have some pretty controversy opinions and is extremely hostile to Cultural Leftism but at least doesn’t seem motivated by Alt Right racial hatred or White Supremacism.

The big-name Gamergate Leftists seem to have a strange tendency to morph into cultural libertarians or even outright Libertarians, and I have noticed the same tendency amongst “True Liberals.” Both Sargon of Akkad and Dave Rubin, though I doubt either are aware of the Alt Left, seem to be morphing into Classical Liberals.

I am placed in the “The New Old Left” category, but the description is not right: I constantly stress the need to understand differences of culture and to reject cultural relativism as Postmodernist irrationalism. I also strongly think the Alt Left should adopt a pragmatic view that mass immigration and open borders are actually provoking a nationalist backlash in many countries. The Left should channel this into a healthy, sensible nationalism, and recognize open borders are wrong on perfectly good economic, social and cultural grounds.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Fascism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Government, Immigration, Imperialism, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Masculinism, National Socialism, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Science, Scum, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, US Politics

Samantha Power, Psychopath

Good God, look at this maniac. She’s barely even human. Look at how annoyed she is:

Edited transcription of Mrs. Power’s 12 minute temper tantrum:

You got me out of bed on a Saturday night to make me come down here and apologize about killing 80 Syrian troops? You got a lot of nerve to do that! I had a lot of things planned for tonite like settling down with a glass of champagne and curling up with a good book!

I mean, Syrian troops, really? They’re as bad as ISIS! No wait, they’re worse! Those aren’t even human beings. They’re nothing but ants to me. Would I cry if I stepped on 80 ants? Of course not! So why should I be upset when 80 Syrian ants got killed? The world’s a better place! Anyway, Assad gasses civilians, has concentration camps with poison showers and furnaces, makes soap and lampshades out of human beings, you know? Get real. Let’s have some UM sessions about Assad making lampshades out of his enemies!

You’re telling us we’re the air force for ISIS? Really? How crazy is that?

Well let’s see. You just bombed Syrian troops, killing 80 and wounding 100 in an attack that could not possibly be an accident in any possible universe. So, yeah. That makes you the air force of ISIS or USISIS or whatever they are called now. So you have to change the name of the US Air Force from USAF or Wehrmacht or whatever it is now to ISISAF. I mean it’s only logical, Mrs.  Power.

The Russians and Syrians are not letting the aid through!

That’s because your moderate terrorists that you support called Al Qaeda are not letting any of the air come through to their own side in East Aleppo, ma’am.

Assad has used poison gas on his own people!

Assad is fighting a very, very dirty war here, I would certainly agree with that, but so is the other side. Or maybe the other side is even worse. Who knows? But Assad never used poison gas on his people, not even once. And I have done a lot of research on this.

Assad bombs hospitals!

I do not know about every case, but the hospital that was bombed in East Aleppo in Al Qaeda controlled territory was a field hospital for wounded troops, and it was not marked in any way whatsoever. It was in a building that had been used for other purposes. Hospitals are supposed to be marked with a red cross or red crescent or something like that on the roof.

Now, I do not believe in bombing even field hospitals – it is absolutely a war crime, but most everyone does it nowadays and these days, it is a US specialty. For instance, before we invaded Fallujah, the first thing we did was bomb the local hospital to rubble, apparently so they could not treat wounded fighters. A number of doctors, nurses, other workers and patients were killed in the bombing. We also deliberately bombed that hospital in Kunduz, for a couple of possible reasons:

  1. That they were treating Taliban figthers, which is their mission as part of Medicins Sans Frontiers.
  2. or they were harboring a Taliban spy who had taken refuge in the hospital. But MSF stuff knew nothing about this man, and that’s still no reason to bomb a damned hospital and kill a bunch of doctors.

The MSF people started screaming to US Command that they were bombing an MSF hospital very soon after the attack started, but somehow the attack continued for another hour and a half anyway.

