This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
What If They Started A War And Everyone Came?
Submitted by Peter Van Buren via TomDispatch.com,
What if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq in 2003? How would things be different in the Middle East today? Was Iraq, in the words of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, the "worst foreign policy blunder" in American history? Let's take a big-picture tour of the Middle East and try to answer those questions. But first, a request: after each paragraph that follows, could you make sure to add the question “What could possibly go wrong?”
Let the History Begin
In March 2003, when the Bush administration launched its invasion of Iraq, the region, though simmering as ever, looked like this: Libya was stable, ruled by the same strongman for 42 years; in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak had been in power since 1983; Syria had been run by the Assad family since 1971; Saddam Hussein had essentially been in charge of Iraq since 1969, formally becoming president in 1979; the Turks and Kurds had an uneasy but functional ceasefire; and Yemen was quiet enough, other than the terror attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Relations between the U.S. and most of these nations were so warm that Washington was routinely rendering “terrorists” to their dungeons for some outsourced torture.
Soon after March 2003, when U.S. troops invaded Iraq, neighboring Iran faced two American armies at the peak of their strength. To the east, the U.S. military had effectively destroyed the Taliban and significantly weakened al-Qaeda, both enemies of Iran, but had replaced them as an occupying force. To the west, Iran's decades-old enemy, Saddam, was gone, but similarly replaced by another massive occupying force. From this position of weakness, Iran’s leaders, no doubt terrified that the Americans would pour across its borders, sought real diplomatic rapprochement with Washington for the first time since 1979. The Iranian efforts were rebuffed by the Bush administration.
The Precipitating Event
Nailing down causation is a tricky thing. But like the June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that kicked off the Great War, the one to end all others, America's 2003 invasion was what novelists refer to as “the precipitating event,” the thing that may not actively cause every plot twist to come, but that certainly sets them in motion.
There hadn’t been such an upset in the balance of power in the Middle East since, well, World War I, when Great Britain and France secretly reached the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which, among other things, divided up most of the Arab lands that had been under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Because the national boundaries created then did not respect on-the-ground tribal, political, ethnic, and religious realities, they could be said to have set the stage for much that was to come.
Now, fast forward to 2003, as the Middle East we had come to know began to unravel. Those U.S. troops had rolled into Baghdad only to find themselves standing there, slack-jawed, gazing at the chaos. Now, fast forward one more time to 2015 and let the grand tour of the unraveling begin!
The Sick Men of the Middle East: It’s easy enough to hustle through three countries in the region in various states of decay before heading into the heart of the chaos: Libya is a failed state, bleeding mayhem into northern Africa; Egypt failed its Arab Spring test and relies on the United States to support its anti-democratic (as well as anti-Islamic fundamentalist) militarized government; and Yemen is a disastrously failed state, now the scene of a proxy war between U.S.-backed Saudi Arabia and Iranian-backed Houthi rebels (with a thriving al-Qaeda outfit and a small but growing arm of the Islamic State [ISIS] thrown into the bargain).
Iraq: Obama is now the fourth American president in a row to have ordered the bombing of Iraq and his successor will almost certainly be the fifth. If ever a post-Vietnam American adventure deserved to inherit the moniker of quagmire, Iraq is it.
And here’s the saddest part of the tale: the forces loosed there in 2003 have yet to reach their natural end point. Your money should be on the Shias, but imagining that there is only one Shia horse to bet on means missing just how broad the field really is. What passes for a Shia “government” in Baghdad today is a collection of interest groups, each with its own militia. Having replaced the old strongman prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, with a weak one, Haider al-Abadi, and with ISIS chased from the gates of Baghdad, each Shia faction is now free to jockey for position. The full impact of the cleaving of Iraq has yet to be felt. At some point expect a civil war inside a civil war.
Iran: If there is any unifying authority left in Iraq, it is Iran. After the initial 2003 blitzkrieg, the Bush administration’s version of neocolonial management in Iraq resulted in the rise of Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, and an influx of determined foreign fighters. Tehran rushed into the power vacuum, and, in 2011, in an agreement brokered by the departing Bush administration and carried out by President Obama, the Americans ran for the exits. The Iranians stayed. Now, they have entered an odd-couple marriage with the U.S. against what Washington pretends is a common foe -- ISIS -- but which the Iranians and their allies in Baghdad see as a war against the Sunnis in general. At this point, Washington has all but ceded Iraq to the new Persian Empire; everyone is just waiting for the paperwork to clear.
The Iranians continue to meddle in Syria as well, supporting Bashar al-Assad. Under Russian air cover, Iran is increasing its troop presence there, too. According to a recent report, Tehran is sending 2,000 troops to Syria, along with 5,000 Iraqi and Afghan Shia fighters. Perhaps they’re already calling it “the Surge” in Farsi.
The Kurds: The idea of creating a “Kurdistan” was crossed off the post-World War I “to do” list. The 1920 Treaty of Sèvres at first left an opening for a referendum on whether the Kurds wanted to remain part of what remained of the Ottoman Empire or become independent. Problem one: the referendum did not include plans for the Kurds in what became Syria and Iraq. Problem two: the referendum never happened, a victim of the so-called Turkish War of Independence. The result: some 20 million angry Kurds scattered across parts of modern Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria.
That American invasion of 2003, however, opened the way for the Kurds to form a virtual independent statelet, a confederacy if you will, even if still confined within Iraq's borders. At the time, the Kurds were labeled America's only true friends in Iraq and rewarded with many weapons and much looking the other way, even as Bush administration officials blathered on about the goal of a united Iraq.
