Erlich might bother to refute his supposed "myths" rather than just inveigh against weak versions of the arguments with bland assertions, as follows:
1) For the US creation of ISIS, see John Pilger's interview with Julian Assange, apparently in 10/16, and if you still doubt, go back to the documents. See also Robert Fisk's reporting of funding through the Saud family early on.
2) US behind "Arab Spring." This idea is new to me. What I have heard and what might better merit Erlich's attention is that the Obama Administration, when it could not support its puppets in Egypt, posed as a friend to revolution while it made moves to have the torture chief installed in office, thereby usurping and subverting the revolution and ending it.
3) The Syria uprising was not a popular movement, but was instigated by the US. These are not mutually conflicting: the US can instigate where there is sentiment against the government, and this leads to very different results. This is indeed the situation; again, someone has probably made an oversimple claim somewhere, but Erlich might better direct arguments against the more realistic opposition: the Syrian rebels were and are far from altogether a popular movement, but the betrayal of those who were authentic by their US and Saudi "help" is a part of the story that this denial hides.
4) Iran is the #1 sponsor of terrorism. Well, OK, point taken, that's ridiculous.
5) The US intentionally creates failed states. Erlich must be familiar for the standard term for this: it is called "destabilization" or "regime change." Clinton and others discuss it at length in the now-released emails. The point of stopping Libya from shipping was to gain control of what supplies did go elsewhere. That accomplished, the empire can or at least could have access to Libyan oil more or less when it wishes.
To the best of my knowledge, this argument was first articulated by Pepe Escobar for Asia Times. It explains quite a lot. Escobar is usually a worthy read, concise and simple.
6) 9/11. Debunking one theory of a false flag event does not debunk all, and of course Popular Mechanics addressed a few items of the mechanics as it found them, little else, and by some accounts badly.
I myself know little of the physics involved, but long accepted Noam Chomsky's assertion that it could not have been a false flag event because it would have been too hard to hide. However, the Saudi government was just recently sufficiently motivated as to make huge and expensive threats to see to it that the matter was not examined. And analyses and speculation over the now almost certainly CIA-related assassination of JFK makes it fairly obvious how such things are hidden, and it is embarrassingly simple: you just hire them to be done out of house. For 9/11 to be a false flag event, all you would need would be private and off-the-record communication between someone high in the US administration (who might order someone or something to stand down) and someone with administrative power and reach within Saudi Arabia.
That's not in itself a proof, but it is hardly a refutation in Popular Mechanics, of all things.
In general, this idea that there is something intrinsically wrong with a theory that involves conspiracy ought to die a quick and painless death or, that failing, quick and painful. Outside of polemical flourish, the word conspiracy involves several ideas: 1) a plan 2) secrecy 3) respect for in-group and not general interest.
If anyone has a theory that any major political events whatsoever take place without the involvement of some sort of conspiracy, he or she should attempt to support at least one of the following:
1) The event was not planned nor foreseen and aspects of response planned
2) The planning was not secret
3) The planning and execution was done with respect for the needs and opinions of those to be impacted rather than uniquely or principally for the planners.
Frankly, I think it would be a little difficult to find much of anything that can qualify as a non-conspiracy.