This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
US Foreign Policy Is "A Combination Of Naive Denial & Incoherent Mumbling"
Excerpted from Paul Singer's Elliott Management letter to investors,
AMERICA RETREATS FROM THE FIELD
Another element of high risk stemming from developed-world policies in this second decade of the 21st century is national security. All of these countries have run down their military capabilities and their ability to influence political and military developments and address dangers in the world. They are behaving as if actual threats to their own (or global) security simply will not exist in the world of the future, or as if oratory, not backed by actions or (worse yet) actually belied by actions, will be sufficient to ward off adversaries. The U.S. Administration in particular has passionately thrown off the mantle of leadership and replaced it with a combination of naïve denial and incoherent mumbling. In effect, without any evidence to support this notion, developed countries have interpreted the history of the world since the unprecedented barbarism of the early and mid-20th century to mean that “there ain’t gonna be no (big) war no more,” to paraphrase the wide-eyed folk song. That lovely thought flies in the face of literally thousands of years of human history. A more practical thought is that force moves in to fill vacuums, and the developed world, particularly America, has been purposefully and clearly creating vacuums.
Among the various adverse effects of the changing geopolitical landscape is the inevitability of surprising realignments and alliances that will refashion global affairs, and probably not in the direction that the developed world expects or favors. For example, if Russia and/or China gain traction in the Middle East as America pulls away, the consequences could be serious for Israel and energy supplies to the West, which, could easily in turn lead to other realignments. America’s retreat from reliable global leadership could be followed by it being pushed in unpredictable ways. We have a difficult time conceiving of positive endings to this story. However, the negative consequences that are likely to spill out and take form should not come as any surprise, because the results of recent foreign policy blunders are already visible on several fronts. Sadly, policymakers who are making the decisions seem to be living in a kind of head-in-the-sand dream world, unattached to practical and historically-informed reality.
Of course, we do not believe that military force is the solution to every contentious global situation. However, if the world perceives a superpower as strong, reliable and willing to take action to back its promises, that perception can and does preserve stability, and the opposite can encourage mischief and danger. The world is currently experiencing a surfeit of the latter. There is no way to tell how deep and consequential the danger, or the surprising ways and places in which this interconnected problem will be resolved. The range of potential outcomes, however, is negative to very bad.
Let’s unpack this a little more by taking a closer look at the Middle East. When the Ottoman Empire was dissolved in the early 20th century, the Western powers basically ignored or made false assumptions about the tribes, alliances, religious subtleties and cultures of the affected territories. Boundaries were drawn with the stroke of a pen, with little-to-no regard for the possibility of adverse consequences. While there were Christians and Jews living throughout the region at the time, all of the resulting countries and mandates were Muslim-dominated. Later in the 20th century, Israel was created as a Jewish homeland, and Jews in the rest of the region were forced from almost every Muslim nation. Christians remained as (and are to this day) a minority in several of the countries.
Many of the 22 resulting Arab nations were ruled by a variety of autocracies, from kingdoms to theocracies to family-run countries to secular dictatorships to mere thugocracies. Because the region is home to 40% of the world’s hydrocarbon reserves, the rest of the world essentially has been beholden to a handful of Middle Eastern countries, a status that has changed little in the ensuing decades through today.
In the meantime, however, the natural strains of artificial boundaries and mixing of peoples have become too strong, and particularly after the “Arab Spring,” a number of the countries have experienced revolutions of various kinds. While the consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. are still playing out, it is worth noting that Islamic radicalism was on the march and jihad was an expanding force well before 9/11. The events of that fateful day demonstrated that the West could no longer ignore the growing passions of Islamic radicalism.
So the fracturing of Iraq appears to be a piece of a chaotic reformation of the Middle East. Given the importance of oil and gas in the global energy and economic growth equation, if America is withdrawing from the region, other countries (particularly Russia and China) are likely to step in to fill the vacuum.
