02 March 2018

Neo-McCarthyism and Cold War II (Part 2)

The US is bent on overthrowing the Assad regime in Syria. Obama supported this action from its very beginning. From the standpoint of US imperialism the removal of Assad dovetails beautifully with the designs of Israel and would represent a significant victory for US policy in defiance of Russia and to the detriment of Iran.


We are bombarded with lies about the origins of the war and its course. Propaganda outlets like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) and the White Helmets continue to not only misrepresent reality but they seek to capitalise on their lies in manipulating Western policy. The media has completely jumped on board, doling out attention and even awards for pseudo-documentaries and fabricated rescues.
The situation on the ground has been completely misrepresented. The rebels are for the most part Islamists who fall within the broad umbrella that is/was Al Qaeda. I'm not of the school that denies the existence of Al Qaeda, rather I understand the way it was presented to us as somewhat deceptive. The organisation never had the cohesion that was marketed to the public. It was presented as something along the lines of COBRA in a GI Joe comic. In reality it was and is a series of loose-linked cells that have and continue to function by different names and in both fluid forms and ideologies. Today many of them are lumped together into a largely fictitious grouping known (by a host of ever-changing official names) as the Syrian Rebels.
This is not to ignore the Kurds or the fact that there are a handful of actual 'moderate' militias... whatever that means. To think they represent Western values and the categories of Enlightenment humanism and sociology would be something of a fantasy. In reality such 'moderate Islam' expressions are found in figures like Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan, hardly a paragon to Western thinkers and strategists.
The US has effectively formed an on-the-ground alliance with elements of Al Qaeda. The whole nature of the so-called War on Terror changed about 2011. We're in phase 2.0 now and the Pentagon has recently signalled a new phase of war, one in which terrorism is no longer the primary focus. The whole story of ISIS is rotten from the beginning and its rise is wedded to the NATO project in Libya and the US poisoning and corruption of the Arab Spring uprisings. ISIS became a problem when it entered Iraq in 2014 and declared a caliphate and yet when restricted to Syria it received both tacit and explicit support from Israel and other US/NATO allies and intelligence agencies. This story is wedded to the waves of terror that have hit Europe in recent years. A dirty tale, it's one of corruption, lies, manipulation and proxies.
Once the ISIS caliphate was eliminated and they were effectively in retreat toward Syria and the fight against Assad, the policy changed again and elements were allowed to escape (from both Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria) and then even recast as 'rebels' fighting Assad.
Critics and actual on-the-ground journalists have repeatedly challenged the narratives regarding chlorine gas and other chemical weapons. The US has clearly staked out territory for conquest and has recently sought to escalate the war (it would seem) directly targeting Russian troops on the ground.
This action has been logistically supported by the US media churning out pieces on the Russian military, mercenaries and the like. Additionally we have seen a recent (if desperate) attempt in the US media to weave a conspiracy between North Korea and the Assad regime for the promulgation of chemical weapons. A very convenient story that all but collapses upon even superficial scrutiny, let alone the fact that Assad using chemical weapons makes absolutely no sense. He doesn't need to use them and he knows that using them gives the West an excuse to intervene. Russia has repeatedly warned the media about what the 'rebels' are up to in fabricating attacks but this too is ignored. The Al Qaeda affiliates in Eastern Ghouta are using human shields, something regularly decried in Western media when it comes to the likes of Hamas or Saddam Hussein but when Islamist allies do it, there is silence. The blame falls on the bombers alone... in this case Syria and Russia.
Not to make light of the death toll in Eastern Ghouta, but a few hundred people is relatively nothing compared to the utter devastation and thousands dead in American targeted cities like Mosul and Raqqa. These places have been absolutely destroyed akin to German cities at the end of World War II... and yet these American bombing campaigns and the 'hell' they unleashed on civilian populations were not deemed worthy of scrutiny. If mentioned at all it was only in a positive light.
And of course, years from now the Depleted Uranium, phosphorus and other chemical WMD utilised by the United States will continue to torment the populations of these places with cancers and an endless series of birth defects and horrific deformities.
There is nothing Russia is being accused of that the US hasn't done and isn't doing tenfold and yet such stories have long been dismissed by the Mainstream as 'conspiratorial'. One is forced to turn to the alternative media for such reporting, and yet even many 'alternative' outlets have been corrupted. I believe this to be deliberate and there is significant historical precedent for such infiltrations.
Right now the media is in a frenzy about the Syrian bombing campaign and the toll it's taking on civilians. Even the Qatari-owned Al Jazeera is in on board with the project as they too have a stake in seeing Assad fall from power. Where to turn for news? The options are growing slim. Certain outlets are good for reporting on certain specific issues. That's about the best that can be hoped for at this point in time.
Truth demands that Assad must be viewed in light of recent Middle Eastern warfare. The Assads are hardly noble rulers but their removal from power in the colonialist-contrived fiction that is modern Syria will lead to bloodbath, probably genocide, an even worse refugee crisis and yet another society rent asunder. Like Iraq and Libya it will become the breeding ground for even further atrocity, radicalism and bestial behaviour.
We are being castigated by the talking heads, the entertainers masquerading as journalists and the paid advocates for the Corporatocracy that appear as diplomats. We are sitting by (they charge) as yet another atrocity unfolds in Syria.
Maybe, but one can't help but be suspicious when one considers how silent they are when it comes to Yemen, Gaza and Libya. And that's just in the Middle East. What about the Congo? Does anyone care? Why not? Racism may play a part but that hardly explains it. What about Latin America?
