|
With U.S. Unwilling To Fight The Islamic State Russia Deploys Troops To Syria
May 1 2006 – Biden: Split Iraq into 3 different regions
The senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee proposed Monday that Iraq be divided into three separate regions — Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni — with a central government in Baghdad.
In an op-ed essay in Monday's edition of The New York Times, Sen. Joseph Biden. D-Del., wrote that the idea "is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group … room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests."
2012 Defense Intelligence Agency document: West will facilitate rise of Islamic State “in order to isolate the Syrian regime”
THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT
…
ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY.
Sep 2015 – Intelligence chief: Iraq and Syria may not survive as states
Iraq and Syria may have been permanently torn asunder by war and sectarian tensions, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency said Thursday in a frank assessment that is at odds with Obama administration policy.
“I’m having a tough time seeing it come back together,” Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart told an industry conference, speaking of Iraq and Syria, both of which have seen large chunks territory seized by the Islamic State.
The U.S. plans, all along, were and are to create a "Sunni state" entity in west Iraq and east Syria. Whether this entity is a salafist Islamic State or has some other form of government seems to be irrelevant to U.S. foreign policy planners like Vice President Joe Biden.
The war on the Islamic State that Obama declared was thereby never serious. It is just an excuse to justify further meddling in the Iraq and Syria and to reinforce the intended split. But that U.S. tactic underestimates, or willingly creates, dangers to other countries as the Islamic State is now a breeding ground for international terrorism.
The U.S. unwillingness to attack the Islamic State has been noticed:
International coalition only simulating anti-terrorist efforts in Middle East — Russian FM
"Regrettably, all attempts of the international coalition to counter the terrorist group Islamic State look more like some demonstrative steps, an attempt at simulating anti-terrorist activity," [Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova] said in an interview with the Rossiya-24 television channel.
—
@Hayder_alKhoei
Pesh commander on ISIS supply line b/w #Syria & #Iraq: coalition can see it very clearly. Why don't they do anything? I don't know.
Jordanian officer describes seeing Isis convoys crossing b/w Iraq & Syria on an almost daily basis. “But we’re not allowed to hit them"
The U.S. and its "coalition" of Islamic State financiers and sympathizers are unwilling to remove the Islamic State entity. Even now, when the possibly catastrophic consequences of its installation become more and more visible, the attitude is one of willful ignorance. Others are therefore taking up the task and they mean business.
@MicahZenko
Yesterday, Syrian aircraft conducted 25 airstrikes on ISIS targets. In past week (Sep. 12-18), US-led coalition conducted 26.
Compare: In one year of the "fight against ISIS" and with a 60 member coalitions some 6-7,000 air attacks have been flown against mostly minor IS targets. Since March the U.S.-Saudi coalition has flown some 25,000 air attacks in its war on Yemen.
Iran News Round Up – September 18, 2015
IRGC Major General Safavi claimed that Russia is in sync with Iran regarding regional crises, including Syria. The Supreme Leader’s Senior Military Advisor accused the U.S., Israel, and “some Arab countries” of deploying “rented terrorists” to Syria to overthrow President Bashar al Assad.
A while ago the Iranian commander tasked with the fight against the Islamic State, Brigadier General Qassem Suleimani, reported to the military leadership of the Russian Federation the state of the Syrian and Iraqi armies and the situation on the ground. He requested additional support. The Islamic State has attracted some 2,500 fighters from the Russian Federation, mostly Chechen. The return of these fighters to Russia could initiate a renewed terror war against the Russian state. This danger compels Russia to act.
Four Russian fighter jets deployed in Syria: US official
Russia has deployed four fighter jets to an airbase in Syria where it has been building up forces in recent weeks, alarming Washington, a US official said Friday.
Russian elite units on the land of Zabadani, Homs, Hama and Aleppo
by Elijah J. Magnier
“Al-Rai” learned that “Special Elite Russian combat forces arrived to Hama, Aleppo, Homs, Damascus, as well as Zabadani to monitor, participate and study the military map on the field and suggest future workflow combat plans. These Special Forces submit to the operating room suggestions to determine the full plan to start the flow of further Russian special combat forces and troops on the battlefield all over the Syrian map where it is necessary”.
This development will be the largest Russian external military intervention since Afghanistan in 1979.