In 2014, the Kurds benefited from U.S. power a second time. Desperate for someone to fight ISIS after Iraq's American-trained army turned tail (and before the Iranians and the Shia militias entered the fight in significant force), the Obama administration once again began sending arms and equipment to the Kurds while flying close air support for their militia, the peshmerga. The Kurds responded by fighting well, at least in what they considered the Kurdish part of Iraq. However, their interest in getting involved in the greater Sunni-Shia civil war was minimal. In a good turn for them, the U.S. military helped Kurdish forces move into northern Syria, right along the Turkish border. While fighting ISIS, the Kurds also began retaking territory they traditionally considered their own. They may yet be the true winners in all this, unless Turkey stands in their way.
Turkey: Relations between the Turks and the Kurds have never been rosy, both inside Turkey and along the Iraqi-Turkish border.
Inside Turkey, the primary Kurdish group calling for an independent state is the Kurdistan Workers party (also known as the PKK). Its first insurgency ran from 1984 until 1999, when the PKK declared a unilateral cease-fire. The armed conflict broke out again in 2004, ending in a ceasefire in 2013, which was, in turn, broken recently. Over the years, the Turkish military also carried out repeated ground incursions and artillery strikes against the PKK inside Iraq.
As for ISIS, the Turks long had a kind of one-way “open-door policy” on their border with Syria, allowing Islamic State fighters and foreign volunteers to transit into that country. ISIS also brokered significant amounts of black market oil in Turkey to fund itself, perhaps with the tacit support, or at least the willful ignorance, of the Turkish authorities. While the Turks claimed to see ISIS as an anti-Assad force, some felt Turkey's generous stance toward the movement reflected the government’s preference for having anything but an expanded Kurdish presence on its border. In June of this year, Turkish President Recep Erdogan went as far as to say that he would "never allow the establishment of a Kurdish state in northern Syria."
In light of all that, it’s hardly surprising that early Obama administration efforts to draw Turkey into the fight against ISIS were unsuccessful. Things changed in August 2015, when a supposedly anti-ISIS cooperation deal was reached with Washington. The Turks agreed to allow the Americans to fly strike missions from two air bases in Turkey against ISIS in Syria. However, there appeared to be an unpublicized quid pro quo: the U.S. would turn a blind eye to Turkish military action against its allies the Kurds. On the same day that Turkey announced that it would fight the Islamic State in earnest, it also began an air campaign against the PKK.
Washington, for its part, claimed that it had been “tricked” by the wily Turks, while adding, “We fully respect our ally Turkey’s right to self-defense.” In the process, the Kurds found themselves supported by the U.S. in the struggle with ISIS, even as they were being thrown to the (Turkish) wolves. There is a Kurdish expression suggesting that Kurds have “no friends but the mountains.” Should they ever achieve a trans-border Kurdistan, they will certainly have earned it.
Syria: Through a series of events almost impossible to sort out, having essentially supported the Arab Spring nowhere else, the Obama administration chose to do so in Syria, attempting to use it to turn President Bashar al-Assad out of office. In the process, the Obama administration found itself ever deeper in a conflict it couldn’t control and eternally in search of that unicorn, the moderate Syrian rebel who could be trained to push Assad out without allowing Islamic fundamentalists in. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda spin-offs, including the Islamic State, found haven in the dissolving borderlands between Iraq and Syria, and in that country’s Sunni heartlands.
An indecisive Barack Obama allowed America's involvement in Syria to ebb and flow. In September 2013, on the verge of a massive strike against the forces of the Assad regime, Obama suddenly punted the decision to Congress, which, of course, proved capable of deciding nothing at all. In November 2013, again on the verge of attacking Syria, the president allowed himself to be talked down after a gaffe by Secretary of State John Kerry opened the door to Russian diplomatic intercession. In September 2014, in a relatively sudden reversal, Obama launched a war against ISIS in Syria, which has proved at best indecisive.
Russia: That brings us to Vladimir Putin, the Syrian game-changer of the moment. In September, the Russian president sent a small but powerful military force into a neglected airfield in Latakia, Syria. With “fighting ISIS” little more than their cover story, the Russians are now serving as Assad's air force, as well as his chief weapons supplier and possible source of “volunteer” soldiers.
The thing that matters most, however, is those Russian planes. They have essentially been given a guarantee of immunity to being shot down by the more powerful U.S. Air Force presence in the region (as Washington has nothing to gain and much to worry about when it comes to entering into open conflict with the Russians). That allows them near-impunity to strike when and where they wish in support of whom they wish. It also negates any chance of the U.S. setting up a no-fly zone in parts of Syria.
The Russians have little incentive to depart, given the free pass handed them by the Obama administration. Meanwhile, the Russian military is growing closer to the Iranians with whom they share common cause in Syria, and also the Shia government in Baghdad, which may soon invite them to join the fight there against ISIS. One can almost hear Putin chortling. He may not, in fact, be the most skilled strategist in the world, but he’s certainly the luckiest. When someone hands you the keys, you take the car.