Prior to 1973, the global oil giants effectively ran the market for hydrocarbons. Since then, OPEC has been in charge, led by several Arab countries. Now the future leadership and control of this vital market is up for grabs. America could be the global leader in oil and gas if only it were to fully maximize its substantial domestic reserves and capabilities. Islamist groups appear to be achieving a significant and growing measure of control over the Middle East’s resources. The impact of the fracturing of countries in the region and the evolving control of hydrocarbons will be among the most important influences on global financial markets and economic growth in the next few years.
»
- 7844 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The neocons know exactly what they're doing. We should trust them. The results so far speak for itself.
/s
I was going to say, US foreign policy as conducted by the CIA and the Zio-cons is extremely coherent. It seeks to prop up dictators that will do as their Langley puppetmasters command, and foment chaos and regime change when one of those dictators strays from the script.
The "denial and bumbling" is just WWE kayfabe theater for earnest reporters to wring their hands and say, "If only we had stronger global leadership," which in and of itself is euphemistic code for "If only we had more effective cruise missiles."
< A Combination of Naive Denial & Incoherent Mumbling
< An Entirely Opaque Yet Almost Certainly Successful Masterplan In The Making
...and furious spittle slinging.
It is a master plan, but whose master plan? Certainly not the neocons and the US elites/PTB, more likely the guys behind the PTB.
Yeah, I'm suggesting the US elites and the PTB in this case are the useful idiots.
More drivel from Paul Singer. Courthouse News has a story about Singer's fetch boy, 82 year old federal judge Griesa, threatening Argentina with contempt of court. Griesa is complaining about an ad Argentina placed in the New York Times. This senile, doddering wreck of a judge doesn't even know anymore about the 5th amendment, freedom of the press. He belongs in a dayroom of a senior citizen home, where there will be someone around to wipe the drool from his mouth.
MANHATTAN (CN) - A federal judge called a last-minute hearing Friday to admonish Argentina again for its failure to pay $1.5 billion to holdout bondholders, and threatened a contempt of court order if it doesn't stop issuing "false and misleading statements" to the media about its debt obligations.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa called the emergency meeting to address a two-page ad that ran Thursday in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, which states that Argentina had satisfied the judgment at issue in 2002.
The ad fails to mention that holdout bondholders who didn't swap their old bonds for new ones in 2005 and 2010 still have not been paid, Griesa said.
"The latter part is highly important," Griesa said before a packed house in a high-rise courtroom. "Payment of part is not payment of all."
He threatened to hit the country with a contempt of court order, but added, "I earnestly hope and desire that the matter will not get into that posture."
How do you say ROTFLMAO en espanol?
Here's another view on Singer. Nice fellow:
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-vulture-chewing-argentinas-living-corpse/
I *somewhat* agree with that. He says that OPEC runs the show, which is a joke. "IPEC" shits all over OPEC and the reason OPEC has any control is because the MSM narrative says so. The problem? OPEC has been an ineffectual spent force since at least 1982 and what little power it still seems to have is at the mercy of the larger IPEC nations (Mexico, Russia, Norway, etc) who find it advantageous to let OPEC bleed itself; in a number of cases, IPEC nations are better managed state-run entities when compared to their OPEC counterparts, which are run typically by patronage appointments. Even worse is that most members (if not all) of OPEC are highly dependent on the USA, so it's no shock that Washington runs OPEC from behind the words of various OPEC ministers. On top of that, I'm sure people have noticed that a lot of OPEC nations are under heavy turmoil (Iraq, Libya) or under the jackboot of an American-funded stooge (Bahrain, UAE). It's not even just Arab and Gulf nations. Look at the instability in other major oil producers like Venezuela and Nigeria. Seems to me that if Nigeria's major export were bananas there would be much less violence there. Iran is under sanctions and now Russia.
I think one has to be blind not to have seen the pattern... which leads me to say that the Americans must be in control or else no one else can have it by fostering chaos or sanctions. "If you diverge from the Washington Consensus, the payment will be extracted through the blood of your children and the ashes of your future."