A very senior field commander around Zabadani city said that “there are small Russian combat units, mostly sniper unit that we call the “Ivan unit”, another reconnaissance unit, a unit of urban warfare, and advanced missiles unit in the area of operations run by the Syrian Army. ”
Russia – and Iran – now mean business and are actively intervening. China may join that coalition to fight the Uyghur separatist Turkey smuggled to Syria to join the Islamic State. The recent movements have already led to a retreat in the often repeated old U.S. line that "Assad has to go" before any real negotiations about whatever can begin.
Kerry declared that “Assad has to go" but said there was some flexibility in the "modality" and timing of his departure.
“We’ve said for some period of time it doesn’t have to be done on day one, or month one, or whatever,” he said.
"Or whatever …"
Prediction: Bashar al-Assad will still be President of Syria when Barack Obama is no longer the President of the United States.
But that was only part one of the issues at hand. The real question is if the United States is willing to give up on its plans for the "salafist principality", to partition Syria and Iraq and to start a serious fight against the Islamic State. The alternative for the U.S. and its allies is to use the Islamic State to create another Afghanistan like quagmire for the now deployed Russian troops. But doing so would also create the possibility of alike consequences: another 9/11. What will Obama or whoever handles him decide?
Read as much as you can by Thierry Meyssan and Gordon Duff on the Obama-Putin relations. This should help you realize how powerful are the forces of evil Atlantists, that have been working incessantly to undermine any successful agreement between the two.
Unfortunately Obama cannot rely on the American people, who lack knowledge and will to understand the game. Instead vast chunks of the zombified society absolutely do not care about others, especially abroad, but are ready to use violence to “defend the homeland against that communist, islamist Obama!” as the lame-scream and “alternative” media war mongers tell them to. Millions believe in the “Russian troops ready to invade!”, “Muslim sleeper cells in every major city!” crap Alex Jones style. These traps, also the “birth issue” and other, were set up by the Obama handlers to keep him in check long before 2008, when he was chosen at the Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, Va instead of Hitlary (the only 2 days of the campaign where the presstitutes in concert turned away audiences attention from the daily schedules of the candidates, reporting before, and after, on every freaking second of their agenda). In 2012 during second TV debate Obama did what he was told, played coy and incoherent, “not himself”, as a sign of submission to his masters (like in “Pulp Fiction”, Marsellus: “In the fifth, your ass goes down. Say it. Butch: In the fifth, my ass goes down.”). But that changed on November 6th, when Obama betrayed his overlords and won instead of the mormon (freemasons) mafia man Romney. See the reaction of Karl Rove in the TV studio, as many times as it takes, until you understand. Rove could not believe, because he KNEW that the voting machines were rigged (in Ohio, just like in 2000 and 2004 for Bush, see “Hacking Democracy”) for Romney. But the power structure behind Obama, that emerged into the public view just then, flipped the votes back. Also see what happened to Micheal Connell, Rove’s IT guy, and why.
Unfortunately in many respects Obama’s hands are tied. FDR comes to mind. When the legendary labor and civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph met with FDR before World War II to get the president to take action against discrimination, the president boomed back: “I agree with you, now go out and make me do it.”
Think about it how much the zionist lobby hates Obama, some Jewish press people called openly for his assassination. Mossad, obviously via some “islamist terrorist” made an attempt on Obama’s man, gen. Demspey, who is “no friend of Israel”, a few years back in Afghanistan.
Because masses in the US are absolutely dumb, the threat of a civil war, triggered by a nuclear (Cheney talks about it all the time, of course because he’s been planning it) or similar scale false flag event, is still a clear and present danger. Fueled constantly along the race and religious lines by the media whores when reporting about the police (trained massively by the Israelis after 9/11) interventions.
There is no anti-war movement, no massive anti-war protests on the streets like in the 70s. Instead just millions watching stupid news, shows and movies on TV. Very effective way to facilitate real change would be cancelling subscriptions to all the major TV global news channels en masse (keeping ISP contracts). Never watch any news “as it happens”, “live”, it’s never that important nor worth it, it poisons your mind, it’s just sickening. Instead plan and tape everything you want to watch. It’s better for your personal time, energy, health, and budget. You can post later on the Internet important clips and snippets showing their lies and manipulation. Do not let “them” control you, thus you can control “them”. This is how you fight back.
Posted by: ProsperousPeace | Sep 20 2015 5:21 utc | 27
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 19, 2015 9:28:39 PM | 23
This comports with the impossibly tiny amount I know of Russian military doctrine, which is (because of the relative small size of their population compared with other great powers) to invest heavily in weapons that can confront an enemy – in physical space and in terms of distance – well before the enemy can engage the Russian forces, thereby increasing the survivability of Russian soldiers.