World War I
As in imperial Europe in the period leading up to the First World War, the collapse of an entire order in the Middle East is in process, while forces long held in check are being released. In response, the former superpowers of the Cold War era have once again mobilized, at least modestly, even though both are fearful of a spark that could push them into direct conflict. Each has entangling regional relationships that could easily exacerbate the fight: Russia with Syria, the U.S. with Saudi Arabia and Israel, plus NATO obligations to Turkey. (The Russians have already probed Turkish airspace and the Turks recently shot down a drone coyly labeled of “unknown origin.”)
Imagine a scenario that pulls any of those allies deeper into the mess: some Iranian move in Syria, which prompts a response by Israel in the Golan Heights, which prompts a Russian move in relation to Turkey, which prompts a call to NATO for help... you get the picture. Or imagine another scenario: with nearly every candidate running for president in the United States growling about the chance to confront Putin, what would happen if the Russians accidentally shot down an American plane? Could Obama resist calls for retaliation?
As before World War I, the risk of setting something in motion that can't be stopped does exist.
What Is This All About Again?
What if the U.S. hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003? Things would undoubtedly be very different in the Middle East today. America's war in Afghanistan was unlikely to have been a big enough spark to set off the range of changes Iraq let loose. There were only some 10,000 America soldiers in Afghanistan in 2003 (5,200 in 2002) and there had not been any Abu Ghraib-like indiscriminate torture, no equivalent to the scorched earth policy in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, nothing to spark a trans-border Sunni-Shia-Kurd struggle, no room for Iran to meddle. The Americans were killing Muslims in Afghanistan, but they were not killing Arabs, and they were not occupying Arab lands.
The invasion of Iraq, however, did happen. Now, some 12 years later, the most troubling thing about the current war in the Middle East, from an American perspective, is that no one here really knows why the country is still fighting. The commonly stated reason -- “defeat ISIS” -- is hardly either convincing or self-explanatory. Defeat ISIS why?
The best Washington can come up with are the same vague threats of terrorism against the homeland that have fueled its disastrous wars since 9/11. The White House can stipulate that Assad is a bad guy and that the ISIS crew are really, really bad guys, but bad guys are hardly in short supply, including in countries the U.S. supports. In reality, the U.S. has few clear goals in the region, but is escalating anyway.
Whatever world order the U.S. may be fighting for in the Middle East, it seems at least an empire or two out of date. Washington refuses to admit to itself that the ideas of Islamic fundamentalism resonate with vast numbers of people. At this point, even as U.S. TOW missiles are becoming as ubiquitous as iPads in the region, American military power can only delay changes, not stop them. Unless a rebalancing of power that would likely favor some version of Islamic fundamentalism takes hold and creates some measure of stability in the Middle East, count on one thing: the U.S. will be fighting the sons of ISIS years from now.
Back to World War I. The last time Russia and the U.S. both had a powerful presence in the Middle East, the fate of their proxies in the 1973 Yom Kippur War almost brought on a nuclear exchange. No one is predicting a world war or a nuclear war from the mess in Syria. However, like those final days before the Great War, one finds a lot of pieces in play inside a tinderbox.
Now, all together: What could possibly go wrong?
»
- 47349 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
What could possibly go wrong?
Everything!
Fog of war.
Causality will not be stopped by something as simple as a war.
Then we all get to die, just like the Oligarchs want. What a world to live in.....
Dunno. If it is all radioactive, don't it kill them too?
I'm not defending Bush or the neocons, but that's not what set the Middle East into turmoil. What set the middle east into the turmoil we have today was the QE and NIRP response to the financial crisis which cause massive inflation in nations that were not steeped in USTs, nor were they openly selling oil for dollars like the Saudis were.
All wars start financially.
imo what started the middle east into turmoil was truman's helping to birth israel in 1948, against the strenuous advice of his much more knowledgeable and wise secretary of state, general george marshall, but truman wanted to be elected in november.
that and lyndon johnson's dropping all pretence of even handed policy in the middle east, during the six days war. wonder what jfk would have done. we don't get to know.
to start the story of the iraq war in 2003 is absurd. it starts no later than the project for the new american century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century\
and then moves smoothly up through 9-11:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsoY3AIRUGA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhROd7Jt3-w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgM6hjNedE0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj_AL4OlmHc&feature=iv&src_vid=rnbMjAN7B...
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticl...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVHstSrC1CQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE
Any dancing Israelis in those vids ?
Truman needed campaign funds. He did a few things that created a world of insanity
We all like a simple cause. It makes things neat and tidy. Most of the time, bullshit like what we're seeing now is one of those cases where a whole slew of factors come into play at once. The 2003 invasion did play a role. It killed a bunch of people and pissed a bunch of people off. It had serious economic implications for the region. The financial shenanigans have also undoubtedly played a role. Lets not forget that the lifeblood of our civilization is and has been under their land for a long time. That certainly plays a factor. Destabilizing Syria when we KNEW that it would lead to something like ISIS also played a factor. Especially when they've had a tradition of marrying their first cousins for 1400 years with limited gene flow back into their population for some time now. Until the oil runs out or simply quits getting pumped, the middle east is going to be the world's problem, and it is a problem that cannot be fixed without carrying out acts that sane people don't want to have to contemplate in anything beyond an academic setting.
Destabilizing Syria not only with KNOWLEDGE that it would lead to something like ISIS, but also a NEED for something like ISIS, a WANT for something like ISIS, and a PLAN for something like ISIS.
it's the Yinon Plan.
a poster on a site a long time ago, emerson biggins, wrote, "can't go to war with something as esoteric as resource depletion, there always must be a boogey man". Truer words - the only question anyone needs to answer honestly is - Is this a die off or a kill off? Fundamentally significance difference between the two.