No way was that an accident, sorry.

3 Comments

Filed under Eurasia, Geopolitics, Islam, Middle East, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Syria, USA, War

The Terrorism Experts Bullshit

The neoconservative (((folks))) and their allies pushing the suitcase nukes bullshit are doing so for ideological reasons in addition to more profane motivations, such as making money. These people are the terrorism experts who write endless books on Islamic terrorism and how it’s going to kill us all. They are always making the rounds of the TV circuit and writing op-eds talking whatever bullshit they are happen to be lying about at the moment. Most can be safely ignored. Steve Erickson is an excellent example of one of these clowns. They make money by hyping lies and bullshit about phantom terrorist threats. Get it? More lies, more moolah! Good trick! They’re lying all the way to the bank.

1 Comment

Filed under Conservatism, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Radical Islam, Ridiculousness, Terrorism

Turkey – The Sick Man of Europe, a 100 Year Running Joke

The Turks make up a single race – Turkic-Armenian-Kurdish-Ashkenazi Jewish. The Turks tried to turn most of these people into Turks by eliminating their ethnic identity via abandoning their religion and language. The Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians refused to give up their languages but most importantly their religion, so the Turks killed over 2 million of them for that sin. The Kurds continue to see themselves as a distinct ethnic, cultural and linguistic group from the Turks. The Turks wish to eliminate the Kurdish language, culture and even ethnicity. and that is why the Kurds are slaughtered like flies over there.

Turks are a profoundly backwards people, and they like it that way just fine. In fact, it infuriates them that anyone demands that they act civilized. Turks don’t exactly have European Enlightenment values – in fact, they have exactly the opposite. Erdogan is an Ottoman imperial Sultan and Caliph combined with a murderous Young Turk mixed with an Ataturkist ethnic ultranationalist. He’s literally one of the worst human beings on Earth, and the Turks worship this man like a God.

The Turks are enraged that Europe sees Turkey for the Sick Man it is. Hence they refuse to let them into the EU.

Letting Turkey into the EU would be catastrophic.

First of all, Turkey is incapable of abiding by the EU’s European White Christian Enlightenment values which now verge on Culture Left parody. The Turks don’t even believe in the Renaissance. Why would they believe in the PC SJW Left? Get real.

In order to join the EU, one must do a minimum number of things, including have a minimal base of European civilized Enlightenment values. These include basic human rights, limits on corruption, basic rights for minority groups and their languages, religions and cultures, etc. Turkey fails as miserably on all of those counts as they did a century ago when the Young Turks unleashed their Shoah/Islamic Jihad.

Turkey is a land frozen in time or worse where clocks actually run backwards instead of forwards like they do everywhere else. An example of this is how Erdogan has recreated 19th Century Turkey as the new imperial Sultan/Caliph.

A good guess of how backwards a nation is is whether or not the Left has been driven to such desperation and exasperated rage that they have take up arms. Nowadays, the Left only takes up arms in the most reactionary of holes. The Turkish Left has been so abused that they have been armed for decades. They carry out regular bombings and assassinations. Turkey is the Colombia of Europe, the India of the Near East.

The only way to let Turkey in would be to so weaken these EU ultra-liberal laws to the extent that they barely existed anymore. Further, poorer Turks would flood all through Christian Europe, further Islamicizing an already badly Islamicizing Europe. Even with only a few Muslims, they are causing havoc and chaos all through Europe. Imagine 10’s of millions of Turks given free reign to move to any part of Europe that they wish.

Turks have moved to Germany in large numbers and they have assimilated very poorly. Many of them hate Christian Germans, both their culture and their religion. They stage regular riots calling for the death of Jews, etc. Many are sympathetic to radical Islam. In Germany, many Turks have turned to street crime. Honor killings continue.

There are already far too many Turks in Christian Europe. Let’s not let 10’s of millions more in please.

