Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

September 5, 2014
Obama Administration (Re-)Starts Marketing Campaign For Bombing Syria

September 2002: TRACES OF TERROR: THE STRATEGY; Bush Aides Set Strategy to Sell Policy on Iraq

White House officials said today that the administration was following a meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein.
…
"From a marketing point of view," said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff who is coordinating the effort, "you don't introduce new products in August."

It is September 2014 and we are past the summer and past Labor Day. Time to roll out the (old) new product:

United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power says the United States is concerned that the most dangerous terrorist groups could get a hold of chemical weapons if Syria is hiding any stockpiles.

We know of course that Syria has disposed of all its chemical weapons and that these were destroyed under the eyes of the OPCW. But Iraq had also disposed of all its WMD and that it has none left was in fact one reason why it could be and was easily attacked.

So is Obama is doubling down (again) on Syria? Hoping that the mystical "Free Syrian Army" (Jihadis in disguise) heavily supports by the U.S. will fight the Islamic State and the Syrian government?

The chronic warmonger Juan Cole is already searching for flimsy legal excuses, using the false pretense of fighting ISIS, to bomb whatever in sovereign Syria even without a UN Security Council resolution. Maybe Syria should invite the Russian air force to help against ISIS. A few Russian jets in Damascus would likely  keep despicable nuts like Juan Cole away.

The new big international enemy is the Islamic State which is fighting the Syrian government. It would likely replace it should the government fall. But the Obama administration is not willing to draw the consequences and to ally with the Syrian army. It still wants to dispose the Syrian government under president Assad. It hopes that more weapons given to its mystic "moderate rebels" will somehow enable those to win.

But for that they will need at least additional air support and to enable such some "legal" reasoning -  ISIS, Al-Qaeda, WMD – must be found and marketed to the war tired public.

Posted by b on September 5, 2014 at 12:37 UTC | Permalink
Comments

creating monsters in the pages of the new york times has become such a by-the-numbers exercise by now, the purveyors of war hardly seem to take themselves seriously any longer. the neos are slicing the bread a bit thin, though, creating two worse-than-hitler bogeymen at the same time! how will freedom and our way of life endure two simultaneous existential threats? prepare to be amazed…

Posted by: Hugo First | Sep 5 2014 13:05 utc | 1

Twitter gulf propagandist @hxhassan has also been working really hard for the last weeks to make the case for bombing in Syria, against IS … but if it is against Syrian forces much better.
I sense desperation in UK/US/Gulf/Jihadist Central. For some weird reason they can’t understand the world isn’t taking very well their ‘accomplishments’ in Iraq and Syria (or Libya for the matter but at least there they are still not publicly making their Jihadist case worse with genocide and gruesome videos).

Posted by: ThePaper | Sep 5 2014 13:16 utc | 2

And by ‘moderate Syrian rebels’ they mean Jabrat Al Nusra, which comes originally from a Syrian split from ISIS and it’s an Al Qaeda network member. So basically ‘moderates’ mean IS/ISIS with better marketing. All those Jihadists don’t really care about the group name, they are moving from one franchise to the next when the conditions (weapons, money, spoils) in the new one are better.

Posted by: ThePaper | Sep 5 2014 13:20 utc | 3

“Marketing” is more apt than any of the actors actually realize. Marketing does not require any real functional item for delivery that may suit the purpose for which it was advertized.
The US executive is primarily a marketing minded entity from the campaign to get elected to promoting its empty policies. The fact that they were elected is proof of marketing success. It is not proof that what they have to sell and deliver is anything other than shit. They really should be more careful about criticizing others for not making things as all they have done is tell you about the wonders of the vaporware.
It also means they have no idea of the truthfulness or of the functionality/purpose of what they are pushing. They are just marketers.
Then there are the carpet baggers..,

Posted by: YY | Sep 5 2014 13:53 utc | 4

YY, under recontruction in the south, you had your carpet baggers and your scalawags – I think The US executive is primarily a marketing minded entity means they’re scalawags.

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 5 2014 14:26 utc | 5

You bring up a good point. A few Russian jets may get Obama and Cameron to think twice before starting a bombing campaign. So, if this would really be deterrent, how come it hasn’t happened yet, or are the Russians trying hard not to get too entangled like in Ukraine.
I would at least expect Russia, if it is really serious about saving Syria, would give syria more advanced weapons and better monitoring. Finally, I keep wondering why are the Syrians reaching out for western help to fight ISIS and not asking the Russians to do the job.

Posted by: Brad a | Sep 5 2014 14:52 utc | 6

Israel and her State Dept. sayanim want the legally elected Assad gone. Previous bluff and bluster will not allow President Redline to help Syrian military in her fight against ISIS, although that would be a wise choice. (Not too many coming from these idiots these days). I expect some US/Israeli “accidental” bombing of SAA military installations shortly. How nice if ISIS is just a tool of the US and regional allies (evidence does point to that): The amorphous, self-sustaining “terror threat” that can be whatever Washington and her poodles want it to be, though never slipping the leash and attacking/harming KSA, Israel or other GCC pukes. Terrorists in control of Iraq and Syria will let the US do whatever the hell she wants with regards to oil pipelines, as well as continue to justify the Israeli cash cow.
One day Israel is treating the wounded at their hospitals, the next day, she is “alarmed” they could be in the Golan. She is like a spoiled whore lying and spreading her legs to friends and enemies alike just to get what she wants.
Brad a @6 I’m with you: Why is Assad not asking for Russian assistance and instead asking the gaggle of jerkoffs that were threatening him for three years? Russia could use the ISIS threat the other day about wanting to “de-throne” Putin as a justification to take some overt action in Syria, sort of a “we must fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over there” US and A warrior jingo song. Syria SHOULD have the latest and greatest air defense systems to protect themselves.
If I’ve learned one thing here with the warmongering of the West’s Kunts, Klowns and Killers is that they almost never fail to make a bad situation worse.

Posted by: Farflungstar | Sep 5 2014 15:37 utc | 7

should be we must fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over “here”

Posted by: Farflungstar | Sep 5 2014 15:43 utc | 8

I keep wondering why are the Syrians reaching out for western help to fight ISIS and not asking the Russians to do the job.
Obviously reason – if the “west” would agree to help the Assad government against ISIS it would have to stop its other actions like financing, training and weaponizing the FSA against Assad.
Syria obviously wants “western” help so it can end the “western” war on itself.

Posted by: b | Sep 5 2014 15:45 utc | 9

“Obama Administration (Re-)Starts Marketing Campaign For Bombing Syria
There is no ‘restart’ to this marketing campaign because it never ended
The chemical weapon meme never went away, it would just shift around
The Ceasar saga also carried on
The Obama administration like any US admin always kept it’s options open

Posted by: Penny | Sep 5 2014 16:02 utc | 10

@9 and @7
I can understand the logic of sucking up to the west b so they might stop their war but, experience and history shows this would never happen. Western countries are famous for demanding full submission at any cost even if they are staring at another 9/11. As you read today, the idiot Hollande is stating he would fight ISIS in Iraq but not syria, shows you how far these fools would go to not lose face admitting they screwed up.
I keep,wondering how sincere is Putin in his stand on Syria. Soon he may have to fight ISIS on his front door but he is still dragging his heels n properly arming the Syrians and his help seems limited.

