Who actually rules US foreign policy?
Here's a handful of crackpot conspiracy theories for breakfast. Let's see if something sticks, and helps your digestion. See, for the last few weeks US secretary of state Kerry has toured nearly half the world, doing his best not to lag behind his Russian counterpart Lavrov, pushing hard for a ceasefire in Earth's current hottest spot, Syria. Several times he has said in the media he was doing this on Obama's bidding, which is natural. The former is the latter's employee, after all. Indeed, the Nobel peace prize laureate did need some tangible peace-related success at the end of his term, especially after the debacles in Beijing and Manila. He also needed a "see? we're the good cop, but Russia is blocking us cos they're sobad" sort of narrative, for propaganda purposes.
Problem is, the peace he seemed to be pushing so hard for, got instantly shot in the leg, and not by his presumed foe Putin, but by factors dwelling back home. Just two days after the much heralded ceasefire was proclaimed, the US-led coalition hit Syrian positions from the sky, killing scores of Syrian troops (Russia massacred UN aid workers shortly thereafter, which is even more deplorable - although Putin's own transgressions are a whole separate story on its own). The issue here are those positions that the US bombed. The positions were not ISIS. They were Assad. Contrary to what they'd tell you on the media, there can't have been much confusion about their identity. Assad's positions were well known, as were ISIS positions at the time. They could be clearly recognized from the sky.
Logically, the question arose, what is ISIS in relation to the US. Foe? Friend? What is it? And why would the US ultimately want to give ISIS a breath of fresh air by hitting the troops that were directly fighting them on the field? (As opposed to distantionally, from the sky, as the US usually fights). Don't the series of deadly terror attacks at both sides of the Atlantic mean anything? If they do, why would a US operation want to aid ISIS while claiming to fight ISIS? And even more importantly, who's really running the US military?
Many would shoot the answer straight away: why, the POTUS of course! Who else. He's got the nuke codes, remember? I don't know... He may well have the red button in his briefcase, but with his latest actions in the Middle East he hasn't shown that he really controls the military. Let's hope his nuclear briefcase doesn't actually contain only Michelle's bikini or something. But one can't help but wonder. When a ceasefire that Obama has pushed for, gets compromised by the very military he's supposed to control, the question tends to stick out. Mistake? They say it was by mistake. Shit happens in a war. Stuff like that. Please. You're not bombing camels and turbans hidden in a cave.
Mind you, that's by far not the first such occasion in US history. Remember JFK's fate, who dared tread across the business interests of the military industry when he signed a long-term agreement with Khrushchev and brought the world from a state of almost-WW3 to almost-friendly relations? He paid for that impudence with his life (presumably, the motivations were different). His brother was killed shortly thereafter as well, when it became evident he intended to follow in his bro's footsteps in terms of international policy. Sure, some would remind me these were just the acts of some crazy madmen, but I remain unconvinced: you'd have to explain to me how a madman would be allowed access and a clean shot at the most heavily guarded man in the land.
We should note, in all fairness, that the hawks in Moscow were just as mad at Khrushchev for his part in that peace deal, too. Of course, his fate and that of his family wasn't as tragic as Kennedy's, but he did have his own drama as well.
Another relatively decent US president also went through a lot of trouble, Bill Clinton. It was due to his stubborn reluctance to intervene with the military in Yugoslavia. After all, it had been less than two years since he had declared Milosevic America's pal at Camp David. And who was he supposed to back against Milosevic, the quasi-criminal hordes of the Kosovo "freedom fighters"? Please. Everyone within a thousand miles of Kosovo knew full well they'd turn the place into a drug-, human-, and arms-trafficking heaven. Which is exactly what they've done since. But Clinton was compelled to fall in line soon, when some intern suddenly popped up out of nowhere with some sperm on her dress, claiming it was Bill's (from two years before, btw). Conveniently, Clinton was engulfed in an impeachment scandal. He was clearly shown who's supposed to be running the state, and the military by extension. So he duly attacked his former buddy Milosevic. The war in Yugoslavia became fact, and the impeachment procedure was promptly dropped. The US senate decided by a landslide vote that a blowjob does not constitute sexual intercourse because, you know, you can't get pregnant from it. End of story.