There is of course a minority of more or less progressive Turks often working in and around academia, the opposition parties and the media. There are good people in the opposition, even in Parliament and there are many fine journalists, including some of the bravest and most daring investigative journalists. I work with a lot of Turks like this now. They bear no resemblance to what I just wrote above other than perhaps denial of their land’s backwardness. These are finest sons and daughters of the land.

Sadly the more forward-looking Turks have long been a minority, though they may make up 20-30% of the population. That’s enough to cause a lot of rowdy (and often violent) street protests, but it’s not enough to win an election.

Like the Colombians, every four years, the Turks march off to the polls to vote for another reactionary ultranationalist nut.

I would say that Turkey is hopeless. 20-30% is not enough to turn a land around, and Turkey has hurdled horribly backwards since Sultan Erdogan assumed the throne and crowned himself Caliph. He has emboldened all of the worst aspect of the Turkish soul in the same way that Trump is doing in the US. Perhaps Turkey can move forwards, but I will not see it in my lifetime.

There is nothing a Turk hates more than a mirror. It’s like a cross to a vampire. Turks refuse to look in a reflection and see what its really there. Instead they wrap themselves up in Rube Goldbergian fortresses of psychological defense because the truth is too ugly to bear. You can’t begin to cure an illness until you diagnose it, and until Turkey looks deeply into the illness of its body politic, it will remain, as always, the Sick Man of Europe, first as harsh truth a century ago, now as pitiful caricature and running twisted joke a century later.

He who is not busy growing is busy dying.

– Bob Dylan

To thine own self be true.

First of all, know yourself.

– famous aphorisms

 

18 Comments

Filed under Armenians, Assyrians, Christianity, Crime, Culture, Europe, European, Europeans, Germany, Greeks, History, Immigration, Imperialism, Islam, Islamic, Jews, Journalism, Kurds, Left, Modern, Nationalism, Near Easterners, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Social Problems, Sociology, Turkey, Turks, Ultranationalism

The Hell with the Pentagon

As the agency which enforces US foreign policy at gunpoint, the Pentagon has always blown.

First of all, there is no such thing as the Defense Department. When has the Pentagon ever defended the country? Pearl Harbor? They did a fine job there, huh?

Obviously the task of the Pentagon is not to defend the US mainland, which is all it ever ought to do anyway.

Its task is to running around the world starting wars and killing people in other countries. Leaving aside whether that is sometimes a good idea (and I think it is,) what’s so defensive about that?

The real name of the Pentagon is the War Department.That’s what it was always called until World War 2, which the War Department won. After that in a spate of Orwellian frenzy, we named an army of aggression an army of self-defense and comically renamed its branch the Defense Department.

It’s like calling cops peace officers. You see anything peaceful about what a cop does in a typical day? Neither do I?

There was a brief glimmer of hope there in WW2 when we finally starting killing fascists and rightwingers instead of sleeping with them, but the ink was barely dry on the agreements before we were setting up the Gladio fascists, overthrowing Greek elections and slaughtering Greek peasants like ants.

Meanwhile it was scarcely a year after 1945 when the US once again started a torrid love affair with fascism and rightwing dictators like we have always done. We were smooching it up right quick with Europe’s fascists, in this case the former Nazis of Germany (who became the West German elite), Greek killer colonels, Mussolini’s heirs, actual Nazis in Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, Jew-Nazis in Palestine, Franco (who we never stopped sleeping with anyway), Salazar, the malign Mr. Churchill, the true repulsive Dutch royalty and disgusting European colonists the world over, who we showered with guns and bombs to massacre the colonized.

In 1945, a war against fascism, reaction, Nazism and malign colonialism had ended, and for some reason America had fought against these things instead of supporting them as usual.

1946, and we were back in old style again, hiring Nazis by the busload for the CIA, overthrowing democratic governments and putting in genocidal dictatorships, becoming butt buddies with fascist swine everywhere.