Posted by: Brad a | Sep 5 2014 16:11 utc | 11

It goes against every fibre of my being to believe that they are not up to something – given their efforts to destroy Syria over the last 3 years.
It is only the reassurance of wise heads in Tehran and Moscow that puts me at some ease. The apparent cooperation between the US and Iran in Iraq also gives me optimism that a greater evil is uniting old foes. But I am not convinced.
Northern Syria is now riddled with IS. Surely bombing a few targets in Syria’s East is only likely to move a greater number of targets deeper into Syria and mobilise its supporters. And who will they have to fight back against? I guess that’s Assad’s problem then.
And being seen to be in bed with the great Satan – that’ll sharpen the ire of IS. I suppose a ground offensive could supplement airstrikes. $500 million weapon drops for the ‘moderates’ anyone?

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Sep 5 2014 16:45 utc | 12

“So is Obama is doubling down (again) on Syria? Hoping that the mystical “Free Syrian Army” (Jihadis in disguise) heavily supports by the U.S. will fight the Islamic State and the Syrian government?”
I doubt that Obama or NATO have the stomach (or the Balls) to risk launching a military assault on Syria while Vlad’s flotilla is nearby. US-NATO only attack pissy little countries with poor defenses – and they do so from a safe distance. With Russia on stand-by, Syria isn’t a pissy little country and there’s NO place on earth from which Syria can be attacked that is a safe distance from Russia’s arsenal.
The Yankees are snookered but, having started another bluster-fest, they probably feel that they can’t stop now. This is good for Putin. He knows what delicate little Pansies & Petunias US-NATO really are. And every day the impotent bluster-fest continues US-NATO loses a few tens of thousands more (fair weather) friends, globally. If his “all talk and no action” policy on Syria isn’t embarrassing Obama & Friends yet, it soon will be.
I’m just waiting for Obama to start whining about brinkmanship…

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 5 2014 17:45 utc | 13

“…Obviously reason – if the “west” would agree to help the Assad government against ISIS it would have to stop its other actions like financing, training and weaponizing the FSA against Assad Syria obviously wants “western” help so it can end the “western” war on itself.”
Posted by: b | Sep 5, 2014 11:45:43 AM | 9
Exactly. But the best chance to defeat ISIL is for Syria and the US to hold each others noses and work together. Syria can provide the ground troops that the west and it allies do not want to put on the ground. But we at MOA know the Saudis, Qatar, Turkey, US and company do not want to destroy the Al Qaeda 2.0 terror apparatus they created. Assad not stupid he knows who to target right now and it ain’t ISIL at the moment, he has bigger fish to fry. This article sheds light…
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/syria-us-islamic-state-cooperation-terror-assad-italy.html

Posted by: really | Sep 5 2014 18:00 utc | 14

I read Juan Cole, and regularly do.
I think you are misreading what he is writing and hoping that you are not basing your conclusion on the just the article title. After all, it’s an unwritten law that any headline phrased in the form of a question is answerable with “no.”
That piece seems to be discussing how flimsy the case could be made. I think Obama is going to go for it regardless.
As for ISIS, I think they are here to stay no matter if the USA and Syria have a reproachment of convenience.

Posted by: P Walker | Sep 5 2014 18:23 utc | 15

obama is full of shit.. lets call a spade a spade.. his gov’t, (or is it the alliance of saudi arabia, israel, qatar and the us?) want to overthrow assad.. they were stalemated a year ago, so they have to try a different tack.. in the last year IS has become the new threat – that these same countries have covertly funded) and now stupid planet are supposed to believe that the knight in shining armour is going to ride to the rescue and get rid of them coincidentally on syrian soil.. if you believe any of this bs – there isn’t any hope for you..
as for assad asking for the west’s help – i think this is a smart move on assad’s part, as he knows these liars will not go along with that, as he knows what their obvious game plan is.. for anyone paying attention they can be seen for the liars they are…
meanwhile how is it working out dividing up iraq thanks to this same mercenary group and it’s financial backers?

Posted by: james | Sep 5 2014 18:39 utc | 16

Posted by: james | Sep 5, 2014 2:39:25 PM | 16
Thank You, the only thing did Assad ask for help or did Amerika volunteer help and also said they didn’t need Syria permission to attack isis on Syrian soil. I do believe the Assad answer was fly over Syria without permission is an act of war.
Amerikas neo-con don’t go away just a change tactics like Oh look bad guys at the broader. Then last time most citizens in Amerika didn’t want to attack Syria but now with the show time beheading everything has changed as the corp. media noise machine winds up the BS.
Thanks b for the links same crap but a different day and Amerikas sheeple fall in line.

Posted by: jo6pac | Sep 5 2014 19:08 utc | 17

7;Concur explicitly with your anger,but Russian involvement?Since the Bosporus and Dardanales? are Turkish Nato controlled,how does Russia get there?Someone mentioned a flotilla,but in event of hostilities,how does it get resupplied or home?Some type of treaty with Turkey?Of course,the Turks would have to choose an enemy near or an enemy far(US),but given our perfidy and their history with Russia,I’d think they rather be more conciliatory to Russia,but then there is the EU membership thing,Very weird.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 5 2014 19:17 utc | 18

@17 jo6pac.. it would make no sense that the usa would respect international law when it comes to syria.. they are an exceptional country! the rules aren’t supposed to apply to them, in spite of the histrionics displayed by bozos like s powers, and etc. etc. in the face of having any of this pointed out to them..

Posted by: james | Sep 5 2014 19:21 utc | 19

“chronic warmonger Juan Cole”
Shit like this makes me think you have early-onset dementia.
And then you top it all off with a dollop of contradiction that the US must collaborate with Assad to stomp ISIS.
Predictably, the US will eventually offer itself as the only solution to problems the US has created. Now

Posted by: slothrop | Sep 5 2014 19:28 utc | 20

As I wanted to say: Now… is a good time for !Eurocorps! to lift up its hems and muck around a bit in the mud.

Posted by: slothrop | Sep 5 2014 19:48 utc | 21

Here’s what Billmon1 suggests that Congress use for legal authorization

Posted by: ess emm | Sep 5 2014 20:30 utc | 22

Juan Cole ‘warmonger’. lol.
If the ICC were granted plenary power and the US was sanctioned officially for vetoes on war crimes, this nonsense would just go away.
Countries truly fear UN deliberations and not just because they seem prejudiced against the power of our democratic ideals.
As Wesley Clark opined in 2005 there is much evidence there has been a war plan for more than 10 years with Syria and Iran as primary targets after Iraq and Assghanistan have been contained.

