Home | About | Donate

Remaking the Middle East: How the US Grew Tired and Less Irrelevant


#1

Remaking the Middle East: How the US Grew Tired and Less Irrelevant

Ramzy Baroud

US Secretary of State, John Kerry, is often perceived as one of the ‘good ones’ - the less hawkish of top American officials, who does not simply promote and defend his country’s military adventurism but reaches out to others, beyond polarizing rhetoric.


#2

Meddling in the Middle East was planned and laid out in writing via several documents ranging of those of Oded Yinon (1980's), Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997), and the Project for a New American Century (1998), to name a few. These articles,like the current one, that ignore the architecture and execution of policy add to the ignorance of recent, current, and future events of tremendous importance to the whole world. The narrative of personalities is distracting many from focusing on larger and longer forces operating from myriad parties in and out of government.


#3

According to this article the USA is "tired" and is now content to merely let event in the middle east "continue to pass through" this period. How very passive indeed. As much as I would like to hope for this, I see nothing of the sort.

The USA and its NATO allies have "passed through" the destruction of of countries on the PNAC plan one at a time, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen. As for being "passive", the sole evidence of this is that Syria remains a work in progress and has not been subjected to a direct invasion so far.

The overthrow of Syria has begun by the training and arming of rebel forces, which goes back to 2006, and has resulted in Syria losing control of much of its own territory. Plan A was the direct invasion that was meant to happen in 2013:-

Humanitarian concern for the "rebels" and unconfirmed allegations of the use of chemical weapons led to Obama decreeing that the use of chemical weapons was a red line and would be the trigger for a direct USA invasion. This was followed with a false flag chemical weapons attack. Astute observers will note that Assad would have been stupid to do such a thing at this junction. This attack was meant to be the trigger for the direct invasion.

Here Russia enters the picture and publicly requests Assad to hand over its stores of chemical weapons, who complied. Given previous exposed lies about WMD, this trigger for the invasion, this trigger for direct war was largely disarmed by Russia's action. Unsurprisingly the chemical weapons attack has been shown not be the action of the Syrian government but was carried out by the USA's"moderate rebels".

Thus the invasion of Syria has been delayed but not stopped. The USA either created another opportunity or such an opportunity emerged on its own. A well armed ISIS then emerged from Syria into Iraq and became the excuse for NATO's military build up. I am unsure exactly which countries contributed on this occasion, but living in Australia I am fully aware that Tony Abbott committed the Australian air-force ostensibly to fight ISIS, but then begins bombing in Syria, and USA supplied weaponry for the fighting of ISIS mysteriously finds its way into the hands of ISIS and Al-Nusra (Al-Queda in Syria).

The plan for the destruction of Syria was now to proceed on the Libya model where a "no-fly" zone was to be imposed on the Syrian government and the "moderate rebels" were to be provided with air-cover while they carried out the destruction of Syria. To this end, Obama and Kerry have publicly insisted that "Assad must go", despite Syrian elections having been held a year ago and despite Assad's popularity in the government held areas of Syria.

Fortunately, Plan B for the destruction of Syria has been temporarily thwarted by Russia who has now leant the use of its own air-force to the Syrian government. There is now an effective "no-fly" zone over Syria imposed not by NATO on the Syrian government, but by Russia upon NATO, and it is now the Syrian government which now has air-power to halt the overthrow of Syria and attack ISIS and Al-Nusra strongholds.

Clearly then, the Syria step of the PNAC plan has not gone to plan, but this has not and will not end here. Lets take a look at these actions and decide whether the USA has now become a "passive observer":-

Plan C: According to the Wall Street Journal :- "The U.S. and its regional allies agreed to increase shipments of weapons and other supplies to help moderate Syrian rebels hold their ground and challenge the intervention of Russia and Iran on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, U.S. officials and their counterparts in the region said." These weapons include anti tank missiles and shoulder fired man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).