So you see we have always pretty much sucked. World War 1 was fought amidst one of the most dishonest propaganda campaigns the world had ever seen, the Korean War was a Godawful mess where we turned North Korea to flaming rubble with the population cowering in caves while slaughtering 3 million North Koreans.

The horrific catastrophe called the Indochinese Wars, such as the Vietnam War, the Secret War in Laos and the Cambodian Massacre, where we genocided 500,000 Cambodians with bombs, driving the whole place crazy and creating the Khmer Rogue.

Panama and Grenada were pitiful jokes, malign, raw, naked imperialism at its worst.

The Gulf War was a brief return to sanity but turkey shoots are sickening.

Of course that followed on with the most evil war in US history, the Nazi-like war on aggression called The War on the Iraqi People (usually called the Iraq War), the Afghan rabbit hole which started out sensibly enough but turned into another Vietnam style Great Big Mess.

I suppose it is ok that we are killing Al Qaeda guys and I give a shout out to our boys over there fighting ISIS or the Taliban and Al Qaeda in South-Central Asia, Somalia and Yemen. Some people need killing.

But I sure don’t feel that way about their superiors, the US officers who fund and direct ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. out of an Operations Center in Jordan with Jordanian, Israeli (!), Saudi, UAE, and Qatari officers.

And it was very thoughtful of the Pentagon to cover up the Ukrainian Air Force shootdown of the jetliner which we saw on the radar of our ships in Black Sea.

And it was nice of the US to relay the flight path of the Russian jet to the Turks 24 hours in advance so they could shoot down that Russian jet and kill that pilot.

One hand giveth and the other taketh away. For every good thing we do in Syria and Iraq, we do 10 or 20 bad things. Pretty much the story of the Pentagon.

Sure if you fought in WW2 or one of the few other decent wars, you have something to be proud of, and I can even say, “Thank you for your service,” but the main thing is that you signed up for the rightwing army of the rich that is dead set against the people and popular rule everywhere on Earth. Sure, it’s a great army, professional, super-competent and deadly, but it’s generally tasked with doing lousy things. Why anyone would sign up for that reactionary nightmare of an institution is beyond me. America needs to level the Pentagon and put in a true People’s Army instead. Like that would ever happen.

9 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Asia, Britain, Cambodia, Caribbean, Central America, Cold War, Colonialism, Conservatism, East Africa, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Germany, Government, Greece, History, Imperialism, Iraq War, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Laos, Latin America, Lithuania, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Modern, National Socialism, Nazism, NE Asia, Netherlands, North Korea, Palestine, Panama, Political Science, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Saudi Arabia, SE Asia, Somalia, Spain, Syria, Ukraine, US, US War in Afghanistan, USA, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War, World War 1, World War 2, Yemen

Proposal for an Old Left

I am not proposing this myself but instead I am linking to and copying this over from Lord Keynes’ site, 21st Century Social Democracy.

I like Lord Keynes and his page, but I am wondering how his Old Left is different from my Alt Left or Ryan England’s Alt Left. We already know it’s different from Rabbit’s Alt Left.

I am thinking that maybe the Old Left is more concerned with economics and less worried about Cultural Left stuff. I am also thinking that perhaps the Old Left is not as conservative on the Cultural Left than mine and Ryan’s Alt Left. And of course, the Old Left doesn’t seem to want to touch race realism with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension. Not that I blame them.

I don’t identify as Alt Left myself, but this Alt Left Facebook Page seems quite interesting, and free from some of the strange stuff I have seen on the Alt Left:

Alternative Left.

I think there is now a sensible Alt Left that has managed to divorce itself from the more extreme original movement.

It would be nice to have some Old Left (which can also be called the “Realist Left”) Facebook pages or social media forums too.

I am now tempted to try and set up an Old Left Facebook page or something like this.

As I have said before, my prediction is that many Millennials will abandon their SJW cults and Regressive Left nonsense in the coming years, but they will need some new left-wing politics to fall back on.