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Sep 5 2014 20:36 utc | 23

slothrop @ 20: Juan Cole is an apologist for the U.S.-peddled imperial narrative on Syria and Iraq. With regards to Syria that narrative reads that Assad clings to power by ruthlessly crushing peaceful dissent with poison gas; in terms of Iraq, it was that Maliki created ISIS because he was insufficiently generous in doling out patronage to Sunnis.
Here are two quotes from Cole’s June article on TomDispatch, “The Arab Millennials Will Be Back: Three Ways the Youth Rebellions Are Still Shaping the Middle East“:

Because of those youth revolutions, Hafez al-Assad of Syria was the sole republican monarch who passed his country on to his son — and even then, Bashar has been able to cling to power in just half of his country and only by resorting to atrocities so extensive that they amount to crimes against humanity.
Early in 2013, Maliki’s troops shot down Sunni demonstrators coming to Fallujah, which led to further youth protests and demands for accountability for those deaths. The government responded with more force. Had Maliki accommodated the demands of those demonstrators, in both Sunni and Shiite areas, he might have been able to forge new forms of national unity. Instead, by crushing the civil youth movements, he left the door open to the radical insurgents of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Cole achieved some mainstream notoriety as a critic of the Bush-Cheney 2003 Iraq invasion. But he is no anti-imperialist. He is firmly in the liberal warhawk Samantha Power R2P camp. In other words, he is sanctimonious hypocrite and a coward.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Sep 5 2014 20:42 utc | 24

@ 19 James I agree but was wondering how the timing of the spoken word went down that’s all. Amerika respects no international lay no matter the country. That’s just your history shameful as it is.

Posted by: jo6pac | Sep 5 2014 20:47 utc | 25

@24
There is a lot of political correctness going on. Craig Murray had to delete an entire post because someone linked and commented on untoward websites that seem anti-semitic. It’s very easy to be a purist; difficult to negotiate those dead-falls and land-mines created for the purpose of disunity. I would be cautious about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Sep 5 2014 20:50 utc | 26

Ben Franklin, I don’t think I was being a purist. There is no baby in the Juan Cole bathwater. With Syria it is a very clear case of “Which side are you on?” In fact, it is about as cut and tried a case as one can find nowadays. And Juan Cole is on the wrong side.
As for Maliki, to give you an example of my bonafides, I did think he had to go, and I said as much, predicting that he wouldn’t survive as prime minister because his leadership was predicated on unanimity in the Shiite bloc, something that didn’t exist.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Sep 5 2014 21:27 utc | 27

MikeM; I guess if I’m still learning to check ALL my sources with a background curry-comb, I’m not dead yet. I am tired of agendas driven and maybe that fatigue is showing. I see now that the scales have lifted.

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Sep 5 2014 22:02 utc | 28

really @ 14 “Syria can provide the ground troops that the west and it allies do not want to put on the ground”
The west and it’s allies don’t need to “put boots on the ground”, not in the traditional sense, the boots are present and their name is ISIS

Posted by: Penny | Sep 5 2014 22:09 utc | 29

Assad should ask for russian military support in its “war against i.s.” and russia should happily send material and advisors, of course strictly for (nonetheless publicly and loudly advertised) *fightinh against i.s.*. They could just announce that they’ll help america by supporting assad in his fight against the i.s.

Posted by: radiator | Sep 5 2014 22:17 utc | 30

I think part of the problem, Ben Franklin, is that there are always innocent, sincere actors in any movement or struggle who then get co-opted and subsequently perform the role of cutouts in the Great Powers struggle.
Get ready for what is about to go down in Hong Kong with the pro-democracy Occupy Central protests. Susan Rice is headed to Beijing to lecture the PRC about electoral democracy should look like when in the U.S. more and more states are passing restrictive voting laws.
The beef of Occupy Central activists is that a candidate for chief executive of the island has to be cleared by majority vote of a committee stacked with Beijing toadies. But how is this any different from the political process in the U.S. with the Republicans and Democrats pay to play scheme.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Sep 5 2014 22:27 utc | 31

@29 penny
Touché! You are correct.

Posted by: really | Sep 5 2014 22:32 utc | 32

@25 jo6pac. i am not sure about the timing. generally speaking IS is a good distraction from all the bs the usa is pouring towards russia. a few years ago it was regime change. now it is just another brilliant excuse to bomb syria and make it look like it isn’t about bombing syria.. same shit essentially..

Posted by: james | Sep 5 2014 22:41 utc | 33

Juan Cole is always for war before he sometimes, long after the corpses pile high, he is against it. I haven’t read him in a long time, but he should have closed up shop and joined a secluded monastery in shame after cheer-leading Iraq…. Yet his zest for red mist continued through Syria and Libya.
Despicable to be sure, but these days I just call him a definitive Democrat.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Sep 5 2014 22:54 utc | 34

so will EU sanction US?
pic.twitter.com/F44C5FohW8
Catherina @Catherina_News 6m
Gazprom to fall under new EU capital ban
‪#‎Russia‬
http://rt.com/business/185504-gazprom-sanctions-eu-ban/ …
Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Posted by: brian | Sep 6 2014 2:32 utc | 35

@34 “definitive Democrat” – you’ve hit it on the head.
What an embarrassment, these so called Democrats. The same ones I heard – and I’m talking in the community I live, at the office I work in – these same ones who were so excised over the war in Iraq and denounced every lie it took to take us there, now guzzle down whole the latest lies on Syria, Russia, Ukraine, and ISIS without even stopping to take a breath.
One actually said “well…this administration doesn’t have political reasons for going to war…” and I almost couldn’t choke back the anger. But I learned a good lesson on why Mr. Hopey Changey was such a goddamn political blessing to the war mongers – they actually think there is something “different” about him. That these two parties are actually any more different that ones left and right hands!
Its sad. Its pathetic. Its embarrassing.
Will the American people never learn?

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 6 2014 2:33 utc | 36

@12 Pat Bateman:
“The apparent cooperation between the US and Iran in Iraq”
And “apparent” is really the word, since the US clearly has no intention of actually cooperating with Iran. See this Jim White post: http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/09/04/final-push-for-p51-deal-begins-against-backdrop-of-us-working-with-anti-iran-groups/

Posted by: Louisa | Sep 6 2014 2:52 utc | 37

The plan is quite clear – all part of the “project” the neocons are working on.
ISIS is the perfect ruse to convince the American people (in so much as they’ll even try any “convincing” or congressional votes) that we must revisit the most unpopular and reviled foreign adventure this country has ever engaged in – the War in Iraq.
This is 100% theater to push forward the PNAC agenda which – in the worst case scenario – is sweep the Arab world of Israel’s enemies (especially Syria and Hezbollah), throw Russia completely out of her foreign bases and eliminate her Middle Eastern allies, and finally to open the road to Tehran – the pivot on which the SCO revolves and the last independent Middle East energy producer. From there they can foment radical Islam in Russia’s underbelly – something that would probably fracture the country – and choke off China’s future growth.
But this is a pipe dream. Russia, China, and Iran know they are in the crosshairs – the same goes for Brazil and the ALBA countries. These countries must make themselves resistant to internal dissention without being repressive – and they are doing this in forming citizens militias (Syria and Venezuela are leading the way on this, but Russia is building organizations to strengthen their society and prevent internal strife as well). These nations must secure their economies from western interference, and they are – Russia, China, Brazil and India are all building their gold holdings and reducing debt. These countries must provide and alternative to the developing world and they are – the BRICS bank is the best example. And these countries must reach out to the publics of the first world, the majority of whom know they are suffering austerity and inequality not seen in nearly a century – and they are, with things like RT, PressTV (though they must do more to reach out to people here).
The world is splitting into two big camps. And fortunately for the world, the vast majority of the people of this world want to see a multipolar world, know that the biggest threats to world peace and prosperity is the United States and her puppets.
Russia knows they are at war. China does too and has maintained its allies in the developing world.
In my opinion, the world is at war – on one side the oligarchs of the west, on the other – the whole world. Most have only yet to realize it.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 6 2014 2:56 utc | 38

“…Its sad. Its pathetic. Its embarrassing.
Will the American people never learn? …”
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 5, 2014 10:33:19 PM | 36
Americans won’t learn until they have white phosphorus raining down on them, like those far away lands and inhabitants that their leaders destroy for geo-political sporting fun.
What I am saying is, it will have to take a nuclear war for them to learn that their “(s)elected” officials are warmongering,egomaniacal, psychopaths and cold hearted killers, while the missles are in the air, they will then experience a few moments of political clarity right before incineration.