It's Bush's fault
Just wait till the quota president is out of office
you will not believe the shit storm that will be blamed on him
with complete justification
Modern political discourse at the official level amounts to nothing but the Blame Game. The majority of time left over after campaign fundraising is now devoted exclusively to avoiding taking blame for anything.
That's why when politicans talk, they don't really say anything, beause their words will be twisted and force them to take blame for <issue du jour>.
dude.
Crap article. The US foreign policy is chaos and dstruction including destroy America. My guess is Paul Singer (the guy who wrote this) and his dual citizen relatives voted for this in 2008 and 2012.
My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do... http://goo.gl/bhiamE
it's the New(Normal)World Order Now Comrades...
"...force moves in to fill vacuums, and the developed world, particularly America, has been purposefully and clearly creating vacuums."
I beg to differ. America stuck a hoover right into a hornets' nest because it saw some money there (or I should say, because bankers and oligarchs did), and now we're supposed to wonder why we're getting stung?
Nobody will be talking about hydrocarbons a year from now.
It's all about "rehydration" from here on out...
I bet there's alot of in the know moving stuff to Bol
More like "A Combination Of Naive Bumbling & Incoherent Denial" ... This Adinistration is lost
More like "A Combination Of Naive Bombings & Incoherent Dronings" ... This Adinistration is lost
It is all Cloward Piven or whatever it is called. Designed to destroy America and it is working. They are not "lost." They know exactly what they are doing and their news media is 100% behind them.
The word "policy" implies something was planned, written down, debated, implemented.
OweBamao just plays golf and campaigns; in case you haven't noticed.
"There is no there, there" as they say.
Let's never forget that Congress is supposed to be in charge of stuff like this. Obama sucks because the whole system is rotten. Congress is letting Obama get away with this because they know *OBAMA* gets blamed and they get off scott free. Sure, their numbers are in the toilet but Obama will be the true villain here. Congressmen know that people will vent their anger by voting against the President, not clean house.
Let's never forget that Congress is supposed to be in charge of stuff like this.
Uh, Congress technically holds purse strings, but they are not "in charge". Obama is just doing whatever he wants. We are suffering because we've had two clueless presidents in a row: Bush and Obama. Continuing to shrink the Military and expand the Entitlement state for millions of illegals isn't going to help. Its really very simple: influence is proportional to the size of ac country's military & health of it's economy (about 50% each). By growing the military, you get more influence, even if you're reluctant to use it.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Congress doesn't want the responsibility so they welcome the Imperical Presidency. The executive continues to draw more and more Congressional power to itself and Congress doesn't look interested in stopping it. As long as Congressmen are allowed to add riders to bills (so they can funnel money to party faithful), I see this trend continuing until Congress is just a social club.
As for continued military spending, ti's a guaranteed disaster. For starters, in a simple economic sense, military spending has virtually no economic multiplier (billions and billions of idle capital) and dwarfed by just about any other spending the government can do (even entitlements). Military spending is incredibly wasteful (unless you're a shareholder of Lockheed or Northrupp). Military spending is a recipe for disaster. If you don't believe me, ask the USSR. Oh, wait... lol
At least with military spending, you keep scientists & engineers employed, enhance your manufacturing base, as we've seen, the military hardware and infrastructure will be there when you actually need it. Plus, as I've said, its hard to quantify the economic impact of more influence bought by your military, but its definitely there. We spent much more of our GDP on the military in the 50s, 60s, and 80s and we did fine. More military spending = more middle class jobs.
When you fund the Entitlement state, what do you get? More people with their hands out, doing nothing--as well as more bureaucrats to "manage" these bloated, ineffective programs. You make make Walmart and some consumer products companies richer, but you're just sucking the life out of the country.
I agree. As a desperate college student I interned with local government for 6 months. My boss told me that at least social programs gets money in the hands of people who spend it on cigarettes, beer and so forth and that this was better that military spending. Now I am no fan of the MIC, but the money does go to engineers, machinists, truckers, miners, electricians and everyone along the line from raw material to finished product. Make work program for people who don't just sit around with one hand on their dick and the other one reaching for a handout.