Lots of sensible Alt Left and Old Left points of view should be available for these people when the time comes so that they are not lost to the Right or Far Right.

So what is the Old Left/Realist Left political program? I would still distance an Old Left position from the sensible Alt Left, but there would probably be a lot of overlap, despite differences. E.g., in some respects, some Alt Left people seem to be much more hostile to the Cultural Left and socially conservative than even I am, for example. But respectful debate should be the order of the day here, not mutual hostility.

An Old Left politics I propose is as follows:

(1) The Old Left is vehemently anti-neoliberal and anti-globalization. It completely rejects neoclassical economics. An Old Left/Realist Left politics supports full employment, Keynesian macroeconomic policies and management of our economies, a high-wage economy, an industrial policy, managed trade in the national interest, a humane welfare state, perhaps even a return to some nationalized industries (this can be a legitimate topic for debate), an end to offshoring of our manufacturing and service jobs to the Third World, and an end to neoliberal vandalism and the sale of our national assets to foreigners.

An Old Left would support Left heterodox Post Keynesian economics and MMT, not Marxism or feeble and intellectually flawed Neoclassical Keynesianism.

(2) An Old Left/Real Left also vehemently rejects Libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and all ideological free market capitalism as poisonous and toxic ideologies.

(3) At the same time, the Old Left/Real Left politics vehemently rejects Cultural Leftism: this includes French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism and all their ridiculous and pernicious ideas such as truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, and divisive and extreme Identity Politics.

Of course, reasonable and sensible civil, legal and equity women’s rights and gay rights are fine, but not Cultural Leftist Identity Politics or endless cults of victimology.

In particular, the Old Left should be critical of Third Wave Feminism. End the witch-hunting which inevitably accompanies Cultural Leftism. Abandon the extreme social constructivism and the “blank slate” view of human beings, because it is simply not true: e.g., there are only two natural genders in genetically normal human beings, male and female, and discouraging encouraging this type of thing is neither healthy nor desirable. End the bizarre Cultural Leftist conspiracy theories that blame all our problems on the capitalist, white-male patriarchy and universal “institutional racism.”

(4) The Old Left should defend free speech and freedom of expression from Cultural Leftist and Politically Correct witch hunts, restrictions and hate speech laws. Free speech is sacred in a free society, and you will achieve nothing by demanding that governments silence people whose opinions you don’t like – except to dismantle more of our freedoms and set yourself up for having your own free speech taken away, especially if right-wing governments start imposing their own restrictions on free speech.

(5) The Old Left would be anti-imperialist and largely non-interventionist on foreign policy but not isolationist. Anyone proposing any intervention in the Third World would require a brutally strong burden of proof, and anything proposed must be legal under international law.

(6) An Old Left politics should be strongly pro-nuclear family and be able to address the serious issue of social breakdown, divorce, and single-parent families with humane policies free from right-wing viciousness or free market economics.

(7) An Old Left politics will end Open Borders and mass immigration and end the bizarre cult of “diversity,” which seems to think that multiculturalism is some great good in and of itself (which it most certainly is not). The Old Left recognizes that most people have a normal and natural wish to preserve their nations as homelands for their national culture and their people. Low-level immigration and reasonable refugee quotas are fine as long as minorities actually do remain a minority of the population and people who wish to stay assimilate and do not bring hostile and incompatible cultures.

(8) An Old Left politics will oppose regressive and illiberal Islamism and Islamization of our societies, promote the strong assimilation of immigrants who are here in the West, and abandon failed multiculturalism.

(9) An Old Left politics should be comfortable with healthy and sensible forms of cultural and civil nationalism.

But at the same time there is room for disagreement and open debate on individual issues and also on issues I have not mentioned instead of the intolerant witch hunting that characterizes the modern Left.

However, there do need to be core principles, as follows:

(1) Rejection of neoliberalism, globalization, neoclassical economics, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and all ideological free market capitalism. Support for left heterodox Post Keynesian economics and MMT.

