[quetzalcoatl]

Experiencing the Nemesis of hubric exceptionalism

Just trying to keep my scorecard straight. Let’s see. The Americans are using a Turkish airbase to bomb ISIS and protect our allies the Kurds.

The Turks are bombing our allies the Kurds while we are using their airbase. The Americans are supplying human shields for terrorists in Syria who are being bombed by the Russians.

On the Iraqi side, American air power is being used to protect and support the new Iranian puppet regime in Iraq installed by the Americans after the gulf war. The Mahdi army that we fought in Sadr City are now advanced element of the Iraqi army we are protecting.

Officers of “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” the Iranians are standing next to Iraqi officers who are standing next to American officers all cooperating to kill ISIS soldiers who have been receiving weapons from Americans through American proxies we consider”moderate rebels”.

Meanwhile, our “enemies” the Iranians are supporting Houthi rebels in Yemen while our “allies” the people who destroyed the trade centers have involved the U.S. in yet another unauthorized war by aggressively attacking the houthis who were helping the U. S. fight Al Queda in Yemen before .

In the meanwhile “moderate rebels” are undoubtedly being furnished weapons capable of bringing down Russian war planes. So while Russia is bombing ISIS, we are encouraging our proxies to shoot down their planes.

Will someone tell me whose side we are on today?

The usual problem with any analysis of post war US foreign policy is making some kind of sense of its reactive incompetence and general cluelessness.

Yet even nihilism is a policy of sorts. One can make the case there is an underlying consistency and an actual plan being implemented. According to the linked article above the modern version of The Plan originated with the Project For a New American Century (1997), or PNAC. Members of the "The Cabal" (Colonel Lang named it The Borg) include the Bush-Cheney group, Hillary, and Obama and a coterie of theorists.

Some theoretical background:
Andrew Horybko -The Colour Revolution - A Core Model
Russia and the “Color Revolution”

These techniques are employed in support of Brzezinski’s key idea of a Balkanized Crescent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geogr ... of_History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimland

The core idea is an adaptation of Gene Sharp's theory of using non-violent movements to achieve regime change. Instead of an indigenous vanguard, these movements are directed and managed by Western intelligence agencies, "using various types of provocateurs, special forces, spies, NGOs, community organizers, paid peasant soldiers, and a comparatively small amount of money to work towards destabilizing the Balkanized Crescent. Andrew Horybko has given the strategy a usable meme name, Colour Revolution. Horybko makes an interesting argument that the Balkanize-the-Crescent strategy is being actively and currently pursued by the US in the present to further the goals set forth last century by the PNAC..."

The Crescent around Asia’s Rimland has been destabilized through a masterful series of Colour Revolutions and supported insurgencies going back to the Carter Administration’s first support to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan when Brzezinski enticed the Soviet Union into a fatal quagmire. The strategy has continued up until the present as we send arms to the “moderate” jihadists in Syria, all the while supporting the Iraqi Army and the Shia militias trying to fight the brothers of the “moderate’ jihadists in Syria and helping KSA to bomb Shia Houthis in Yemen.

Application of this principal means that we truly have no allies and no friends because we subvert them all.

The whole process in the MENA can be visualized as a stoking and damping of three fires, Jewish, Sunni, and Shia; making sure all burn hot, but none burns brighter than the others, while making sure that the three consume all of the fuel, so none becomes overly fierce so as to escape confinement. Russia is intended to suffer burns from all three.

In this analysis, Obama is seen not as a weak reed but as a subtle player in this game. At the same time Netanyahu was playing the US Congress, Obama has been playing Israel, alternately "supporting" and "undermining" its interests for a larger geopolitical goal. Hillary's contribution was to extend the policy from the Balkans into eastern Europe, pressing against other spheres of influence of the former Soviet Union.

[Harmattan]

The US' (and European countries' to some extent) foreign policy in the Middle East is very simple: there is no desirable force to support, no possible ally, no possible desirable outcome, no hope of stability and peace. So instead we use them against each other to weaken them.

If Iran becomes too powerful, help Al Qaeda. If Al Qaeda becomes too powerful, help ISIS. If ISIS becomes too powerful, help Iran. Mix in Turkey, Iraq and Arab Emirates. While they are busy killing themselves the oil flows and they rarely attempt terrorism on our lands, only when they want us to enter the war, which we should avoid and let Muslims kill themselves. Leave Muslims at their collective suicide until they get sick of Islam and prune the fat.

What other choices do we have? The only mistake was Iraq: Saddam Hussein was far more desirable than ISIS and the like, both for Iraqi and for us. As for Assad he was desirable but he was doomed to fail anyway since he only represents a tiny religious minority within his country (< 20%).

For the first time since a long time there is now a sound strategy for the ME. This is far better than Bush's pointless wars that gave birth to ISIS.


PS : as for the color revolution model, it is unfit for Muslims. People in MENA do NOT want a liberal democracy. They want a democracy only to elect radical islamists who will enforce sharia. There is no hope to see a liberal democracy in the ME as this is not what the vast majority of Muslims aspire to, their cultural ideal is different. Besides democracy for them is not an end, it is just a mean to get rid of corruption, of secular governments, of governments from different religions. They have more pressing concerns than democracy and freedom.

[quetzalcoatl]

...as for the color revolution model, it is unfit for Muslims. People in MENA do NOT want a liberal democracy. They want a democracy only to elect radical islamists who will enforce sharia. There is no hope to see a liberal democracy in the ME as this is not what the vast majority of Muslims aspire to, their cultural ideal is different...

There is no intention of implementing liberal democracy, although the rhetoric of democracy may occasionally be dusted off for internal politics. The body of subversive techniques was originally designed as an effective technique to sabotage authoritarian regimes - that part works well, although (as we see in the Arab Spring} what follows won't be a liberal democracy.

[Harmattan]

There is no intention of implementing liberal democracy, although the rhetoric of democracy may occasionally be dusted off for internal politics. The body of subversive techniques was originally designed as an effective technique to sabotage authoritarian regimes - that part works well, although (as we see in the Arab Spring} what follows won't be a liberal democracy.

Overthrowing a regime is only half of the objective. It is rarely in your interest to end up with an anti-American regime,

Liberal democracy is supposed to be the bait in the analysis presented by the OP. If you want to use this technique in MENA you need to bait them with a theocratic movement. That being said there is some urban youth that is tempted by liberal movements, so you can use this to overthrow the government, as it happened under the Arab spring. But after that the rest of the population takes over.

[quetzalcoatl]

Overthrowing a regime is only half of the objective. It is rarely in your interest to end up with an anti-American regime,

You've identified an inherent weakness of this technique. The unpredictability of outcomes in regime change renders it problematic. Still, the weakening of every state (or even creating a condition of anarchy) within the region fulfills the basic objective.

[Harmattan]

You've identified an inherent weakness of this technique. The unpredictability of outcomes in regime change renders it problematic. Still, the weakening of every state (or even creating a condition of anarchy) within the region fulfills the basic objective.

You want to further weaken Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan? I guess they could still be even more anarchic, yet this is challenging. Are you trying to help ISIS conquer them?

I mentioned three weak states but ISIS would love to conquer Iran and Saudi Arabia, too. And many countries in sub-saharan Africa.

Too bad you cannot weaken ISIS that way (they would just crucify protesters) because you could have helped Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia and Iran.