Can we use this productive class to make something other than products that kill?
Good observation. Welcome to the Real World. Wish that more of your generation had your insight.
As far as only making products that "kill", you should realize that many, many technological breakthroughs we use in civil society came from the MIC. Radar, microwaves, computers, jet aircraft and the Internet to name but a few.
What innovations ever came from social programs?? Can't think of any offhand.
What a foolish analysis. You speak of Congress as if it were one thing, when it consists of a House that is very much at war with the Senate. The House would certainly reign in the imperial presidency, if it were not blocked by the Senate, which is controlled by a Democrat majority. The Senate is very much in favor of yielding power to Obama, because Senate action is likewise blocked by the House.
it's all right here...
and here...
only 2 things you need to read pretty much.
Bonus points:
They were all planned by Hitler and executed on by the OKH?
Or was it the other way around?
I thought we were withdrawing...so in that sense our foreign policy may SEEM confusing...ALIEN even. Yet the slogan "Forward!" is really all one needs to know. "Translates very well into German."
And apparently French as well.
"Don't be genociding no Hooochiboochistanis ISIS!" and I'll take "limited engagements for 200 Alex."
"1189-1270"
What is...
"The range of potential outcomes, however, is negative to very bad."
It seems that for some, as long as the income remains good, a bad outcome is less of a concern.
It is not the DC US" foreign policy, it is Israel's and the Rothschild banksters'.
frankly, it seems like an ill conceived and diabolical
s.show with, potentially, a nuclear arsenal.
hmmm. what a concept.
.
the thick plot just gets exponentially
messier again, like life. oh yea ...
Bull
"force moves in to fill vacuums, and the developed world, particularly America, has been purposefully and clearly creating vacuums...if Russia and/or China gain traction in the Middle East as America pulls away, the consequences could be serious for Israel and energy supplies to the West, which, could easily in turn lead to other realignments."
Russia, China and aligned states are not in the process of forming an anti-American block because the US is withdrawing into some splendid isolation. Rather, they're in the process of forming an anti-American block because the US is pressing hard for world domination, intervening overseas more than ever, and threatening their very existence as sovereign states. If the US would simply mind its own damned business in the Western hemisphere, the rapidly consolidating anti-American block would dissolve and those states would be at each others' throats. Russia and China, for instance, and natural enemies; they're only cooperating because they're united in opposition to American aggression.
"it is worth noting that Islamic radicalism was on the march and jihad was an expanding force well before 9/11. The events of that fateful day demonstrated that the West could no longer ignore the growing passions of Islamic radicalism."
Modern Islamic radicalism is purely a reaction to Western colonialism, Western support for oppressive puppet regimes post-colonialism, and (more recently) direct military intervention by the West in Muslim lands. Once again, the solution is to leave them the fuck alone. They'll mostly settle down, and I'm fairly certain that the rest can't swim across the Atlantic with their 70's vintage AKs.
killing many thousands of Muslim kids, while always providing diplomatic cover for egregious and unequivocal Israeli war crimes and violations of international law, is the reason why there are far more jihadis now than before 9/11.
That and money, food, gear, and weapons from the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, and, of course, the only democracy in the middle east - currently quite busy in Kurdistan and Azerbaijan and Georgia and no doubt hoping to fuck up southern lebanon on some pretext or other fairly soon.
Water...its the new natural gas.
The Islamists don't have to swim across the Atlantic. They have been emigrating to Europe and the Americas in the millions. And once here, they reproduce a lot more than the natives. In Europe, they have multiple wives & many, many children. By the end of the century, Europe may well be Islamic if there is not some kind of civil war. Either way, it will end in genocide, either for the Muslims or for the navie Europeans. All the Europeans are so busy screaming about the handful of Jews, yet they fail to notice the obvious Muslim colonization. It would be almost funny to watch as they (and we?) get what they deserve if it weren't so sad.
This administration has a foreign policy?
Apparently I need the brilliant Senators Kerry or Hillary to explain it to me.