Posted by: really | Sep 6 2014 3:02 utc | 39

beheading by a italian jew…
the madness of religion ..some jewish rabbis are as bad as some muslim imams
‘Leonelli had been an atheist when the pair worked together in the IT sector a decade ago, although had recently discovered his Jewish heritage and immersed himself in religious texts.
“He started to study the Torah, the Talmud and once he stopped to speak about the Old Testament with me.
“Then he searched on the internet and saw dozens and dozens of videos. At night he watched films by rabbis at full volume which informed him of what was happening in the Gaza strip,” Ciallella said.
Leonelli had twice been denied a visa to travel to Israel and wanted to take the issue up with the consulate in Rome, to “sign up at any cost”, his host added.’
http://www.thelocal.it/20140826/man-who-beheaded-maid-wanted-to-fight-hamas

Posted by: brian | Sep 6 2014 5:42 utc | 40

@24
this is embarrassing:
n, Bashar has been able to cling to power in just half of his country and only by resorting to atrocities so extensive that they amount to crimes against humanity’
esp by an academic!
‘atrocities so extensive that they amount to crimes against humanity’
whayts the cutoff pt? US has never been impugned for its CAH,and they are VERY extensive!

Posted by: brian | Sep 6 2014 5:59 utc | 41

for @15
@24
this is embarrassing:
Juan:
‘ Bashar has been able to cling to power in just half of his country and only by resorting to atrocities so extensive that they amount to crimes against humanity’
clear P Walker?

Posted by: brian | Sep 6 2014 6:00 utc | 42

@6
are they?

Posted by: brian | Sep 6 2014 6:01 utc | 43

ISIS is the new Alqaeda(Mark2)

Posted by: brian | Sep 6 2014 6:03 utc | 44

If President Obama really wanted to bring down the Assad regime, he’d simply convince the Syrian government to massively increase its defense budget and pass a law banning single-payer health care.

Posted by: Cynthia | Sep 6 2014 8:36 utc | 45

Question is, who is NOT a psycho in the US, EU NATO camp? What makes them wanna kill people all the time? These are sick people.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 6 2014 8:51 utc | 46

I usually respect b’s analysis, but this is puritanically paranoid: “The chronic warmonger Juan Cole is already searching for flimsy legal excuses, using the false pretense of fighting ISIS, to bomb whatever in sovereign Syria even without a UN Security Council resolution.”
I think the core problem b has is that Cole doesn’t love Assad enough, and doesn’t hate every possible manifestation of US power sufficiently. It can’t be what Cole actually said – Cole simply looks at the international law arguments for attacking ISIS and finds that there aren’t any good ones as far as Syrian territory is concerned. Moreover, he insists that any such attack is only justifiable if it is “conducted so as to strengthen, not weaken, international legality. ISIL is lawless and brutal, and can only be countered by its opposite. Joining it in lawlessness and brutality is to surrender to it, not combat it.”
And “chronic warmonger”? Cole (and those he invites onto his site, like Tom Engelhardt) have long been critics of pretty much every aspect of America’s highly militarised foreign policy. He’s put a lot of effort into halting the drive for war on Iran, for starters, and he’s suffered at the hands of the Israel lobby – the most serious militarists in the middle East. At the same time, Cole does recognise a role for R2P in principle – and why shouldn’t he? How could anyone who remembers Rwanda dismiss the idea completely?

Posted by: Sigil | Sep 6 2014 11:16 utc | 47

Sigil
Sigh, so where are R2P in palestine for example? You speak just like cole, being a useful idiot to the warmongers in this world.
I dont even know why we are talking about this insignificant person at all here.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 6 2014 11:24 utc | 48

I think the warmonger calls to arm once again the FSA and other “moderates” in syria to combat ISIL have only one goal, which is to turn those weapons against Assad once the have supposedly help rid the world of ISIL. Assad is the target of any western weapons sent to western supported “moderates” in Syria.

Posted by: really | Sep 6 2014 11:32 utc | 49

John Walsh:
“Thus on March 19, 2003, as the imperial invasion commenced, Cole enthused on his blog: “I remain (Emphasis mine.) convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides.” Now, with over 1 million Iraqis dead, 4 million displaced and the country’s infrastructure destroyed, might Cole still echo Madeline Albright that the price was “worth it”? Cole has called the Afghan War “the right war at the right time” and has emerged as a cheerleader for Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya and for Obama himself.”
and:
“Cole is anxious to promote himself as a man of the left as he spins out his rationale for the war on Libya. At one point he says to Goodman (3/29), “We are people of the left. We care about the ordinary people. We care about workers.” It is strange that a man who claims such views dismisses as irrelevant the progress that has come to the people of Libya under Gaddafi, dictator or not. (Indeed what brought Gaddafi down was not that he was a dictator but that he was not our dictator.)”
and:
“If one reads CounterPunch.org, Antiwar.com or The American Conservative, one knows that one is reading those who are anti-interventionist on the basis of principle. With Democracy Now and kindred progressive outlets, it’s all too clear where a big chunk of the so-called “left” stands, especially since the advent of Obama.”
http://www.brussellstribunal.org/article_view.asp?id=1590#.VAru8WPXXcs

Posted by: madisolation | Sep 6 2014 11:43 utc | 50

@48
Cole has consistently condemned Israel’s indefensible treatment of the Palestinians – and copped the reprisals from AIPAC as a result. R2P, however, requires UNSC authorisation, something that there is no question of the USA allowing (thanks to AIPAC and its minions). Cole has supported everything remotely feasible, however – such as divestment, sanctions and boycotts a la South Africa.

Posted by: Sigil | Sep 6 2014 11:45 utc | 51

Sigil
Veto, exactly, so what R2p missions are to be used possibily? Only when WEST wants too, anyone is obviously against such biased proposals.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 6 2014 11:51 utc | 52

@52
Your grammar makes your meaning a bit unclear, but I think you’re saying that the need for US approval (or non-opposition, at least) means R2P will only be used to serve western interests. Since all 5 permanent UNSC members can veto it, however, it will only be on rare occasions where all 5 are in agreement that R2P can be used. It is not inherently “pro-western”.

