Home | About | Donate

US, Russia & Syria: The Problem With Faking It


US, Russia & Syria: The Problem With Faking It

Thomas S. Harrington

The great danger of faking your ability to do something in the public square is that someone with an actual desire to the job you are pretending to do might come along and show you up.

This is what has just happened to the US in Syria with the entrance of Russia into the fight against ISIL.

And as is generally the case with posers caught with their pants down, the US policy elites are not happy about it.


Not having an opportunity to plant their Samson Option tools in Damascus, Aleppo, etc. (nor Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc.), the Israelis are pissing themselves now that the Bear is in the 'hood.


Yes,I suspect that Washington as well is in danger of a major embarrassment if the Russians splinter Al Qaeda and associated forces. I was wondering a few days ago how the government/corporate media would spin the event but I have since found out: Russian Aggression! It will be funny if the evil Rooskies wrap the whole thing up in a couple more weeks. By the way, why isn't John "ISIS" McCain in a lot of trouble? You would think that he would have enough sense to cut and run. Nobody has to bother to answer that, I'm just making a joke.
In any case, Moscow's operation has shown the lie about "Russian aggression" in Ukraine. If there had been any Moscow would have defeated John McCain's nationalist/nazi Ukrainian army quickly. Darn, did I just mention John again?


I tend to think of this as the colonial (still not yet "post-colonial" whatever anyone says, I would submit) legacy of substituting strategy for wisdom. Strategy is for advantage /losses gains, while wisdom is balance, respect, and honoring of integrity straight down the line transcending the false division between 'the person' and the planet/nature. Strategy builds on strategy builds on strategy until limb climbed out on snaps. In the mean time the capacity to actually recognize wisdom becomes a profound deficit problem. Interesting how 'deficit' transmigrates from cost/profit premises to the cognitive. what does it profit a man/woman if he/she gains the whole world and loses his/her soul...?

This needs to be inextricably connected to the colonizing model of "externalizing" the value of nature - all these 'players' are positioning in an evolving context of climate change


This article identifies and explains the cui-bono of 9-11 more effectively than most any I have read- Actually, it leaves little to nothing for the imagination....All that death and misery-for what???


What an horrendous cost to the people of the Middle East, is the existence of the State of Israel.


As usual, another spot on essay by Professor Harrington.

Faced with so much evidence that the overthrow of the Mideast was all part of a well orchestrated plan, one can't help but ask the obvious........... did 9/11 fit into the plan?


It interesting to note that I came across an article in a Israeli newpaper the other today where they referenced the Yinon Strategy.

They compared peoples that cite it to those that promoted the "Protocls of Zion" . The article than went on to claim that while the Yinon article genuine the Israeli Government would never follow a course of action based upon what a journalist wrote in a newspaper.

They gave no reasons as to why. They just figured all they had to do was throw in claims of anti-semitism , cite the "Protocols of Zion" and that enough to dismiss any that pointed out the degree to which policy seems to follow what was outlined in the paper as a loony.

In other words they are very concerned.


I think it's narrow thinking to paint the plan for Middle East destruction primarily upon Israel. One can find quotes to substantiate just about ANY theory. Plus, in a manner akin to that which had Bush demanding that Intelligence find evidence that could fix a case FOR war, Mr. Harrington's quotes may fit into a similar calculus.

The following FAR more nuanced analysis comes from Gareth Porter's article published yesterday (on C.D):

"Although it has been almost a rigid rule that pundits must ascribe U.S. fealty to its Saudi alliance to oil interests, oil is far from the top of the list of U.S interests today. More important to our national security state is the interest of the Pentagon and the military services to protect the military bases they have in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE. Their need to preserve those alliance relationships is intensified by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) cornucopia of military contracts for U.S. arms manufacturers that assures enormous profits will continue to flow for the foreseeable future. One estimate of the total at stake for the Pentagon and its private allies in military relationships with the GCC is $100 billion to $150 billion over two decades."

I take it as the mark of a primitive intelligence to seek and find one primary causative agency behind any major phenomenon.

It would be FAR more honest and accurate to paint Israel as a powerful player, one of the poker players at the Big Table.

But to leave out the role of Big Banks and the desire to maintain U.S. hegemonic control over the PETRO-DOLLAR as standard (of and for) global currency; and to leave out the MIC requiring wars for its own raison d'etre; and leave out the habit for imperialism that's always the chief practice of any empire; and leave out the oil... all to make a case that rests mostly on Israel is very short-sighted AND prejudicial.


The difference between us serving the interests of Saudi Arabia, and serving the interests of Israel, is that in the former case we're doing it for benefits to the US (as a whole, not special interests) like maintaining the petro-dollar, whereas we serve the interests of the State of Israel for no benefit to the US (as a whole), at great cost to the US, because Israel virtually controls us. We are infested with neo-cons serving Israeli's interests. The recent push to derail the Iran deal is a perfect example.

The litany of what you state as prime causes are largely consequences. For example, enormously profitable military contracts to supply Israel is a consequence of subservience to Israel, and while it may benefit military contractors, is no benefit, but rather a cost, to the US as a whole.