This is obviously a short part of a longer screed, though I'm not sure I care. I agree with some of the broad strokes but the author seems pretty ignorant of actual facts:
Christians have been getting squeezed out of all Muslim lands over the past ten to twenty years, quietly as the US press doesn't care to mention it.
But the western powers drawing the Sikes-Picot lines knew very well what they were doing, they wanted every country to have ethnic rivalries so they would stay weak. If you think otherwise you have never really opened a history book and are laboring under some mighty misapprehensions.
Israel used to be around 20% Christian. Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Armenian.
One of the conditions attendant to Israel's UN membership was Jerusalem remaining an international city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution...
So much for that...
"Christians have been getting squeezed out of all Muslim lands"
If they were smart, they'd have left (or converted) long ago. We can argue about how "unfair" that may be, but when push comes to shove, their remaining in hostile lands can really only be described as suicidal.
Unless there're oil revenues at stake, the vast majority is not even good land.
America would be far far wiser to use it's industry to create what the world needs rather than using it's energy to foment war in so many parts of the world.
Islam is a threat, they have stated intentions to destroy the West and force the West to obey their law.
Russia has not. Yet we treat Russia as though it poses the same threat as the radicals who behead people for their slightly different beliefs.
The US is unable to get the Europeans to get enthused about sanctions against Russia.
We already spend more that any 10 nations on defense. I thin we have that covered. How about plans to restore useful production.
...one more thing...using the dollar in the reckless way the USA has done for the past 43 years is the major force on the planet now. We can not sell any more paper yet we won't control our demands for foreign goods. We will pay that price and losing the dollar will be the cost....then we will have different goals...you better believe it...on a person level..get some gold.
Islam isn't the threat, Russia is. And it's not just because Russia has nuclear weaponry, but because Russia could provide a counter example to operating outside Western avenues of control. That's what people like Soros and Z. Brezerinski (sp?) hate the most. They hate the fact the playing field is not titled in their favour.
I'll repeat what I posted in the story above...
or rather, just provide the link...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-08/washington-opened-gates-hell-ir...
Well, o/t but as to the whole theism versus atheism debate, its too bad so few people adhere to a Pragmatic view of "truth" [most assholes basically adhere clumsily to the correspondence theory, which is really just a tautology, saying nothing in particular at all]... point being... why isn't there a movement amongst all the priests and imams and rabbis and ministers and guy wearing skirts made of human hair to give peace a chance?
Where's the fucking anti-war crowd? Black guy and democrat in office, so they're gonna sit the beginning of ww3 out, is it?
I can understand the frustration. I cannot disagree with the fact that Obama is black and has a "D" by his name is partially at work here.
Thing is, everyone is the wiser after the 2003 Iraq invasion. If Obama was serious about war, you'd see the crowds pick up. Obama knows this, so he backdoors his wars (i.e., Libya) under the guise of something else (i.e., GWOT). So, he sends out a Jay Carney to extol the virtues of international action against Qaddaffi and that's enough to convince just enough of the pseudo-intellectual crowd to "sit this one out." Obama tried to play this gambit again in Syria last year and got burned, which shows that your pessimism about the anti-war crowd is largely unfounded. If Bush or McCain tried to start a war in the same way, that is, to fight for "human rights", everyone knows that Bush or McCain are not genuine in their stances and therefore no one would buy their argument.
Just because the MSM doesn't report anti-war activism doesn't mean that it's not there. They tend to be derogatory to all things anti-war anyways. It's alien to the elites because our educational systems exist to indoctrinate drones.
People tend to forget that the staunchest advocates of the Vietnam War in the early days were the "liberals." The tide against Vietnam only turned once the boys of the liberals ended up having to die in some rice paddy. Until that time, they were totally fine when it was the poor and coloured kids dying.
if i had olfactory sensibilities i would
say "i smell smoke up my ass."
but/alas and a lack. ..
anyway poems^tm(
more wild eyed poetry
)
.the "creating vacuums" phrase is
a great starting point i say.
a penetrating and fundamental revelation
beckons and beacons in it, demanding
exploration, but, they spun that off
into another specialty.
how does one define a vacuum and
then how, or is it possible, to
create one,
crickets?