Posted by: Sigil | Sep 6 2014 12:01 utc | 53

Juan Cole “a chronic warmonger” ???
Sure, and George Bush was a peacenik, right ?
Calling Juan Cole a “warmonger” – IMO – simply shows what “b”‘s thinks. Although I don’t agree for the full 100% with Juan Cole, he’s one of the best informed & coolheaded persons when it comes to analyzing events in the Middle East.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 6 2014 12:32 utc | 54

Sigil
R2p is a nato/US tool, anyone know that,
Willy2
Lol Great, go to his site then.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 6 2014 12:40 utc | 55

The warmongers are telling the American public on teeeveee that there won’t be any US boots in the Syrian sand…

Posted by: really | Sep 6 2014 13:24 utc | 56

@56
I found this bit from the piece interesting….
“…An especially important reason that covert action will always be considered, if not actually used, is that it is seen as a middle option, or, as Theodore Shackley, a retired intelligence officer, phrases it, “the third option to the persuasions of diplomacy and trade on the one hand and military force on the other.“[9] Such is especially attractive to heads of state, who are always afraid of appearing to be either indecisive or foolhardy, either wimps or warmongers. In this third-option perspective, one academic writes that covert action is primarily the manifestation of an output of the national security policy process. Unlike foreign intelligence, which provides input to the intelligence production process, covert action attempts to implement the policy decisions. Not every policy decision involves the use of covert actions, but covert action offers a number of diverse options for policymakers and the expectation that the action will remain covert has resulted in its use by al administrations since the inception of the CIA in 1947.[10]…”

Posted by: really | Sep 6 2014 13:52 utc | 57

Posted by: really | Sep 6, 2014 9:24:02 AM | 56
… nor will there be any bombs, rockets, bullets or missiles; only bullshit and red, or more accurately pretty pink, lines.
I just LOVE Yankee bluster. The trouble with the M-IC is that the so-called military is just as cowardly and pompous as the (mostly anonymous) 1% whose wet dreams they’re paid peanuts to conjure up.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 6 2014 14:04 utc | 58

To MM @ 31 —
Spot on about pay to play. “Responsible” opinion makers “inside the Beltway” are our own Central Committee. At least the PRC is up front about it. We do the same here as well, with signature requirements and challenges to keep real dissenters of the ballot. See Cuomo the Younger’s attempt to keep Zephyr Teachout off the Dem. primary ballot with a bogus residency challenge.
To my fellow citizens in “the belly of the beast” — Don’t forget, vote straight Republocrat this fall! Kang, Kodos, they’re all the same. (The Simpsons, “Treehouse of Horror VII”).
On the topic of intervention in Syria — If at first you don’t succeed, lie, lie, lie again. Putin put the brakes on Obama’s “red line.” I cited Rob’t. Parry over in the recent Ukraine discussion. From analysis of capabilities, who would benefit, evidence suggests its a false flag designed to enable “humanitarian intervention.” There’s also an analysis of missile trajectories (that I can’t find again) suggesting that one group of “rebels” targeted another. Two-for-one, bump off rivals and get USAF air support.
Cf. if you will the MH17 false flag. Where’s the black box, American satellite and radar, Kiev’s air traffic control chatter? Or the “Maidan Hundred” victims of Pravyi Sektor. As HugoFirst @ 1 says apropos of the NYT disinformation campaigns, another “by-the-numbers exercise.”
Is it time to switch on the telescreen for the Two Minutes Hate yet?
I share folks dislike of the R2P types. Worst of both worlds, right and left (for the record, I tilt far left myself). Pious but usually ineffective sanctimony of what the late Alexander Cockburn called “pwogwessives” combined with the ruthlessness and disregard of consequences of the neo-cons. Samantha Power — Most Pathetic UN Ambassasdor Ever! Am I right?
Wish I could remember where I saw it — neo-cons never acknowledge error, they double-down with an even more insane scheme. The underlying problem was the willful invasion of Iraq under false pretenses of WMD and supposed al-Qaeda links, not the subsequent twists and turns of Occupation. Aggravated, of course, by NATO promotion of the “Arab Spring.” “All the kings horses and all the kings men….”
I have “Informed Consent” bookmarked, I think he leans toward “truth to power,” at least in the Mid-East (I think Claud Cockburn and Rob’t Fisk do better, btw, over at “Counterpunch”). Not so on the Ukraine, where he’s firmly in the camp of received wisdom.
Last but not least, to really at 56 and hoarsewhisper at 58, on target (so to speak).

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 6 2014 15:35 utc | 59

@54 Willy2
I don’t see any other way to read Juan Cole than as warmonger. In the article b quoted Cole recommends

So if Russia and China are smart, they’d go along with a narrow anti-ISIL resolution

A “limited resolution” was how Russia and China got hoodwinked over Libya. Also note Cole favors calling ISIS by Obama’s favored ISIL.
B, the Post and Preview buttons are disabled when accessing the site via Firefox on PC.

Posted by: ess emm | Sep 6 2014 18:03 utc | 60

@55: I regularly visit Cole’s website but I disagree with the words “Chronic warmonger”. In the article “b” links to doesn’t seem to advocate any kind of war. He only investigates what’s possible to give those attacks a “legal framework”.
And besides that: A LOT OF countries don’t care about “International Law” at all. They simply persue their own interests. See the US invasion of Iraq.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 6 2014 18:09 utc | 61

@Willy2
How about this Cole quote

It is important not only that the president receive congressional authorization for a war in Syria but that any action be conducted so as to strengthen, not weaken, international legality….ISIL is lawless and brutal, and can only be countered by its opposite.

Opposite of brutal would be conflict-resolution by mediation and diplomatic negotiation, right?
But the whole article only discusses military options (UN-authorized use of force, congressional war authorization, self-defense, air strikes, R2P) which are WAR. It only speculates about legal authorization by locals (Iraqis, Kurds, Syrians), assuring us they want it. And Cole recommends that Russia and China get on-board with using military force to further their alleged national interests.
Cole isnt interested in negotiation or peace. Just blowing up people and things.

Posted by: ess emm | Sep 6 2014 18:51 utc | 62

Willy2 @ “And besides that: A LOT OF countries don’t care about “International Law” at all”.
International law is only as good as its ability to enforce it. The Iraq war was a war of aggression by the coalition of the willing led by US/UK, who when setting up the architechture of the UN, ensured that they were above International law for all time, just as the other 3 permanent members are, Of course one of those three could have supported a resolution condemning the US/UK but the US/UK would have simply vetoed it.

Posted by: harry law | Sep 6 2014 20:39 utc | 63

Le May was promoted to brigadier general on Sept. 28, 1943 and to major general on Mar. 3, 1944. Which means that he fought the last two years of the Pacific War against Japan as a general.

Posted by: lysias | Sep 6 2014 21:39 utc | 64

Just in case any of you were still in doubt Nobel Peace Laureate Henry Kissinger explains to you why Iran is a bigger problem than ISIS

On why he views Iran as a “bigger problem than ISIS”
There has come into being a kind of a Shia belt from Tehran through Baghdad to Beirut. And this gives Iran the opportunity to reconstruct the ancient Persian Empire — this time under the Shia label — in the rebuilding of the Middle East that will inevitably have to take place when the new international borders [are] drawn. Because the borders of the settlement of 1919-’20 are essentially collapsing.
That gives Iran a very powerful level from a strategic point of view. I consider Iran a bigger problem than ISIS. ISIS is a group of adventurers with a very aggressive ideology. But they have to conquer more and more territory before they can became a strategic, permanent reality. I think a conflict with ISIS — important as it is — is more manageable than a confrontation with Iran.