======
That much Americans know as well, but Russians know a bit more. After all, they had a failure, Afghanistan, and a success, Chechnya (I know, but still a success of sorts), and before that, “imperial experience”. The weapons we are talking about give a “force multiplier”, but this multiplier is not as big as American believed. The rule in Afghanistan requires Afghans, in Chechnya, Chechens, in Poland, Poles etc. If you cannot find people you like and who like you, you may as well give up. [Thus some Iranian troops, some Russian troops, some mercenaries — Afghan Shia — may help, but it is counterproductive/futile to rely on them too much, do not expect 100,000 Iranians.]
And of course, this multiplier can be subverted by a high tech opponent. Rebels in Syria are not simply armed with machetes and AK-47’s. They also have armored vehicles, battle-field missiles, and so on. Number one, it is necessary to have some positive program that attracts a sufficient number of local people to join military and risk their lives (many will die). Number two, weapons that make their jobs possibly, and training. Number three, stop better weapons from reaching the other side. Number three requires the political changes affecting the adversary.
The adversary consists roughly of USA, EU, Turkey and GCC. And the changes that can be characterized as “return to sanity” or “stab in the back” are coming, if in different ways and to a different degree (it will take some time for the ideal of Sunni supremacy to wane in GCC, but Turkey seems on a turning point, while neo-con ideals of “muscular liberalism” seem to be collapsing in EU, but still kicking, and quite a bit hollowed-out in USA. This is what the liberal Administration is now: they are not quite believers, but neither they have the stomach to declare what sanity is and face the full force of “stab in the back” accusation, so they devised a method of “limited mayhem”.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 20 2015 16:56 utc | 41
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 19, 2015 9:28:39 PM | 23
This comports with the impossibly tiny amount I know of Russian military doctrine, which is (because of the relative small size of their population compared with other great powers) to invest heavily in weapons that can confront an enemy – in physical space and in terms of distance – well before the enemy can engage the Russian forces, thereby increasing the survivability of Russian soldiers.
======
That much Americans know as well, but Russians know a bit more. After all, they had a failure, Afghanistan, and a success, Chechnya (I know, but still a success of sorts), and before that, “imperial experience”. The weapons we are talking about give a “force multiplier”, but this multiplier is not as big as American believed. The rule in Afghanistan requires Afghans, in Chechnya, Chechens, in Poland, Poles etc. If you cannot find people you like and who like you, you may as well give up. [Thus some Iranian troops, some Russian troops, some mercenaries — Afghan Shia — may help, but it is counterproductive/futile to rely on them too much, do not expect 100,000 Iranians.]
And of course, this multiplier can be subverted by a high tech opponent. Rebels in Syria are not simply armed with machetes and AK-47’s. They also have armored vehicles, battle-field missiles, and so on. Number one, it is necessary to have some positive program that attracts a sufficient number of local people to join military and risk their lives (many will die). Number two, weapons that make their jobs possibly, and training. Number three, stop better weapons from reaching the other side. Number three requires the political changes affecting the adversary.
The adversary consists roughly of USA, EU, Turkey and GCC. And the changes that can be characterized as “return to sanity” or “stab in the back” are coming, if in different ways and to a different degree (it will take some time for the ideal of Sunni supremacy to wane in GCC, but Turkey seems on a turning point, while neo-con ideals of “muscular liberalism” seem to be collapsing in EU, but still kicking, and quite a bit hollowed-out in USA. This is what the liberal Administration is now: they are not quite believers, but neither they have the stomach to declare what sanity is and face the full force of “stab in the back” accusation, so they devised a method of “limited mayhem”.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 20 2015 16:56 utc | 42
Well, let’s see about a different aspect of what’s “top-down” vs. “base-up”…
Even if you could institute the kind of grassroots “small-d” democracy you speak of without (as rufus magister points out) “seizing the commanding heights of the economy”—socializing the major means of production such as land, communications, infrastructure and above all capital—it would only result in a brief “democratic interlude” before the capitalists corrupt and subvert it back to the oligarchic “best government money can buy” we now oppose. How do you see to preventing this without a repressive apparatus directed at the capitalists—the state, as Lenin defined it in *The State and Revolution*?