Currently the USA government is in the process of deploying F15c jet fighters that have only air to air weapons. They were not used in Afghanistan or Iraq. Given that ISIS has no planes these planes are clearly not going to be used for fighting ISIS. They are going to be used to fight against Russian planes.

The USA and Turkey have made clear that their current intention is to The current USA plan is to annex Syrian territory immediately on the Syrian side of the Turkey-Syria border from which they can conduct endless war, and supply terrorists with USA weaponry.

A realistic assessment shows that ISIS and Al Nusra, far from being defeated in Syria, have now adapted to the new landscape. It remains to be seen just how long Russia can keep supporting Syria. Will Russia lose this war in Syria they way they did in Afghanistan with ISIS and Al Nusra playing the part of the Taleban, supplied with weaponry across Turkey's border, and the Syrian army playing the part of the weak Afghani government.

My opinion is that the neocon war hawks of the USA are not beaten but delayed. In no way does this indicate that the USA is tired or has lost its appetite for war. On the contrary, I can envisage a progressive escalation of this war. Much depends on who gets to be the next USA president, but in all likely hood there will be a massive escalation in 2017.


#4

Since the US is tired, perhaps it will go back to bed?


#5

I'd like to see Pepe Escobar's "take" on this.

Nonetheless, I think Mr. Baroud has pointed to a rather novel anomaly:

"Even if Russia fails to turn its war into a major shift of political and economic clout, the mere fact that other contenders are now throwing their proverbial hats into the Middle East ring, is simply unprecedented since the British-French-Israeli Tripartite Aggression on Egypt in 1956. "

Your analogy to Afghanistan in the last long war--and how it exhausted Russia--may or may not have bearing on this strategic conflict.

The U.S. is a declining empire in many ways... not the least of which is its allowing banks to usurp the economy turning our nation's financial status into that of a casino-led house of cards.


#9

Putin is attacking people the USA has trained and armed in Syria. Not "allegedly".... I agree that much is true. I for one is glad that Lindsey Graham admits as much. What one needs to ask Israel's psychopathic USA senator is the following:-

Under what god given right does the USA have to train and arm a rebellion in Syria. The arming and training of Al Nusra (Al Queda in Syria) and ISIS in order to overthrow the Syrian Government is a war crime and it is terrorism. Al Nusra and ISIS are terrorists, and they have been created, armed and trained by governments Saudi Arabia and Turkey in collaboration with the USA.

Switching the hats for a moment, what if some other government was caught doing that to the USA?!?* When the USA fought back against them, could that other government legitimately complain that the USA was killing "the people that we trained" ?!?

Further, under what god given right is it OK to back up these terrorists with by preventing Syria from using its air-force, and under what god given right is it OK to use NATO air power to back up these terrorists, as they did in Libya.


#10

The truth is a treasure (although it usually smells bad) that must be excavated with cautious acumen. It is rarely doled out to the masses, unless, of course, it is convenient to do so...


#13

Obama's more lyrical apologists have confirmed everything you say in multiple ways. The whole of that policy architecture is the fantasy that the nation based upon the principle of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all of human kind - that such a nation can impose this principle upon the globe with military might and capitalist exploitation is the most extreme manifestation of any psychosis ever presented and held by several generations of so-called leaders.

The events in Paris on November 13 are but collateral damage - of which we shall surely see more - from that US iron-fisted military protected capitalist exploitation of every place Uncle Sam can make two or more foot prints. Because the US is merely the fatter version of the IS, the world will either pull together its collective will and stomp out both threats to all of civilization, or suffer the consequences of the two squabbling behemoth terrorist regimes with their respective allies and fellow/sister travellers.

Bernie Sanders, a mixed bag on this whole issue (he loves the US's iron fisted military and defends the F-35 boondoggle), still represents the only faint possibility of US internal political redemption. Hillary, like every one of the GOP candidates, is religiously devoted to that same "geo-strategic global empire" delusion.