Posted by: Lysander | Sep 6 2014 21:55 utc | 65

@65 Although I hate Kissinger, he is right, but this was a prediction made in 2002 about the impending Iraq War. Given the U.S.’s reckless behavior, Iran’s rise to regional power status is unstoppable, and they seem to be moving into the BRICS sphere. In short order, they will be more important to the region than the U.S. There are over 75 million people with a domestic defense industry and growing relations with Russia. If they aren’t already, Iran will be a greater power than the UK or France very soon.
More importantly, Kissinger did approve of a Hillary Presidency, so hopefully this won’t sit well with Hillary’s older supporters.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Sep 6 2014 22:32 utc | 66

what happens when a media actually challenges a White House talking head?
White house press spokesperson: AP buying into Russian propaganda
“Because I said so!” US State Department spokesperson Marie Harf expressed her annoyance over the “tone” of AP reporter Matthew Lee’s question about the creation of the NATO rapid reaction force in Eastern Europe and accused him of “buying into the Russian propaganda”.
The back-and-forth between the Associated Press’s veteran journalist and Harf created sparks during Friday’s press briefing.
Lee asked the State Department’s spokeswoman if NATO’s latest decision to set up a rapid reaction force in Eastern Europe was related to events in Ukraine.
“And you don’t see that as in any way provocative?” he said.
“No, we don’t,” was Harf’s response.
The spokeswoman said the deployment of the spearhead force – approved by NATO members during a summit in Wales – comes in response to Russia’s “escalatory actions” in Ukraine and is “a defensive measure.”
At least 4,000 troops: NATO approves new E. Europe-based spearhead force
“It’s a high readiness joint task force able to deploy within a few days to challenges that arise. It will contribute to ensuring that NATO remains responsive to its alliance, capable of meeting its current challenges. Again, this is in response to escalatory action the Russians have taken. It’s a little disingenuous to say something that NATO is doing in response to Russia’s action is somehow escalatory, that NATO should just sit by while Russia sends arms, sends men, sends troops into Ukraine and say, “Oh, we’re not going to respond,” she said.
Lee noted that Ukraine is not a member of the North-Atlantic military bloc and asked if Russia had taken any “escalatory measures” against NATO members.
“So you’re setting up a rapid reaction force in response to something that you say is happening in a country…that isn’t a NATO member?” the journalist asked.
Harf argued that Ukraine “is very close to NATO.”
“NATO is committed to a Europe free, whole, and at peace, and obviously there are threats to that right now with Russia’s actions,” she stated, adding that she was not sure what the journalist could not understand about that.
Lee tried to explain his point, but Harf interrupting him insisting that everything the alliance did “since Russia’s intervention into Ukraine” was a defensive measure “to be able to protect NATO and our members, and also working together to help countries like Ukraine.” She added that it was not designed to confront anyone.
“I just don’t understand logically how you can look at something NATO is doing to protect our countries and compare it in any way to Russia sending surface-to-air missile systems across the border into Ukraine, which are by definition an offensive weapon,” she said.
The State Department’s spokeswoman then said that “the tone of the question” suggested that the journalist was “buying into the Russian propaganda” for equating those “categorically different things.”
“And I’m not buying into any – anyone’s propaganda, and I think that’s the whole point,” Lee hit back. “You guys object to other countries’ objections about your military exercises all the time, and you think that they’re perfectly legitimate.”
It was not the first time that Lee has got into a heated exchange, posing unpleasant questions at press briefings with State Department representatives over the Ukraine crisis.
Earlier in July, Harf stated that Russia was firing artillery across the border into Ukrainian territory. However, when Lee asked for the evidence behind the allegations other than “just ‘because I said so’,” the spokesperson refused, saying only that they were based on “some intelligence information.”
http://www.eturbonews.com/49981/white-house-press-spokesperson-ap-buying-russian-propaganda

Posted by: brian | Sep 6 2014 23:20 utc | 67

The US loses nothing by building up ISIS at the moment, and are clearly proceeding with it as so much could so easily be done to take them on – things as easy and uncontroversial like cutting the flow of money from the Gulf.
ISIS has made it clear that their main enemy are the Shia, with the US and Israel being somewhere far down on the list of their virulent hatreds.
The FUKUSI has made it clear that their main enemy in the ME is the Shia crescent, with radical Islam somewhere far down on the list.
The US cannot lose with ISIS to wave at both its enemies and its home population as the latest bogeyman which must be defeated, and it will certainly offer to destroy the monster most know that they created.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 6 2014 23:24 utc | 68

I would suggest that we in the West, if you have a small job and a little money to spare (an increasingly rare outcome here) we can actually do a lot if we can get some of our money to the Novorossians or the Syrian people. I of course have no knowledge of how to do this – though this on http://novorossia.today/ got me thinking… What is a little money to someone in the west can go a long way in much of the rest of the world.
Not that I’m suggesting anyone send these people in particular money – I have no idea who they are. Does anyone know any ways to give?
What exactly are the steps to giving some money when this is the info you have?
Recipient’s bank, add. office №5221/0359
Corr./account 30101810600000000602
BIK (sort code) 046015602
Account to be credited 40820810752090008860
Receiver’s name Gubarev Pavel Yuryevich
Bank details for currency transfers
SWIFT-code SABRRUMMRA1
Recipient’s bank, add. office №5221/0359
Bank’s address: Russian Federation, Rostov-on-Don, Zorge Street, 37
Account to be credited 40820810752090008860
Receiver’s name Gubarev Pavel Yuryevich

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 7 2014 1:47 utc | 69

Forbes: “Three Reasons Why Putin Laughs At Impotent America”
“[…]A Google search this morning for “Obama + wimp” produced more than a million hits. Nothing that he or his aides are likely to achieve in Wales will do much to improve his image.[…]”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2014/09/04/three-reasons-why-putin-laughs-at-impotent-u-s/

Posted by: Scan | Sep 7 2014 2:07 utc | 70

pretty good video from cannonfire on the covert origins of ISIS – 21 minutes..

Posted by: james | Sep 7 2014 2:50 utc | 71

‘Experts agree that sending Russian pilots in would make no sense. “First, this move carries serious risks for Moscow,” said Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies. “If any of our soldiers are taken as prisoners, the whole world will be watching a Russian pilot get his head cut off in Iraq.
Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines – http://rbth.com/business/2014/07/07/moscow_to_support_baghdad_with_aircraft_as_isis_advances_37989.html)

Posted by: Inda | Sep 7 2014 4:44 utc | 72

@62
Cole is canvassing ways to get international agreement that allows war to be waged against IS. Why shouldn’t he? He wants to see it done in a way that strengthens international law and fosters cooperation among the relevant state actors. Again, fine. IS should be stopped, the question is how.

Posted by: Sigil | Sep 7 2014 5:23 utc | 73

The former American ambassador goes on to lament «the collapse of the Soviet order did not lead smoothly to a transition to democracy and markets inside Russia, or Russia’s integration into the West». In other words, Russia did not make a smooth transition that suited American interests.
McFaul lays the blame for this lack of Russian «integration into the West» on President Putin, accusing him of being «an autocrat» and of harking back to the days of the old Soviet Union. McFaul’s invective against Putin is just slander, but what it barely conceals is that Washington is acutely disgruntled with how it perceives Putin’s Russia as not acting like a vassal state, as it was intended to be under Yeltsin at the time of signing the Founding Act between NATO and Russia.
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2014/09/putin50922/

Posted by: brian | Sep 7 2014 7:51 utc | 74

@70
all very macho and must make you feel good…BUT US is not impotent as crisis in Ukraine syria iraq libya etc shows
too often people get a ride by finding out how weak/stupid/impotent etc the US pres is….just to hide their own impotence

Posted by: brian | Sep 7 2014 7:54 utc | 75

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 6, 2014 9:47:44 PM | 69
please DONT dun people for money here…there enough scams going

Posted by: brian | Sep 7 2014 7:56 utc | 76

and crowd sourcing a war…what next!