Even if you went a long step beyond this and instituted both “small-d democracy” alongside breaking up and redistributing every concentration of capital and private property such that every individual had not only “small-d democratic” equal voting power but an absolutely equal economic leverage as well, it wouldn’t last. History shows property and capital concentrate over time—unless you institute invasive/repressive measures to prevent that too?
Bottom line: “small-d democracy” will never work unless it’s instituted alongside “Big-S Socialism.” Then it’s called the worker’s state: democratic with regard to working people, but repressing any and all attempts by the capitalists to return to power. Lenin termed this “winning the battle of democracy” because the great majority would finally rule.
Why have most socialist states then seemed “top-down” and repressive in Western media portrayals?
(Historical sidebar: the first capitalist revolutions meted out some pretty harsh repression to their oppositions as well. Remember Cromwell? France’s Reign of Terror? Tories were killed during the US War for Independence, which held out “small-d democracy” to gain mass support for the mercantile/slaveowner revolt against Britain, but pulled a neat bait-and-switch right afterward with their Constitutional Coup. Had significant numbers of “Tory dissidents” remained behind to subvert the new regime, perhaps allying with British Canada to the north and Native Americans to the west, how repressive would the new US have become?)
The “top-down socialism” meme exists partly because those who pay the western media piper call the tune—the capitalist media will of course report a socialist society’s every failure, challenge, conflict and contradiction in the worst possible light, and partly because it’s themselves (international and local capital) that the socialist state is repressing. Add to this hot and cold running wars to force socialist states into siege mentality, economic warfare, arms races, cultivating dissidents, etc. and any socialist state would have to guard its revolution pretty assiduously to survive. But there’s more.
Above all, the reason the first socialist states have seen it necessary to have a more controlling hand on the social helm is scarcity. When the Russian Revolution occurred, most of the then-left couldn’t believe it—the revolution was supposed to happen in the most developed countries first, with their organized, conscious working classes, highly developed means of production and technology, political culture, etc. Many argued that the Russian Revolution couldn’t possibly result in a socialist society, even if it should be supported out of solidarity. In *The Revolution Betrayed* Trotsky summed up the social base for a bureaucracy as rooted in scarcity: when there is not enough to go around and egalitarianism demands rationing, two social actors come to the fore—a bureaucrat to administer and a gendarme to make sure everyone keeps their place in line. Needless to say this begins corrupting egalitarianism, and workers’ democracy soon after. When China and other countries broke free from the capitalist empires, many of them were in equally poor condition, ravaged by war and colonialism.
(I’m not particularly Trotskyist—I learn from the past although like Borotba I don’t want to be mired in historical reenactments—but this particular seems a fair observation of what was happening at the time.)
This is why such stress is laid on the long process known as “building socialism”—it isn’t just reorganizing things, it’s building abundance, often from ruins. It’s about laying the basis for winning the battle of democracy, and winning the battle of equality through abundance to back it up. The most important part of Lenin’s *The State and Revolution* isn’t his oft-quoted definition of the state as a ruling class’s organized, armed force, it’s the section on the economic basis for the withering away of the state, including even democracy. Seeing your “small-d democracy” and raising you one classless society.
Why hasn’t it happened yet? Because scarcity still rules, made much worse by capitalist war threats, economic sanctions, etc. I mentioned that all socialist revolutions made till now have been in underdeveloped countries ravaged by war, but if Western Europe and North America had “gone red” a century ago when it was thought they would lead the way, I suspect that even then the forces of production weren’t yet developed enough for true abundance. Capitalism still had room to develop them further, and as Marx put it, “No mode of production is overthrown until it has developed the forces of production to its maximum potential, and thereby becomes a force retarding their further development.” Any socialist societies existing while capitalism still predominates globally are effectively swimming against a prevailing current, with all that that entails in terms of what it takes to stay the course.
Today, however, with all the powers of information technology and high tech manufacturing, the way is clear for building true socialism once we can overthrow them, particularly in the US, Europe, Japan, with China fast coming up. In fact, I suspect that the US capitalist class actually *wants* climate chaos so that it can bring about the conditions for *permanent global scarcity*. With what little surplus that remains reserved for them, of course.
“Well, keep on keepin’ on.”
Absolutely.
“… the only transformative change is bottom-up.”
That’s exactly what communists are all about. Instituting “small-d democracy” without revolutionizing the economic base *is* the top-down approach. You take the high road and I’ll take the low road…
Posted by: Vintage Red | Sep 25 2015 7:37 utc | 97
|