The next president, Bush Jr, doesn't even need much comment. Soon after his election, he completely got into the paws of the hawks at Arlington. I don't know if you'd call me a Truther or not, and frankly I don't care what other labels you'd come up with for me - but this story has been rehashed too many times already. A handful of passenger planes are simultaneously taken control of by wannabe martyrs with knives? Whoever thinks taking over a plane is that easy must have watched way too many action movies. And whoever thinks all the US intelligence services had completely slept through the whole thing must have lived on another planet all that time. Please. Stop insulting people's intelligence.
An even greater insult to people's brains is the fable about Saddam's WMDs that the CIA, MI-6 and the likes crafted for the gullible CNN-watching, popcorn-munching, NFL-obsessed public. Whether through a deliberate lie or incompetence and naivity, Bush Jr did play by the hawks' tune, and he swiftly turned a previously stable and well-arranged (albeit typically authocratic) state to rubble. Along with the most potent economy in the Fertile Crescent, and all traces of ancient human civilization that it hosted. The pattern is well-known indeed. It's so old, I'm not sure even the first alphabets were invented at the time it was first introduced. Some barbarians who happen to have lots of muscle and arms at their disposal come in, they sack everything, leaving no stone standing behind. Then they leave - the more polite among them deigning a single "oops!"
Today, the pattern is quite the same in Syria. The fact that the peace efforts of the current POTUS were turned into laughing stock by America's true masters is one thing. In order to keep the greenback print press going full speed, you need the economic wheel to keep turning - and what better way to sustain the momentum than spreading more expensive bombs, and tons of fear and death to sustain their sales?
Some might remember a period when lots of Deutschmark were being printed just like that, out of thin air. And lots of bombs and planes were being produced, "just to keep us safe" - and then expended for the sake of more production of bombs and planes. They might also remember what followed a bit later. Somehow, I get the feeling we're walking the same road now - although there's this faint hope we should've learned from past lessons, and things will be different this time around. But that hope is fading.
Let's face it. There's no way things could be different this time around. They can't be different, given the fact that we've again got a power-hungry global hegemon, and a bunch of other regional players who also want a piece of the cake, and would stop at nothing to chop it off for themselves. The trouble starts when the balance is tipped away from the hegemon at some point, and the hegemon starts feeling really threatened. It's where the big turmoil begins. That point may be fast approaching.
The US has missed their chance to be a benevolent winner, and rule the world through the ideas of the Founding Fathers. Now those Fathers must be turning in their graves at the sight of what their country has become, and much of the world by extension. Their ideals, albeit ganked from the likes of true paragons of modern free civilization like Rousseau and Voltaire, lie trampled in the dirt. The only thing passing above is the boots of troops, and warplanes. Ya hear the drums already?
Problem is, the peace he seemed to be pushing so hard for, got instantly shot in the leg, and not by his presumed foe Putin, but by factors dwelling back home. Just two days after the much heralded ceasefire was proclaimed, the US-led coalition hit Syrian positions from the sky, killing scores of Syrian troops (Russia massacred UN aid workers shortly thereafter, which is even more deplorable - although Putin's own transgressions are a whole separate story on its own). The issue here are those positions that the US bombed. The positions were not ISIS. They were Assad. Contrary to what they'd tell you on the media, there can't have been much confusion about their identity. Assad's positions were well known, as were ISIS positions at the time. They could be clearly recognized from the sky.
Logically, the question arose, what is ISIS in relation to the US. Foe? Friend? What is it? And why would the US ultimately want to give ISIS a breath of fresh air by hitting the troops that were directly fighting them on the field? (As opposed to distantionally, from the sky, as the US usually fights). Don't the series of deadly terror attacks at both sides of the Atlantic mean anything? If they do, why would a US operation want to aid ISIS while claiming to fight ISIS? And even more importantly, who's really running the US military?
Many would shoot the answer straight away: why, the POTUS of course! Who else. He's got the nuke codes, remember? I don't know... He may well have the red button in his briefcase, but with his latest actions in the Middle East he hasn't shown that he really controls the military. Let's hope his nuclear briefcase doesn't actually contain only Michelle's bikini or something. But one can't help but wonder. When a ceasefire that Obama has pushed for, gets compromised by the very military he's supposed to control, the question tends to stick out. Mistake? They say it was by mistake. Shit happens in a war. Stuff like that. Please. You're not bombing camels and turbans hidden in a cave.
