Authored by Craig Murray,
Even the neo-con warmongers’ home journal The Guardian, livid at Trump’s makes an attempt to tug US troops out of Syria, in producing a map as an example its level, might solely produce one single, unsure, very brief pen stroke to explain the minute strip of territory it claims ISIS nonetheless management on the Iraqi border.
In fact, the Guardian produces the argument that continued US navy presence is important to make sure that ISIS doesn’t spring again to life in Syria. The fallacy of that argument may be simply demonstrated. In Afghanistan, the USA has managed to pull out the lengthy technique of humiliating defeat in conflict even additional than it did in Vietnam. It’s plain as a pikestaff that the presence of US occupation troops is itself the perfect recruiting sergeant for resistance. In Sikunder Burnes I hint how the battle traces of tribal alliances there right this moment are exactly the identical ones the British confronted in 1841. We simply connect labels like Taliban to cover the truth that invaders face nationwide resistance.
The key to ending the power of ISIS in Syria will not be the continued presence of American troops. It’s for America’s ever nearer allies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf to chop off the most important artery of cash and arms, which we must always always remember in origin and for a very long time had a robust US element. The US/Saudi/Israeli alliance towards Iran is an important geo-political issue within the area right this moment. It’s excessive time this alliance stopped each funding ISIS and pretending to battle it; schizophrenia will not be a international coverage stance.
There was no important Shia Islamic terrorist or different menace towards the West lately. 9/11 was carried out by Saudi Sunni militants. Al Qaida, ISIS, Al Nusra, Boko Haram, these are all Sunni teams, and all Saudi sponsored. It’s a matter of lunacy that the West has adopted the posture that it’s Iran – which has sponsored not one assault on the West in latest reminiscence – which is the menace within the Center East.
The origin of this stance seems to lie in the truth that the Shia group Hezbollah proved to have the one navy drive amongst Israel’s neighbours able to halting an Israeli invasion. After the disastrous invasion of Iraq resulted in an Iran pleasant regime in Baghdad, the US determined for steadiness of energy causes to again Saudi regional energy performs, just for Saudi Arabia to fall into the fingers of the psychopathic warmonger Mohammed Bin Salman who escalated an already flawed coverage to breaking level.
The chaos of this incoherent and counterproductive technique is, peculiarly sufficient, what the neocons truly need. Perpetual conflict and destabilisation within the Center East is their purpose. One of many findings I had not anticipated to find in writing Sikunder Burnes was that the British had been intentionally exploiting and exacerbating the Shia/Sunni divide as early as 1836 to the Imperial objective. At this time, by holding Arab populations poor and politically divided, the neo-cons imagine that they improve the safety of Israel, they usually definitely do facilitate the entry of western corporations to the oil and gasoline of the area, as we see in destabilised Iraq and Libya.
The Clintons and Blair have been the apotheosis of the seize of the mainstream “left” political events by this neo-con Imperialist agenda within the Center East. Sanders, Trump and Corbyn have been the primary politicians with any likelihood of energy for a lot of a long time who didn’t pay lip-service to the neo-con agenda. Trump’s lack of enthusiasm for Chilly Conflict politics has been neutralised from any doable motion on his half by the ludicrous lie that Russia hacked his election.
Moreover his greed has led to offers with Saudi Arabia which have largely undercut his declared desire for non-interventionism. And now in Syria, the very trace that Trump might not be totally dedicated to the pursuit of perpetual conflict has the whole neo-con institution, political media and NGO, screaming in unison, each side of the Atlantic.
I’ve written earlier than that Trump could also be a rotten President for People, however a minimum of he has not initiated a significant conflict; and I’m fairly positive Hillary would have finished by now. For a non-American, the selection between Hillary and Trump ended up in balancing on one aspect of the dimensions the evil of tens of millions extra killed and maimed within the Center East and the launching of a full on, unreserved new Chilly Conflict, towards on the opposite aspect of the dimensions poorer People having very dangerous healthcare and social provision and America adopting racist immigration insurance policies. I do hope that the neo-con barrage right this moment arguing for extra American troops within the Center East, will assist folks bear in mind simply how very unattractive is also the Hillary aspect of the equation.
It is usually very useful in revealing the startling unanimity of our purchased and paid for political, media and NGO class right here within the UK.
- Pentagon Confirms It Does In Fact Investigate Reports Of UFOs - May 22, 2019
- Google’s new AI is better at detecting lung cancer than doctors - May 22, 2019
- Attorney General Barr Puts Former Intel Bosses Clapper, Brennan On Notice - May 22, 2019
- Brexit Could Save British Steel - May 22, 2019
- Commons leader Andrea Leadsom quits government over Brexit - May 22, 2019