And of course we're only speaking of and hinting at what has happened in just the past few years. The media cares nothing for the dozens and hundreds that die in these places. Apart from some occasional crocodile tears and attempts to shift blame, the so-called liberal media supports these actions.
And yet if we're to inquire as to US participation in and support of atrocity over the past 10, 20 or 50 years... the tally becomes somewhat overwhelming.
One example will suffice. During the 1970s through the 1990s the Turkish government waged a brutal campaign against the Kurds who live in the Southeast of the country. There were massacres and tens of thousands died. Were there Western media pleas to world opinion, to the UN Security Council? Were there cries regarding atrocities and reminders of the world turning a blind eye yet once again?
There were a few, but the voices were paltry in the countries of the NATO alliance of which Turkey is a member. And those voices were virtually non-existent in the United States apart from a few intrepid journalists who tried to get the word out. The Corporate owned and controlled media toed the Washington line as they always do. The Turks were given diplomatic and media cover as they slaughtered tens of thousands of Kurds. If the Kurds fought back, which they certainly did and killed Turks... that on occasion made the news.
We could also point to countless examples in Latin America and Africa. Under US-backed military dictatorships in South Korea, Indonesia and elsewhere, great atrocities took place, fully blessed by Washington and its crony media. There were no cries of barbarism let alone charges of war crimes.
And yet we're to trust this same media that gave us Tonkin, incubator babies and WMD's, the same media that ignored atrocities and war crimes when it suited US foreign policy?
I think not. We're being spun once again. Yes, people are dying in Syria. Yes, the government in Damascus seeks its own survival as do all governments faced with a violent overthrow. Woe to those who take up arms. They bring death upon all.
The Assad government is brutal and has always been authoritarian but as I and many others have pointed out on other occasions... Syria is a contrivance, born of Sykes-Picot, the 1916 Anglo-French plan to carve up the Middle East. This agreement, perhaps one of the great war crimes of the 20th century was meant to divide and conquer, to feast on the carcass of the Ottoman Empire. Its divisions suited the Western powers but also helped set the stage for decades of warfare and strife. Syria, a nation that is no nation can only be held together by an authoritarian government. That's how it has always been since it was created. True democracy will generate partition and probably genocide, or at the very least large-scale ethnic cleansing. The repercussions will reverberate across the region.
The US and its allies have no interest in democracy or any form of Western liberalism when it comes to Syria. That's not what this is about and never has been. It's about control, it's about capturing a vital space on the gameboard coupled with the hope of taking out some key pieces and positions of the enemy players.
The tears shed by Western media intellectuals are insincere and pretentious theatre. They don't care anything about the people of Syria. They certainly didn't about Iraq, Libya or Vietnam. These disingenuous concerns for the lives of the populace are little more than pretence to score diplomatic moves against their foes. They are but another aspect of the war plan, a tactic to bring more pressure on both enemies abroad and public dissent at home. If someone criticises the war, as I am, they can immediately be labelled a Russian stooge.
It's brilliant. One has to hand it to them. Sinister but very effective.
I remember when Leonid Brezhnev was General Secretary of the Soviet Union. I remember when détente collapsed in 1979 as the US coerced the Soviets to invade Afghanistan and prop up the newly formed communist state. And of course I remember the years of crisis when Reagan became president and the Cold War almost grew hot. At the time it seemed impossible to imagine the Cold War's conclusion and yet before the decade passed, it was over.
Are we in the early stages of a new Cold War? That's one way to look at it and yet clearly the conflict is not ideological, not a clash of systems vying for control of history's narrative. And yet many would argue the Cold War paradigm was also somewhat contrived and false. There are different ways to look at it. One perspective argues that it never was about Internationalist Communism contesting Democratic Capitalism. Rather it was a clash of empires between nations that weren't really communist and nations that weren't really democratic.
This new Cold War is in reality another clash of empires and yet more complex, more volatile and in some sense with higher stakes. The US, an empire in crisis, must win to survive. Winning is mastery of the world. And yet the other nations in contention with the United States.... for the moment Russia, Iran and China are not seeking mastery of the world but regional autonomy and spheres of historical influence. Their failure will certainly mean the collapse of regimes... though not necessarily of nations. They have much to lose but for the US, this conflict is existential. Depending on one's read of the American system and society, some would argue the United States itself has become volatile and a collapse of the global project will likely lead to implosion, economic and social ruin.
These nations have to realise what kind of enemy they have in the United States. Its people are decadent and weak but still dangerous and fantastically wealthy... no small thing when it comes to technological warfare. Its leadership is growing desperate and dangerous.
I grew up during the latter phase of the Cold War and in middle age I'm watching the next chapter unfold...a story that began on a November night in Berlin back in 1989. It has taken almost thirty years to reach the breaking point and evolve into a serious crisis. Will I live to see the end of this next conflict, this next Cold War?
I could be wrong and for the sake of humanity I hope I am but it doesn't seem likely the fast-paced technological world of today will be able to sustain a relative stasis and balanced tension for decades as was possible in the 20th century.
The irony is perhaps greatest when one considers that for all the years the world was threatened by the prospect of great powers war and possible nuclear war... we are now closer than ever, rapidly approaching the crisis of 1962. During the 1990's there was tangible relief, the threat was gone. Others didn't believe this was the case and feared a resurgent Russia that would revive the threat. Russia has picked itself up and yet Putin's Russia is but a shadow when compared to the power and influence Moscow wielded during the Soviet era. The threat of nuclear conflict is real but the trajectory leading toward it is being fueled by Washington's almost fanatical drive for war.
Even so come Lord Jesus