Posted by: brian | Sep 7 2014 7:56 utc | 77

THE COVERT ORIGINS OF ISIS
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39603.htm

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 7 2014 8:41 utc | 78

@78: VERY Interesting !!!!

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 7 2014 9:19 utc | 79

The media did a much better job of selling the ISIS threat than they did of selling the Syrian government as evil monsters repressing innocent Chechen jihadists.
ISIS has found it’s much easier to fight an army that was never meant to be a real army (look it up) than fighting the battle tested, if lacking in advanced armament, Syrian army.
The Syrian army will continue their inch by inch siege tactics and push both Nusra and ISIS to the borders. I would pray that the warmongers change their ways and assist the Syrian government.

Posted by: Crest | Sep 7 2014 14:55 utc | 80

“…The Syrian army will continue their inch by inch siege tactics and push both Nusra and ISIS to the borders. I would pray that the warmongers change their ways and assist the Syrian government.”
Posted by: Crest | Sep 7, 2014 10:55:17 AM | 80
I think any planning about fighting ISIL without Syrian involvement at all levels of engagement military, financial, etc. ,is not serious discussion with regards to eradicating ISIL in the region. Also the arming of so called moderate rebels against Assad must stop. Assad must be able to focus his military strength on ISIL if a real plan to defeat ISIL is able to be developed. That also mean Assad must be able to rearm freely with suppliers of his choosing and we all know who they are…
So Washington DC and its ME regional allies and minions better hold their noses, eat some crow and let Assad mop up the ISIL mess in Syria that it created and try to save some geo-political face in the process.

Posted by: really | Sep 7 2014 15:32 utc | 81

@78 okie.. same vid i linked at 71.. glad folks are seeing it.

Posted by: james | Sep 7 2014 15:36 utc | 82

I remember a very detailed article on Abu Musab al Zarqawi in the Financial Times (European edition), before he “died” and explaining from what kind of background he appeared. The US fingerprints were all other. The article must be available in the archive.
Wasn’t it al Qaeda in Iraq?

Posted by: Mina | Sep 7 2014 16:27 utc | 83

to really @ 81 —
That would make sense, but I don’t see DC doing that. Policy makers, neo-cons esp., are still committed to “remaking reality like empires do,” as one of them said (roughly) back when the Second Gulf War got gingered up. Can’t show weakness or “appeasement,” towards “dictators,” can we? Bad for business. What will the neighbors think?
From what I saw half-watching the Sun. “bobble heads,” as Crooks and Liars call them, “responsible opinion” is calling for a “coherent” foreign policy so Obama “regains credibility.” So I’m guessing Assad stays persona non grata, even if we don’t expand operations from Iraq to Syria.
BTW, the Spanish ca. 1600 took the same attitude in pretty much the same situation. Dominant power of the day, all of its numerous enemies overlooked their differences and allied against it.
Resources got overstretched by endless wars and elite conspicuous consumption, bought with New World silver. They can’t back down to either Dutch rebels, or Protestants in the Holy Roman Empire and England, their French rivals for Med. and Germany influence, or the Ottomans. They feared the loss of what they called “reputacion.” Concessions to one might mean the others will demand accommodations, too. So they kept at, bled themselves white, and went from “superpower” to “also ran.”
As Marx once wrote, history repeats, first as tragedy, then as farce. Send in a Humvee with the clowns!
PS — could make the analogy w/ the British Empire, sun set on it after all. Too easy, though. We Americans are notoriously shortsighted, we need to take a longer view. If you want to dismiss something as irrelevant, you blow it off with “That’s ancient history.” Even is it was just last week.
Or as Obama once said, in effectively amnestying torture and war crimes, we’ve got to look forwards (but just to the next quarter or election) not backwards.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 7 2014 16:33 utc | 84

@84
American Empire might also include Great Britain with France and Germany, EU, Israel and NATO elements.
Empire, as it exists today is different (from historical empires) in that it is dominated and controlled by a conglomerate of Multinational Corporations. There needn’t be any particular State of Residence. That said, the relevance and security of the petrodollar is important to them. It is continually propped up by wars – past and present.
Today’s emperors can all live in the French Riviera or wherever they like. America as a nation state remains useful in that it provides a context as it (importantly) concurrently contains the largest military force in the world with strategic bases in key locations. Of course, it is supported by an endless money supply (also important).
Now, geopolitically, the game is resource extraction. Corrupt puppets shall either give up the booty in the spirit of cooperation, or they shall be forcefully removed from their leadership positions. The booty will be taken.
In order to steal all the oil in the ME, the ME must be reconfigured.

Posted by: Fast Freddy | Sep 7 2014 17:09 utc | 85

@85 India had the Blue Raj. The only difference between the 19th century European colonial empires is the speed of communication. NATO is just the modern Blue Raj. The locals need a different lie, but the relationship is the same. The British had a man in Cairo, and the U.S. has the NSA. Because the locals of the Pentagon/Wall Street Empire have greater access to the U.S., we don’t print maps with them marked as colonies as often as the UK and France one did, and the U.S. hasn’t had a competitor since ’91 when the world was the first, communist, and third world.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Sep 7 2014 17:35 utc | 86

@ 85 Fast Freddy —
The powers you mention are more like Roman client kingdoms, like Numidia or Judea. Useful proxies. Eventually, though, the Romans suppressed them and made everyone provinces. Game has always been resource extraction. Gold and slaves; slaves and sugar cane; rubber, tea, coffee; now oil and cheap consumer goods for “bread and circuses” back home. Home states matter to a degree, which leaders do you buy, which do you rent, which laws to you write in your interests, which do you violate with impunity. And as you sugges, most important, who do pressure to do your dirty work.
@ 86 NTG —
Don’t forget, we have our men and women everywhere. See Tony Blair (cf. to King Herod) and Victoria Nuland. NSA listens in and makes sure we know what the locals, friend and foe, are up to. Forms of control are less direct (like the booty that Fast Freddy notes), often overlap. We don’t print the colors on the map, why make it easy for the natives to see in charge. Keep ’em guessing.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 7 2014 18:51 utc | 87

Absolutely, I think until World War I, with colonial mobilization, even the European powers were much more shy about announcing power. In a way, the U.S.’s size forced a certain amount of honesty about the situation, but the British didn’t have the imprint we imagine except during rebellion. After all, Nehru had a 4 million man army. There is no difference between the British East India Company, United Banana, and Halliburton. Occasionally, they have to rebrand (Halliburton was the old name of a small but respected company; Cheney bought the name for the old KBR which was a nasty outfit).
Instead of missionary work, we have NGOs spreading democracy because the locals have heard of Jesus at this point, and like the missionaries who were in it for heavenly treasure, the current ngo underlings are in it for a payday later. Like the missionaries, there is a good, earnest person here and there, but the rest are paternalistic jersey with a guilty conscious.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Sep 7 2014 19:12 utc | 88

“We know of course that Syria has disposed of all its chemical weapons”
We don’t ‘know’ this at all.
What we know is that all the self declared weapons where destroyed. That is certainly something…
What we also know is that the Assad regime has been somewhat regularly reported to have bombed their own people with chemical weapons. Mostly likely being chlorine based chemical weapons though. Still a chemical weapons, in fact one of the original ones?