Interesting times, you may live in.
\\
YODA
The far side summed this up ......
img.ifcdn.com/images/425903f2d879ecaa7f02c5948bd7e8cfac2f8e5299fbd491686281d8e50f5f40_1.jpg
... What could possibly go wrong?
So far, communications and C4i seem to have gone the "Donald Cook" way. That's just after the pre-halloween cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea... Feel free to start a stupid war with the Ruskies and watch how many more surprises their Matryoshka type military could produce...
http://www.voltairenet.org/article189043.html
http://www.voltairenet.org/article189043.html
Thanks for posting. Pro-Russian, but realistic.
I suppose this is a valid viewpoint for those who think CNN actually broadcasts truthful news stories. Doubleplus big problem is the author presupposes the current situation is not the outcome primarily desired by the instigators.
Precisely! "Was Iraq the worst foreign policy blunder in American history?" I don't think it was a blunder in the fact that it was intentional. Control through chaos has been the game plan.
Agreed. It is also related directly to your name... the USA took the GREEN pill. It allows for plausible deniability and nefarious Alphabet soup agency actions globally. Odumb@$$ thought it meant environmental policy.
perhaps war is the only way to solve this... unless the people of the US overthrow the government... that is the better solution
https://youtu.be/_IxQNc0NE8A?t=1589
Uhhhh...Kitty, that too is war...
But yeah, it has more integrity.
I'm rooting for Russia, the U.S.A. failed itself and its citizens long ago.
WWIII might be a blessing compared to being bled out by my own country.
Well it was obviously a fucking blunder since it was war for war's sake. Everything else, any other reason purported was, and still is, a moral fantasy. It's just the same thing over and over; big swinging dicks.
If it was only the war that was a blunder it would be one thing, but it is the entire foreign AND domestic policy that is the real blunder...actually a disaster. Stupid foreign quagmires compounded with endless financial IEDs everywhere has ensured we are paralyzed from anything that might be positive or productive.Everything now is expended in keeping a dead or dying idea alive, one who's obvious intent is not the savior of anyone but the very few at the top of the food chain....NOT US.
well, that, and killing thousands of your own citizens
count on one thing: the U.S. will be fighting the sons of ISIS years from now.
Please, ISIS was made in USA. Why would the US want to fight its own creation?
ISIS: The jihadist movement stamped “Made in America”https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/07/30/isis-j30.html
Poll shows 81 percent of Syrians believe US created ISIShttps://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/09/18/isis-s18.html
you are vastly over optomistic.
sons of isis, the doom is coming to the whole region, and starvation will thin them down to a handful. Including their camels.
Shucks, I thought your accusation of optimism was going to address that we would not have to wait for their sons...
women are fighters too, ask my wife, ha...
The sons of ISIS will forget where their fathers paychecks came from. The sons of ISIS will only know that the US is the enemy that deceived their people and lead to the slaughter of thousands and thousands. For that, the sons of ISIS will be itching for some blow back.
Our war criminal government has put us on a path where we will soon see suicide bombers in malls, hospitals, amusement parks, bars, grocery stores...everywhere, randomly.
And Obama's War Criminal Administration, letting millions enter through unenforced borders, will ensure that we all get a full dose of grief and gore. It's coming.
I hope the first smuggled nuke goes off in DC while Hillary is doing the State of the Union speech.
I believe the mass influx of "refugees" to European and American soil is also planned and coordinated. The need for mass chaos and mall bombings and terror will only make the people call for MOAR loss of liberty for "safety" and then marshal law is called in and then we can be sorted out. End game, world peace and world government and currency. It is all planned.
Iraq claims an Israeli Colonel as prize when they captured ISIS units
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/3663/
911 was a false flag, that Richard Clarke movie/interview was a layer of coverup. Really, go read that.
Something is up when crime scene evidence is buried under cement, hauled off to be melted down, or brazenly and illegally disposed of (Kennedy's body).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ugCIjzHptA
a little late
more global 2 step
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OncBdtnPMU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmw5FIjDDBY
well, speaking about RT, they recently posted a great documentary, where one American tries to discover everything about NWO and how the world is run. When describing the NWO group, they simply say that these are "the richest people". I recommend you to watch it, as there are interesting interpretations of world events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkD8VFOz4-8
it was moar than a false flag. it was also the casus belli of the Iraq War, which is what this article is all about.
Yet 911 isn't even mentioned until the third to the last paragraph.
Could it be possible that the scenario outlined by John Titor, internet urban legend, is about to come true? Too funny.
War is so... obscene.
Hope it doesn't come to pass. Luckily the most powerful army on earth by a factor of like 30, is the American citizenry.
See you in the streets and see you in the proverbial trenchez, bitchez.
Ain't that easy. Our leaders are wrong, and bringing it down on our heads. They take our treasure at gunpoint, and use it to fund deeds that subvert others' peace for corporate profit. We may have a lot of guns, but damn we are in the wrong on this one. Hard to fight with your head up when you know why they want to kick your ass so bad.
I'm armed, loaded and ready.
But I also have a pile of maps to hand out to point the direction to DC. When you get to Barstow hang a right on I-40 and go east for about 3,000 miles, then head north. Leave here to go there, and I won't fire.