Mind you, that's by far not the first such occasion in US history. Remember JFK's fate, who dared tread across the business interests of the military industry when he signed a long-term agreement with Khrushchev and brought the world from a state of almost-WW3 to almost-friendly relations? He paid for that impudence with his life (presumably, the motivations were different). His brother was killed shortly thereafter as well, when it became evident he intended to follow in his bro's footsteps in terms of international policy. Sure, some would remind me these were just the acts of some crazy madmen, but I remain unconvinced: you'd have to explain to me how a madman would be allowed access and a clean shot at the most heavily guarded man in the land.
We should note, in all fairness, that the hawks in Moscow were just as mad at Khrushchev for his part in that peace deal, too. Of course, his fate and that of his family wasn't as tragic as Kennedy's, but he did have his own drama as well.
Another relatively decent US president also went through a lot of trouble, Bill Clinton. It was due to his stubborn reluctance to intervene with the military in Yugoslavia. After all, it had been less than two years since he had declared Milosevic America's pal at Camp David. And who was he supposed to back against Milosevic, the quasi-criminal hordes of the Kosovo "freedom fighters"? Please. Everyone within a thousand miles of Kosovo knew full well they'd turn the place into a drug-, human-, and arms-trafficking heaven. Which is exactly what they've done since. But Clinton was compelled to fall in line soon, when some intern suddenly popped up out of nowhere with some sperm on her dress, claiming it was Bill's (from two years before, btw). Conveniently, Clinton was engulfed in an impeachment scandal. He was clearly shown who's supposed to be running the state, and the military by extension. So he duly attacked his former buddy Milosevic. The war in Yugoslavia became fact, and the impeachment procedure was promptly dropped. The US senate decided by a landslide vote that a blowjob does not constitute sexual intercourse because, you know, you can't get pregnant from it. End of story.
The next president, Bush Jr, doesn't even need much comment. Soon after his election, he completely got into the paws of the hawks at Arlington. I don't know if you'd call me a Truther or not, and frankly I don't care what other labels you'd come up with for me - but this story has been rehashed too many times already. A handful of passenger planes are simultaneously taken control of by wannabe martyrs with knives? Whoever thinks taking over a plane is that easy must have watched way too many action movies. And whoever thinks all the US intelligence services had completely slept through the whole thing must have lived on another planet all that time. Please. Stop insulting people's intelligence.
An even greater insult to people's brains is the fable about Saddam's WMDs that the CIA, MI-6 and the likes crafted for the gullible CNN-watching, popcorn-munching, NFL-obsessed public. Whether through a deliberate lie or incompetence and naivity, Bush Jr did play by the hawks' tune, and he swiftly turned a previously stable and well-arranged (albeit typically authocratic) state to rubble. Along with the most potent economy in the Fertile Crescent, and all traces of ancient human civilization that it hosted. The pattern is well-known indeed. It's so old, I'm not sure even the first alphabets were invented at the time it was first introduced. Some barbarians who happen to have lots of muscle and arms at their disposal come in, they sack everything, leaving no stone standing behind. Then they leave - the more polite among them deigning a single "oops!"
Today, the pattern is quite the same in Syria. The fact that the peace efforts of the current POTUS were turned into laughing stock by America's true masters is one thing. In order to keep the greenback print press going full speed, you need the economic wheel to keep turning - and what better way to sustain the momentum than spreading more expensive bombs, and tons of fear and death to sustain their sales?
Some might remember a period when lots of Deutschmark were being printed just like that, out of thin air. And lots of bombs and planes were being produced, "just to keep us safe" - and then expended for the sake of more production of bombs and planes. They might also remember what followed a bit later. Somehow, I get the feeling we're walking the same road now - although there's this faint hope we should've learned from past lessons, and things will be different this time around. But that hope is fading.
Let's face it. There's no way things could be different this time around. They can't be different, given the fact that we've again got a power-hungry global hegemon, and a bunch of other regional players who also want a piece of the cake, and would stop at nothing to chop it off for themselves. The trouble starts when the balance is tipped away from the hegemon at some point, and the hegemon starts feeling really threatened. It's where the big turmoil begins. That point may be fast approaching.
The US has missed their chance to be a benevolent winner, and rule the world through the ideas of the Founding Fathers. Now those Fathers must be turning in their graves at the sight of what their country has become, and much of the world by extension. Their ideals, albeit ganked from the likes of true paragons of modern free civilization like Rousseau and Voltaire, lie trampled in the dirt. The only thing passing above is the boots of troops, and warplanes. Ya hear the drums already?