Posted by: Bill Smith | Sep 7 2014 19:24 utc | 89

@89 Chlorine chemical weapons are old and easy to make, and the tests done by third parties demonstrated the chemical “attacks” were 19th century formulas. That means any Chem major could cook those up in a bathtub because it’s kind of how they were made. Have you ever read the warning on a bleach model?
Certainly, it could be plausible deniability, but why wasn’t Obama being honest about what was used and it’s simple production? Chemical weapons bans go back to the 19th century when they didn’t have Steve Jobs to go “computers!”
If your goal is to stir people to moral outrage, you’ll have to come up with something better that CA t be seen as a false flag carried out by Syrian defectors who raided Syrian arms depots.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Sep 7 2014 19:34 utc | 90

Saudi boarder commander thinks ISIL is ‘just a basic terrorist group’
Well there you have it. If anybody knows what the capabilities of ISIL are, it would be the al qaeda and ISIL funding Saudi’s.

Posted by: really | Sep 7 2014 22:01 utc | 91

truth about ISIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ2KzjNtDTc&feature=youtu.be

Posted by: brian | Sep 7 2014 23:19 utc | 92

@7 farlungstar
“Israel and her State Dept. sayanim want the legally elected Assad gone Previous bluff and bluster will not allow President Redline to help Syrian military in her fight against ISIS, although that would be a wise choice. (Not too many coming from these idiots these days). I expect some US/Israeli “accidental” bombing of SAA military installations shortly. How nice if ISIS is just a tool of the US and regional allies(evidence does point to that): The amorphous, self-sustaining “terror threat” that can be whatever Washington and her poodles want it to be though never slipping the leash and attacking/harming KSA, Israel or other GCC pukes. Terrorists in control of Iraq and Syria will let the US do whatever the hell she wants with regards to oil pipelines, as well as continue to justify the Israeli cash cow.
One day Israel is treating the wounded at their hospitals, the next day she is “alarmed” they could be in the Golan. She is like a spoiled whore lying and spreading her legs to friends and enemies alike just to get what she wants…”
I could not agree more. Even though the only way to realistically defeat ISIL is to team up with Assad and discontinue funding and weaponizing anti-Assad al qaeda factions in Syria and Turkey securing its border with Syria, the USG is resistant to the idea of working with Assad because of the very reasons you mentioned. The USG endgae has and will always be to remove Assad and his shia-led government. For the reasons you mentioned nothing else matters, that is why we here all the babble about how defeating ISIL is going to take years to accomplish and that the situation in Syria is so complicated. It is not complicated as farflungstars post indicates.
The USG always says we can’t work with Assad to defeat ISIL because we don’t want to appear to be taking sides by supporting the shia muslims. I guess this means that the USG is taking sides with the sunni muslims over the shia by arming the moderate sunni opposition al qadea groups in syria. This is an example of USG geopolitical hypocrisy. The USG wants Assad and the shia gone in Syria. The USG as a result of removing the shia govt. in Syria will cripple and/or remove Russian and Iranian influence in Syria and The Levant.The shia in Lebanon are in the cross hairs too. The removal of shia influence in Syria and the Levant in my opinion is the USG, Israeli and Saudi endgame. Farflungstar is correct the “ISIL crisis” is about resource control and transport of those resources.

Posted by: really | Sep 8 2014 11:24 utc | 93

@7, 93
America, ISIS, and Syria: We have to bomb the jihadis in order to save them

Posted by: really | Sep 8 2014 12:31 utc | 94

Juan Cole is a Bahai.
I used to read his blog when he was peddling that religion, 10 years or more ago.
As the Bahais were/are the only religion who have a seat (consultative or whatever, idk what the legal status and more important the impact is right now) at the UN.
The Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Budhists, (etc.) have no such privileges.
Only the Bahai. (Syncretic religion, anti-Iran Gvmt., for universal peace and the like.)
Their site, see the emphasis on world peace and anti-Iran:
http://www.bahai.org/?gclid=CJ6W66CF0sACFVNutAodlgkArw
Their headquarters are in Israel.
http://www.bahai.org/dir/bwc
Cole has come a long way since then.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 8 2014 16:47 utc | 95

“…The Pentagon is already sending out feelers for assembling this new unofficia army, posting a notice seeking contractors who are willing to work long-term in Iraq, with a minimum 12-month “initial” contract to be followed by extensions.
The US continues to have over 100,000 contractors in Afghanistan, a number that officials say is likely to remain high even as the military presence there continues to draw down…”
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/09/07/us-contractors-sought-to-replace-boots-on-the-ground-in-iraq/
US contractors to the taxpayer trough…expect contractors to be in Syria too.

Posted by: really | Sep 8 2014 18:01 utc | 96

“The US and UK must work with Bashar Assad’s Syrian government if they are to defeat the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the chairman of Britain’s intelligence and security committee warns…
…Working in tandem ndem with Syria, throughout the duration of this military operation, has almost become inevitable, Sir Malcolm Rifkind concluded…”
http://en.alalam.ir/news/1626347

Posted by: really | Sep 9 2014 3:29 utc | 97

To Noirette @ 95 —
I’ve been liking your stuff, bigger fish to fry, so I haven’t said so, ’til now.
Just a reminder — Vatican City, formerly the Papal States, is in. From Wikipedia on “UN Members,” sect. : “The Holy See holds sovereignty over the state of Vatican City and maintains diplomatic relations with 180 other states. It has been an observer state since 6 April 1964, and gained all the rights of full membership except voting on 1 July 2004.”
Aside – Francis is a great improvement over the last two Bishops of Rome. Ms. Magister patched things up with the Holy See, so I had to sign on there for “observer status.” Children we don’t have and don’t plan on will be raised Catholic (Catholic Worker flavor vs. say Opus Dei). It would give them something to rebel against.
They gotta be in, you can’t have the Swiss Guard intervening in say, Northern Ireland, without an approving Security Council resolution, right?
And PS the “Rev.” Ian Paisley has passed. 26 + 6 = 1.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 14 2014 13:33 utc | 98

To NTG at 88 —
I agree with the general import of your post.
Some interesting diffs. — curious, revealing details. East India Co. was a private company, notorious for its rigor in collecting what it was owed. Bought the right to collect the Mughals taxes. An early capitalist example of “privatizing” state functions. It went about as well as our current round of the same in war, prisons, etc.
Their early functionaries respected India’s culture (they really worked out this whole Indo-European lang. group think, you know). But by the Victoria era, colonialist contempt, born of the growing gap in btw. pre- and post-Industrial Rev. econs. “We’re so much better than you, obviously; you have no rights, ideas, values we need bear in mind.”
Used to read the Economist at lunch Sats. over Indian food, back in the day, ca. 1985, the proposed DC hire mercenaries for its interventions. Don’t recall if the Fr. For. Legion came up.
An aside — Indian food fans, why has the samosa not swept America as the latest snack food craze? It’s deep fried, has potatoes. Need I say more. Pass the poori, please!

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 14 2014 13:47 utc | 99

Final word, (no really folks) — sorry for the delay in responding w/98 & 99, busy on the Ukraine thread.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 14 2014 13:50 utc | 100

Back to Main