(2) Rejection of the extreme aspects of cultural leftism, namely, French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, SJWism, the cult of diversity, and divisive and extreme identity politics.

(3) rejection of open borders and mass immigration.

If you don’t reject these things, you ain’t Old Left or Alt Left. This is not the movement for you.

8 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Gender Studies, Government, Immigration, Imperialism, Islam, Law, Left, Libertarianism, Marxism, Neoliberalism, Open Borders, Political Science, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Sane Pro-Woman, Traitors

US Seeks “Safe Havens” in Eastern Syria

From Global Research.

The Americans are getting more and more insane by the day over there in Syria, and it looks like the neocon dream is starting to come true. What is going on here is that the US’s pals, ISIS, Al Qaeda and all of the other groups who more more less share their same philosophy, are starting to get badly beaten on the battlefield. In particular, the situation in Aleppo looks very bad.

That is why John Kerry, Turkey,Saudi Arabia and Qatar just poured weapons into Al Qaeda’s hands and assembled 10-15,000 fighters to flood into Eastern Aleppo. Every day, more and more Al Qaeda type jihadis come in from Turkey.

Not long ago, the Saudis flooded Syria with 3,500 Al Qaeda type jihadis from Turkey. A similar large force of Al Qaeda types is in the Jordanian border where they have been moved from their training camps in Jordan. It is at these camps that US military advisors train Al Qaeda type jihadis for war on Syria.

The weapons come from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the US. The weapons from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are given to them by the US, whereupon they are then flooded into the Syrian battlefield. So ISIS and the Al Qaeda type groups are all using US weaponry. In addition, the CIA runs large quantities of weapons in via Turkey to its favorite jihadists. It doesn’t really matter who the CIA gives the weapons to. The weapons all end up in something that amounts to an arms bazaar inside Syria where they are distributed to any group that has the money to buy them. It is in this way that the CIA supplies Al Qaeda and ISIS with much of their weapons.

So our Al Qaeda pals are getting beaten on the battlefield by Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia. The US is panicking because its Al Qaeda buddies are losing the war. If Aleppo falls to the Syrian regime, the war may be nearly over for the rebels. Nevertheless, it will probably continue on for as long as the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar continue to pour men and weaponry into the conflict. They can feed this thing for many years.

US Seeks “Safe Havens” in Eastern Syria

By The New Atlas
Global Research, August 22, 2016
The New Atlas 22 August 2016

Region:
Theme:
In-depth Report:

US-Syria

Tensions amid Syria’s conflict has escalated with warnings by the United States that it would use force against Syrian aircraft operating over their own territory. The US claims to have aircraft operating over Syrian territory and ground forces below, mainly in and around northeastern Syria near the city of Al-Hasakah. 

CNN in its article, “Top US commander warns Russia, Syria,” would report that:

In the most direct public warning to Moscow and Damascus to date, the new US commander of American troops in Iraq and Syria is vowing to defend US special operations forces in northern Syria if regime warplanes and artillery again attack in areas where troops are located.

Unlike Russian and Iranian forces operating in Syria, US forces have not been authorized by Damascus to enter Syrian territory. US operations in Syria violate Syria’s territorial integrity and constitutes as violation of international law.

And while US military and political leaders attempt to portray this most recent confrontation as a matter of US self defense, in reality it is the fulfillment of longstanding US policy papers that have called for the establishment of so-called safe havens and no-fly-zones (NFZ’s) over parts of Syria as an intermediary step toward regime change, the stated objective of the US government in Syria.

In 2012, the following year of the Syrian conflict’s beginning, a Brookings Institution paper titled, “Assessing Options for Regime Change,” would state:

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under [Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s] leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

Here, US policymakers are admitting that the use of “humanitarian” concerns is a cynical steppingstone toward more direct military intervention. The unfortunately reality of this strategy, as seen in Libya, is that US “humanitarian wars” end up costing a vastly larger toll in innocent human life than the alleged abuses cited to initiate the war in the first place.