I've seen better solicitations from African Witch Doctors.
Ebooolllcaugh* caughahhhh>
Just follow the Wolfowitz Doctrine and everything will be alright.
Ffs, even Samuel Flagg Bemis wouldn't know where to begin.
"The events of that fateful day [9/11] demonstrated that the West could no longer ignore the growing passions of Islamic radicalism."
Islamic radicalism??
Is Paul Singer serious?
Anybody who atributes 9/11 to islamic radicalism is a fool, a liar, or a shill.
This article by Paul Singer is seriously flawed.
American foreign policy has been captured by zionists. Under their influence it goes against the interests of the American people, not to mention, it is short sighted, cowardlly, icky, and bloody. But not incoherent. American foreign policy makes perfect sense if looked at from the point of view of Jews -- or at least, a certain type of Jew, the zionist, who above all is a bully, which means: he is fawning with the strong, and brutal with the weak.
Which further means, by the way, that Putin has not too much to worry about.
Yeah. Cue the cabal of great "thinkers" who say that 9/11 had nothing to do with radical Islam. When you have your own little simplistic construct for the world, facts & evidence don't matter. But thanks for doing your small part to destroy the West.
You don't see any of the great talkers and promisers of any branch of the government stepping up and doing anything about it.
Coup d'etat
...and if you think you hate America, wait til you meet your new owners. The last 60 years was the grace period...
What you should know about Paul Singer. He is a self-avowed neo-con and zionist.
He serves on the boards of Commentary magazine,[2] the Republican Jewish Coalition,[3] and the Manhattan Institute, where he chairs the board of trustees.[4] He is a former board member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,[5] has funded neoconservative research groups like the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Center for Security Policy, and—along with Home Depot founder Bernard Marcus and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson—is among the largest funders of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.[6] He was also connected to the pro-Iraq War advocacy group Freedom's Watch.[7]
According to tax filings, Singer's foundation has generously donated to the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Institute for the Study of War, the Claremont Institute, The Israel Project, and the Philanthropy Roundtable
- See more at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/singer_paul#sthash.CwO5ZB3R.dpuf
He serves on the boards of Commentary magazine,[2] the Republican Jewish Coalition,[3] and the Manhattan Institute, where he chairs the board of trustees.[4] He is a former board member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,[5] has funded neoconservative research groups like the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Center for Security Policy, and—along with Home Depot founder Bernard Marcus and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson—is among the largest funders of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.[6] He was also connected to the pro-Iraq War advocacy group Freedom's Watch.[7]
According to tax filings, Singer's foundation has generously donated to the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Institute for the Study of War, the Claremont Institute, The Israel Project, and the Philanthropy Roundtable
- See more at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/singer_paul#sthash.CwO5ZB3R.dpuf
So you have his letter for investors, Tyler... I knew you were talking your book with your reporting on Argentina... lol. You can invest your money wherever you like, but don´t use this guy for news. He is a neo-con, warmonger, zionist, liar, hypocrit, and human filth: hardly the type of guy Zerohedge readers respect.
Yeah.....but he is right with respect to Fuckbama's asinine fucked up "policies"
THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE DOUCHED OUT....AND K STREET FUCKIN FIRE BOMBED.....
Solution: give more weapons to terrorists then hide under a pile of clothes and hope everything works out
Many Americans cringe when they think about the billions of dollars of consumer goods we import from China every month, but what makes it even more bizarre is that China is an American make product. Decades ago America started down a perilous path to build China into a world power.
Decads ago a pathological fear of Russia and the Kremlin’s atheism caused America to seek a counter balance in the region. Central to the American effort was offering the prospect of economic incentives to China, we combined this with a hardline military response to communist aggression. Ironically, it was the China’s communist longevity the Washington wise men should have feared more. The article below delves into how and why America made China into the economic giant it is today.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2012/09/china-made-by-america.html