The American Establishment has wanted complete control over the Middle East oil forever. They want the Gulf of Oman, and that's why they produced the False Flag Op World Trade #1, #2, and building 7. Israel wanted Hussein removed from power entirely. Money & power over oil were their prime objectives until 2008 when the jig was up and they became collectively insolvent.
Just kill everyone and take it. The rest of the bullshit is making me sick. If you are going to be dishonest, at least be honest about it!
If Saddam remained in power eventually his son Qusay would have taken over. So either outcome would have been bad for the USA.
What USA? The population of USA? Or the corporation of USA (the fascist state of USA/the military industrial complex)?
The former would only benefit from staying out of the middle east (and apologies for the last 60+ years of unwanted meddling – including bringing the CIA-asset Saddam Hussein to power in Iraq). But hey, that’s all history – Americans don’t do history. They do TV.
TeeVee is indeed a beautiful thing.
For tyrants.
"We don't do peace"
(Donald Bumfeld)
Democracy simply does not work in the middle east.
Only kingdoms and dictatorships have proven to work.
yeah, must be somethin' in them backward genes....shit
They are all Semitic, the seed of Abraham.
The ‘Made in America’-version of ‘democracy’ doesn’t work anywhere in the world – unless you’re a banker/part of the military industrial complex/part of the rentier-class (capitalist-class) and/or otherwise benefit from the success of the 0,01% (for instance being one of the central ‘kapo’s).
But the saddest aspect of your comment is, that it reveals you actually believe that there has ever been an ambition to promote/support or bring democracy to the middle east (or anywhere else in the world – US included).
And how has dictatorship/kingdoms worked and for whom? If ‘stability’ is bought by slavery/tyranny/submission, I prefer chaos.
@ Memedada
"‘Made in America’-version of ‘democracy’ doesn’t work anywhere in the world"
Hint: Just like the other two forms of possible Goverment (Aristocracy and Monarchy/Dictatorship), Democracy doesn't work ANYWHERE!
None of them can resist the power grab, and chaos/anarchy just opens the door to a power grab as well ("This way there be Dragons" - or let's just call them "Warlords").
It's why the ancient philosophers were ripping their hair out trying to find a solution (concluding that a solution couldn't be found, and that the best that could be hoped for, was a benign Dictatorhip - although even benign Dictators are frequent victims of the power grab, and disposed of by the worst of the worst grabbing power). Then along came John Locke, who proved the lie of the despotic tyranny called "Divine Right" (inventing the Scientific Method - Empiricism - to do it), creating the inclusive balanced Republic after the 1688 Glorious Revolution with the assisstance of William of Orange (who gave him shelter whan James II's assassins were trying to bump him off) with a place for all three forms of Government to take advantage of their unique and indispensable strengths, which swept power off the table (because nobody can be trusted with power) to prevent the power grab, under the Rule of Law (which is literal, we are supposed to be governed by the Law).
Power was swept off the table by forbidding Parliament to make Law (because making Law is the exercising of power, which is why the lawless State is defined by "The Law is what 'we' say it is", which as an aside, confirms that by every definition, the EU is a lawless State) it is a LEGISLATIVE Body instead, and all legislation must comply with the Law to be lawful, otherwise it is illegal, and void. This is why alongside it, all legislation must be thoroughly debated by the legislators, so that the Courts can determine the INTENT of the legislators, and a failure to do this makes any legislation illegal, and void - because if the intent cannot be clearly determined, then the Courts will "Make it up as they go along" and think that they "Make Law" (confirmed as the attitude of the EU's Judiciary, in their own words). The definition of the Rule of Law is "If the Law makes the King, then the King is subject to the Law" which has its roots in the Druid legal philosophy "No god, no king, no man, is above the Law".
Hence Thomas Jefferson was able to correctly say the following:
“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
By the way this is the huge flaw in Islam. The handbook for which is really nothing more than "The Big Dummy's Guide for Warlords and Conquest". It is why each sect of Islam is riven with factions, each of which considers all others to be apostate, and deserving of death. It is institutionalised power grab. Which is why, in the past 1,400 years or so, despite the 100's of millions slaughered by this Warlord doctrine, and the 100's of millions enslaved by this Warlord doctrine, the greatest victims of Islam, by far, are Muslims. They only come together to fight a common enemy, and when that fight is over, they return to their real passion, which is slaughtering each other.
"Islam was never the religion of peace. Islam is the religion of war" Baghdadi. Baghdadi was absolutely correct.
Any Muslim that wakes up to the insanity of this situation, is rapidly visited by a Death Squad[tm], and is publicly and painfully disposed of, as a discouragement to anybody else thinking about waking up to the blatantly obvious.This is why Psychopaths and Sociopaths love Islam so much, and why they want it to cover the whole World, for their personal benefit.
True, but you don't seriously think that democracy had anything to do with these wars of choice?
The reason democracies fail is that they depend on a virtuous citizenry. Such a thing has never existed. The founders knew this and that is why they opted for a constitutional republic that would be constrained by the rule of law. The smarter members of the founders understood that the republic could be captured by the emotions of the mob and the special interests manipulating those emotions. That is why they insisted on a bill of rights. Now that we have morphed into a perpetual state of war, the Bill of Rights has been suspended and the constitutional republic has been relegated to the dustbin of history.
In this post constitutional era we are ruled by a labyrinth of redundant bureaucracies. Each of these bureaucracies is its own fiefdom competing with its counterparts for a share of the resource pie. Ask yourself, why does the department of education need or want a SWAT team? The answer is very simple, in these uncertain times; each agency wants its own muscle independent of the other fiefdoms.