Putin has shown that he plays chess very well. Putin is no dummy, he knows perfectly well that ISIS and other terrorists are nothing but an US backdoor way to take out Assad. This latest chess move where he is saying we will help you take out the terrorists, when he knows that is the last thing the US wants is brilliant because what can Obama say, we do not want your help because the US and the CIA are supporting the terrorists!


I heard the references to chess playing a lot. I hate this metaphore that is used to say the Russians are smart because many of them play chess. Chess, while intellectual, is a different intellectual game and has nothing to do with it. No country is smart or dumb, although conditions in one country may or may not be right for technological development, and 70 years ago, conditions were right for the USA.

Its not that anyone is smart or dumb, but that Russia is threatened (encircled by foreign bases of an empire that likes to destroy other countries), and currently has (but has not not always had) a competent leader who is looking after their national interests. Yesterday under Yeltsin, and also in the more distant past, Russia did plenty of dumb things.

The USA is an empire, with a system of government that is on its face a democracy, but is effectively controlled by big international money, largely because of a very effective media owned by the money. The USA has pressing national interests but they are domestic ones which have been ignored in favour of the wants (not needs) of big money. The USA is not under threat and does not have potential invaders, and those who pull the strings are not aligned with the national interests of its population. Its foreign actions are purely for the benefit of the big money that owns the politicians. Thats why it may appear dumb.


Is this "primitive intelligence" remark aimed at Thomas Harrington? Do you deny that the US State Department is run by a clique of "Israel first" neocons?


But this leaves a big question unaddressed: What US interest would be served by ousting Assad? It seems to me he stands as a secular bulwark against Islamist crazies, much as Saddam Hussein did, albeit a weak one. What does the USA gain by undermining him? Putin seems to understand this important role Assad could perform on their behalf and is acting accordingly.


I was wondering why this article was even allowed. On the other hand they know that the masses do not come here and read the articles. It would never, ever be allowed on the mainstream TV media, or it would be blasted apart as nothing but conspiracy theory and hogwash.

The author is absolutely spot on. No wonder every TV news channel keeps harping on the bad, evil, horrible Putin and Russia.


I believe you are correct here, Sioux. The fact that various Israelis and their allies may have desired the present chaos among their neighbors does not mean they caused it. Harrington provides a simple way to explain all that's gone wrong, and it's always tempting to find a single explanation for a complex situation but Gareth Porter's piece acknowledges the multiple forces at work in the destruction of so much of the Middle East. All of the major players have blood on their hands.


I wasn't aware to the Yinon commentary until recently and had seen it alluded to. The subsequent Clean Break and the behavior of protagonists like Perle, etc. are hard to avoid seeing what their intentions are. . But to see what and why it is happening really doesn't require such documentation---just observe what has happened and is happening and the conclusions mentioned by Mr. Harrington are inescapable. Just as we didn't really need Meersheimer and Walt to explain the why of the behavior of virtually all politicians and statesmen in America, their everyday behavior is right there in front of us.

What is truly extraordinary how unanimous these people are in their utterances in the face of so much information not only about what is happening but the opportunities presented by Russia's entrance into to settle the issue.


The United States has now placed itself in an untenable situation in regards to Syria. Their influence there, as well as in the rest of the middle east, is suffering a major downgrade. In order to re-assert their influence they will be faced with the unpalatable prospect of risking World War Three by coming to the aid of Al-Qaeda and Isis. The great engines of propaganda also known as our mainstream media have drummed into the heads of their target audiences for the past 15 years that Al-Qaeda and Isis are the embodiment of evil and must be fought at all costs even if that entails curtailing some of our rights and freedoms. As well as the staggering costs of blood and treasure this struggle entails.
Yet now, when Russia seems to have accomplished more in one week attacking Al-Qaeda and Isis than the U.S. and its vassals have done ever, the mask has fallen. I can just imagine, somewhere in an underground bunker, the minions toiling away in the American edition of the Ministry of Truth. "Al-Qaeda is our Ally...Al-Qaeda has always been our Ally...Wait a minute, wait a minute...that might be a bit of a tough sell...


Right. The weapons' contractors are not making a killing on supplying Israel with those artefacts of evil, right? It's framed as aid to Israel when in reality, it's aid to the M.I.C.

Here's a parallel (albeit on a smaller scale): Remember all that "aid" purportedly sent to Haiti after the quake? All it did was pay for soldiers, some from Nepal whose fecal matters caused an outbreak of Cholera.

Your anti-Semitism is blinding you.

There are numerous empowered players that are behind militarism. People like you have to twist yourselves into pretzels in justifying away the pattern of aggression that has characterized America from its beginning stages. That martial habit has held steady throughout the 20th century and now into the 21st. Do you try to blame "the Jews" for that entire history, too?

Israel is influential, of course. But the argument that IT Wags the U.S. dog is ridiculous. Popular, of course, inasmuch as right wingers never put their Jew-hating to rest.


Thank you.

Rich Smith asked me about the pro-Israel types inside the State Department. Since I don't know the full composition of who is inside the State Department, and how many empowered entities work there under the cloak of darkness and/or anonymity, I can't answer that question.

Not all Jews are bankers. And not all bankers are Jews.

Same with those who wield influence at the State Department.

Also, When I take the time to lay out the panoply of players involved in Decision-making, my words are typically distorted and retrofitted back into "either or" frames.