This plan of using humanitarian concerns to incrementally establish a foothold in Syrian territory through safe-havens and NFZ’s would constantly evolve, be updated and revisited throughout the entire duration of the Syrian conflict.

America’s True Intentions in Syria 

More recently, The Brookings Institution’s “Order From Chaos” blog published a post titled, “What to do when containing the Syrian crisis has failed.” Brookings policymakers discuss in it once again the prospects of establishing what would effectively be NFZ’s:

We must also be clever about employing various options for no-fly zones: We cannot shoot down an airplane without knowing if it’s Russian or Syrian, but we can identify those aircraft after the fact and destroy Syrian planes on the ground if they were found to have barrel-bombed a neighborhood, for example. These kinds of operations are complicated, no doubt, and especially with Russian aircraft in the area—but I think we have made a mistake in tying ourselves in knots over the issue, since there are options we can pursue.

Brookings  policymakers also revisit the notion of establishing “safe-havens” claiming:

…we should push the debate about what creating safe havens really means. I don’t think we should start declaring safe havens, but rather try to help them emerge. The Kurds are making gains in Syria’s northeast, for instance, as are some forces on the southern front—so, if the United States, in cooperation with its allies, accelerates and intensifies its involvement on the ground in those areas, safe havens can essentially emerge. An important advantage of this approach is that it doesn’t require putting American credibility on the line, but does help local allies build up and reinforces successes on the ground.

Here, Brookings specifically mentions Syria’s northeast. It should be noted that none of this is being discussed by US policymakers in the context of fighting terrorist organizations like the self-titled Islamic State or listed terrorist organization Jubhat Al-Nusra. Instead, it is clearly within the context of seizing Syrian territory toward the end goal of regime change, with the Islamic State and Al-Nusra merely pretexts for US forces entering and operating within Syrian territory.

Similar attempts to create such safe-havens are in motion in Syria’s south, with British special forces now allegedly operating on the ground to incrementally “accelerate and intensify” Western involvement on the ground.

It is the literal fulfillment of the plans recently laid out by Brookings policymakers.

Displacing US Forces from the Game Board 

With US-supported militants being pushed back in and around Syria’s northern city of Aleppo and prospects of Western-backed militants succeeding elsewhere throughout the country increasingly unlikely, the creation of safe-havens and NFZ’s over parts of Syria directly by Western forces remains a last but desperate option.

Displacing US and British forces on the battlefield with an expansion of forces from among Syria’s allies could finally see these last game pieces in play by the West pushed off the board entirely.

Diplomatic efforts appear to be underway with Syria’s Kurds in particular to encourage them away from what will be a self-destructive geopolitical move made only to Washington’s benefit. Providing alternatives to Western training and support for Kurds and other local forces in the northeast in a genuine fight against the Islamic State and other foreign-backed militant groups operating in Syria could also help eliminate clashes the US may use to cynically escalate the conflict into a direct confrontation with either Syria or Russia (or both).

US strategy in Syria is based on 5 year old plans that even 5 years ago were difficult if not impossible to implement, fraught with risk and even should they succeed, left a long and difficult road ahead of US ambitions in Syria and throughout the region. 5 years later, however, these difficulties and risks have only increased. That the US is still exploring this last and poorest option indicates a bankrupt foreign policy wielded by an increasingly unbalanced world power.

Careful diplomacy and expert strategic maneuvering by Syria and its allies will be required to avert Syria’s conflict from plunging deeper into tragedy, and ironically, may also help the US from tilting over further out of balance.

The New Atlas is a media platform providing geopolitical analysis and op-eds. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
The original source of this article is The New Atlas
Copyright © The New Atlas, The New Atlas, 2016

3 Comments

Filed under Britain, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Iran, Islam, Kurds, Middle East, Near Easterners, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, USA, War