The hard truth is that this level of complexity is not sustainable in a no growth environment. Devolution is already occurring in the cities and the states. It will occur on the national level sometime between now and the collapse of the currency. A pension and a government pay check are the only two things holding this labyrinth together. Something that interdicts the flow of the digital currency will bring down the whole house of cards. The collapse is well under way. The question is, will it continue to degrade slowly or will we reach a tipping point when the national edifice cascades into the streets all at once for a major segment of the population?
This Habib Hatfield Muhammad McCoy Sunni v. Shiite shinola has been going on for a thousand years.
An Iranian friend of mine says they hate each other FAR more than they hate the US, or even the Jews.
In fact, the Persians have been rather nice to the Jews throughout the millenia, an historical fact that the rabid and seemingly often constipated BooBoo Nuttinyahoo conveniently ignores.
There is no way Amerika is going to solve any of this short of nuking the whole joint, waiting 500 years, and opening Taco Bells--the only survivor of the franchise wars.
Obama and the neocon sociopaths who have their fists up his ass have us waiting for our generation's Archduke moment. One year after the first archduke got popped, millions were dead, and that was with antique weapons.
dang you assume so much. just make a sweeping statement that the iran muslims have been rather nice to jews for 1000 years. I have iraninan muslims in my wifes cousins family, do you actually know muslim families?
"There is no way Amerika [sic] is going to solve any of this..."
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them - Attributed to Albert Einstein
Yes, but... unfortunately, once you start the big atomic fry-up, it's pretty hard to put a line under it until you run out of bullets.
Yeah. And what if they already have a quantum mechanical weapon? And that weapon can reach right through the earth and create those craters like what we've all seen up in Russia, craters big enough to swallow whole armies, and even whole cities?
I think these upstarts had better just get back in line. We don't need a worldwide dictatorship, unless someone really wants to force the issue against all the odds that are stacked against them.
Walk softly and carry a big stick. The sticks are very big these days. And laying odds on who has the biggest stick is a damned fool thing to do.
So just get back in line and shut up.
Yeah, long bows don't evoke much terror these days, and 4 Abrams could defeat the whole Roman Legions in 2 hours if they wouldn't break and run.
Now, scale up from 4 Abrams to a few thousand nukes in the 10-20 megaton range. Those are the real deal.
The oligarchs will be safe in their tunnels and underground cities built with our taxes. If we think it's hard to crash a State Dinner, just try to hog in on this.
Unintended consequences will dictate that their protective forces will desert when they are minutes from their families being vaporized.
The fact that Bernie doesn't see the Spanish-American War as "the worst foreign policy blunder" in American history* tells me he shouldn't be President. Yes, I realize that that also means that NONE of the candidates should win.
* - It set the stage for perpetual intervention, our involvement in two World Wars, and taking over the grunt-work of the British Empire.
U gotta admit we are pretty good at blowing shit up and killing lots of people tho'.
Right? Karma is a bitch, if you believe in it or not - bad deeds come back to you.
And no good deed goes unpunished.
The only billionairre I personally knew told me that.
"Karma is a bitch, if you believe in it or not - bad deeds come back to you."
Nice thought but totally unsupported by available evidence. Some of the worst people in history have lived out there lives in peace, prosperity and good health. Look at the Bush Crime Syndicate as an example.
Aw, let em have their Kozmic Justice League if it makes em feel better. People really hate the random, inexplicable events that comprise reality.
As Forrest Gump says: "It happens".
RE: Unless a rebalancing of power that would likely favor some version of Islamic fundamentalism takes hold and creates some measure of stability in the Middle East.
I respect the time and research put into post, however I suggest you reseach the end result of an islamic caliphate.
What could go wrong?
https://fas.org/pir-pubs/nuclear-war-nuclear-winter-and-human-extinction/
Iran is in this for the long haul now. They will outright invade southern Iraq if needed to keep the Arab Shia under control. To have any sort of Arab Shia autonomy in southern Iraq means it risks spreading to Iran's Arab Shia province of Khuzestan...the one that has 90 pct of Iran's oil reserves.
Tehran will not allow this scenario to take hold.
That is so inevitable
Thats what is the Armageddon
How it will happen - read Bible - Revelation
btw the statue with head of gold & feet of clay has already fallen - 9/11
Rest is all details
-----
The mid-east will be the center point of the WW3
In the end - ALL - mideast countries will be destroyed by nuclear radiation.
And Israel - again
the chaff will be collected in a place & put to fire
Coke head, or was it hash, Johnny Divine went insane on Patmos and fools still believe that shit 1500 years later. We are sooo fucked through ghost mythology.
Dear, I am averse to ALL intoxicants, never touched coke, hash, heroin none. I believe in purity , holiness & non-violence , however , cant resist resisting evil. Curse of Jesus destroyed Israel in 70 AD & again in WW2 and the next one is so soon.
Dear its not zionism, Islam ; its rather, the flawed ideology of violence & hatred which is deep rooted there & which drives ppl into evil acts. and the retribution again & again; karma.
Lesson : As long as these guys dont reform or forsake their ideologies , the ghosts will come back again
.
.
One of man's greatest 'vanities' is the certainty that he knows what's happening.
There never was a chance that we wouldn't invade Iraq. The Supreme Court's decision to put the warmongering personification of ignorance into the White House in January 2001. Nor the "False Flag", casus belli of the destruction of the WTC on September 11, 2001. Nor George Bush, Sr. who arranged for his alcoholic son to be Governor of Texas, and then President.
When events in a country's affairs are good, the citizens like to think how 'providence' is smiling on them. Manifest Destiny and that crap. America enjoyed that from Day One, through the 19th century, until around 1960.
When things begin to go badly, it's just bad luck, avoidable mistakes, and being a little tougher.
No, providence and destiny haven't deserted the country. They can be coaxed back with a bullshit war for democracy.
America's misfortunes, which go back to the late 40's, are now on a freight train going down hill with no brakes.
Be prepared.
I'll only quibble on the year. I say substitute 1913 for 1960.
But you're talking about reality (the creation of the Fed) while I was talking about the unfailing Manifest Destiny that the good sheeple of America had always beheld.
While this is a pretty decent write-up, I'm surprised the author gives Christians-In-Action a complete free pass. Or any mention of Israel's role in any of this. As if Israel doesn't even exist. Why did the US go into Iraq again? Cover story: the attack of 9-11. PNAC policy paper says differently. PNAC policy paper says regime change. Why regime change? America is the Israeli heavy. The objective of the Iraq war was ALWAYS regime change in Iraq, Iran and Syria. ALWAYS. The author makes the American wars seems almost random, when in reality they are badly bungled attempts to attain the objectives of neutralizing Israel's enemies. That Iraq is a basket case doesn't concern Israel. No more regime to worry about. Look at how badly Netanyahu has been trying to stir the pot against Iran for the last 8 years. The Arab Spring was simply the icing on the chaos pie. Of COURSE the US jumped on the chance to stir the shit in Syria. Why was it again the US was the de facto creator of ISIS? Regime change? And what was regime change about all again? Cue Israel.
Nice write-up, but absent the motivations behind the various plays the author turns a blind eye to the nefarious role of Israel in America's foreign policy disasters.
How to get elected and remake the world in 2016:
Come out strongly against Russia. Label them something silly like "axis of evil". Bait you opponents into countering your lunacy. Paint yourself as the only one willing or able to counter Russian aggression. Let the media lampoon you, the more the better. Turn it into a real spectacle. Then in September an American jet goes down over Syria in questionable circumstances. A month long media circus ensues, we meet the grieving family/families. Of course they're beautiful all American families and our hearts collectiblely break as we yearn for justice, revenge. In October we learn what we all suspected... It was Russia all along. You win, are guaranteed 2, maybe three terms. I'm sure this could be arranged.
It's all about protecting the soccer moms.
"What If They Started A War And Everyone Came?"
yes all the neocons will be cumming in their shorts for sures for wars
these articles today are WAY too pussyfooting about the us role in the chaos which is the world stage. the "stumblin - bumbling" theory of history just does not fly. this hegemonic demonic morph into mr evil was planned and executed and they must be too.
ROCK THE FUCKING CASBAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Partiya Karkeren Kurdistane (aka PKK)
Both NATO and the EU consider the PKK to be a terrorist organisation... it has been suggested by Obama that the PKK should be removed from their list of Foreign Terrorist Organisations, for the benefit of both Turkey and the Syrian situation. Go figure!
KLA in Kosovo was .........but read Wikipedia "In February 1998, U.S. President Bill Clinton's special envoy to the Balkans, Robert Gelbard, condemned both the actions of the Serb government and of the KLA, and described the KLA as "without any questions, a terrorist group".[64][65][66] UN resolution 1160 took a similar stance.[67][68] But the 1997 US Department's terrorist list hadn't included the KLA.[69] In March 1998, just one month later Gerbald had to modify his statements to say that KLA had not been classified legally by the U.S. government as a terrorist group,[68] and the US government approached the KLA leaders to make them interlocutors with the Serbs.[70][71][unreliable source?] A Wall Street Journal article claimed later that the US government had in February 1998 removed the KLA from the list of terrorist organisations,[70][72][73] a removal that has never been confirmed.[68] France didn't delist the KLA until late 1998, after strong US and UK lobbying."
"Go figure"
That's easy. Being labelled a "terrorist organisation" by the USG, NATO or vassal states has little or nothing to do with actually being a terrorist organisation and everything to do with .gov policy at the time. If the USG really produced an accurate list of terrorist organisations, it would have no choice but to place itself at the top of the list along with some of its allies including the British Gov and Israel.
the very concept of "terrorist" is completely subjective and any discussion which includes that term non-ironically and non-pejoritavely is automatically disqualified from any claim of being a serious conversation
WTF is this neocon drivel???
Other than WWII cessation, USG is one massive fail - fuck Bush
“No one is predicting a world war or a nuclear war from the mess in Syria.”
The Russian President disagrees: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-22/putin-just-warned-global-war-in...
Hell, noone predicted a Global Financial Crash just because BNP stopped redemptions from a CMO fund.......didn't see anyone predict the British going to war because Hitler occupied Prague in March 1939 either...who would have guessed Chamberlain would guarantee Poland just because of Prague being occupied........I mean Czechoslovakia's treaty was with France !!!!
The various American interventions in the region have been disastrous for almost everyone involved. Apart from Israel which sees the Yinon Plan - to dismember and permanently destabilize powerful countries in the region - working out perfectly.
Pure coincidence of course. Which is resumably why the author shines the light in every other direction.
Why can't US commentators think around corners ? Iraq was not the thing that pulled the walls down, it was Kosovo. Goldman Partner Richard Holbrooke and the Albright Disaster together with NATO bombing bridges and TV stations and civilian infrastructure as the NATO Air Force for the KLA was the role model for Air Strikes for Shia Uprisings in Iraq, Kurdish Protection Zones, Destruction of Libya, and it is only the intervention of the S-300 SAM and the Russian Air Force that has brought some order to the bombing chaos of USAF bombing power stations and civilian infrastructure in Aleppo but failing to destroy ISIS. Now we find Israeli Colonel taken POW by Iraqi forces who was embedded with ISIS.
So it was the first bombing of a European capital since 1945 and destruction of Russia's Orthodox ally by NATO in 1999 that started this disaster.German planes were involved for the first time since April 1941.
Just as Orthodox Serbia meets Catholic Croatia and Muslim Kosovo/Albania and the US at Saudi behest let Muslim weapons build a decrepit Muslim failed state in Kosovo - now flooding Germany with 30% of the refugee invasion way ahead of Syrians - we see how US foreign policy destroys nations.
Germany is going to blow up as is Sweden. The US has destroyed NATO and the EU. The Armies in Europe will be too busy imposing martial law if this continues.
Putin will save Germany.
bet he's wishing Russians still occupied Dresden ! Quite a few East Germans do too
Yep. The gloves really came off when a Responsibility to Protect was asserted by the USA against Serbia.
International affairs have pretty much always been conducted under the Law of the Jungle, but the USA doesn't even pretend that other nations have sovereignty any longer. US policy is now the neocon Ledeen Doctrine: every ten years or so the US needs to pick up some small country and throw it aginst the wall, just so everyone else knows we mean business.
Having a UN commission under the guidance of Mr. "Holbrooke" redraw Serbia's borders was a nice touch, too.
That's one thing Bernie is 100% correct about - Iraq was the worst foreign policy blunder in US history. Now about that Denmark crap...
Second was Obozos regime change in Ukraine.
Ukraine is now dead and a failed state, banana republic!!
Here are the ten reasons why Ukraine is dead!
http://thetruthspeaker.co/2015/04/19/10-reasons-ukraine-is-dead/
What if they start a war and white people boycot?
They gonna draft Latinos?
They can't even read the "fire this direction" instructions and even if they could..........
Epic draft fail coming, it may even trigger a civil war.
Our NAME policy is that chaos, rebellion, and civil war benefits the US as long as we keep the oil flowing. It matters not if it destroys infrastructure and cultures, or creates millions of innocent refugees, or results in torture, murder and mayhem. It is all figured in as the cost of oil. I imagine the same is true for Europe. Just keep the oil flowing - by force if necessary. The existence of strongmen like Qaddafi, Hussein, Mubarak and Assad increase the likelihood of a unified stance against US meddling and intervention. They torture and imprison people as well, but they also maintain order and stability which does not benefit us directly.
Control the world's oil supply and you control the world....
The lesson is so obvious. Every Middle-Eastern country needs a strongman in charge that doesn't get subverted by the US. Democracy only leads to civil war and instability. You can go back to 1979 when Carter refused to support the Shah. Not sure why he didn't have the CIA assasinate Khomeini in Paris.
Cliff Notes: This mess is largely W's fault - although the region has been influenced by the West since oil was oil.
Big picture - any piece that doesn't discuss Qatar / Saudi Arabia / US - more than $1 Billion to foment war in Sryia, Syria as a Russian client state, only Russian med sea port, pipeline through Syria to minimize Russian hegemony over Europe - is a propaganda puff piece and not a factual story written to inform the reader.
Israel is somewhere laughing waiting for its turn to capture more land in the Middle East bit by bit
2003 this started? What if there had been no 9-11? No 1948, no Pearl Harbor, No Lusitainia, No Maine, and on and on, Tonkin....
"The thing that matters most, however, is those Russian planes. They have essentially been given a guarantee of immunity to being shot down by the more powerful U.S. Air Force presence in the region (as Washington has nothing to gain and much to worry about when it comes to entering into open conflict with the Russians). That allows them near-impunity to strike when and where they wish in support of whom they wish. It also negates any chance of the U.S. setting up a no-fly zone in parts of Syria."
The only country that has been invited by the legitimate government of Syria is Russia. There is no UN approval that allows the US or any Western country the ability to bomb Syria, send in, fund and arm islamic anti-govt mercenaries from abroad, or setup a no-fly zone there. And I don't really think that any Russian in the military is fearful of the US. So basically trying to implement a US no-fly zone over Syria would trigger WW3.
And this near impunity comment above could also be said regarding NATO Air Force positions in Europe near Russia. Russia has a more powerful presence there than the NATO Air Forces. Russia could easily overwhelm European defenses.
What does any of this drivel mean anyway?
Russia is doing something that obviously the US cannot. It is the US with egg on its face. So the US has to be hyper-critical of everything Russia is doing there, down to minutia, and even lie, so Russia's successes don't highlight more of America's foreign policy failures.
A trillion wasted dollars, the creation of ISIS and an overwhelming EU migrant crisis most Americans already know how bad we fucked up in Syria. The civilians (women and children included) have been dying by the hundreds of thousands in Syria for years while the US continued to support the proxy armies that contributed to the instability. All of this to foment regime change and overthrow Assad.
Most Americans also know we are lied to continually not only by our leaders but by our CIA controlled and manipulated MSM!