US Genera Secret Plot Protect Assad Bring Russia into War

[JackRiddler]

Not much of an obstacle then since the CIA and Pentagon do not "control ISIS," nor Turkey. ISIS was built up from Turkey and Saudi with complicity of US elements.

The assumption that there is a U.S. single policy is highly questionable. There are many signs of internal rifts and contradictory pushes. Conventional wisdom has become that 2003 was wrong and set up the present uncontrollable chaos. Remember that Turkish parliament voted no on the Iraq invasion! MIC elements ran an obvious coup against the neocon push for an Iran war in 2007 with the NIE leak. If the 2013 gas attack in Ghouta was not by Assad, as it appears not to be, then who ran that and how come the war wasn't triggered, despite violation of "red lines" immediately after Obama announced these? No way it would have been a top-down order from Washington, it would have been a lateral move of neocons/mobsters with Turkish or Saudi supply of the gas.

Things are probably very far from a simplistic "neocons vs. traditionalists" split, the deep state field is crowded, transnational, and opaque. Especially because of that context, the states of Turkey and Saudi Arabia both (like Israel) are capable of autonomous action (and have been for a long time), banking that the US will not fail to back them in public, and certainly not break with them or cut off the arms. Whether that can change? The limits are being tested various ways in Syria/Iraq, but not in Yemen. (US just sold the replacement weapons to Saudi to continue the Yemen war for 1.3 billion.) Saudi appears stable for now, but of course it's the most opaque of the major nations, not just to us haplessly uninformed Westerners.

In Turkey, post-Gezi and especially after rise of HDP and Kurdish movement, Erdogan has chosen to move into early stages of civil war. Note that US provides open talk, air support and arms to the Kurdish forces in Syria, even as Turkey gears to invade Syria and Iraq in order to attack Kurds. Turkey is on the brink with potentials for making Syria pale by comparison - and incidentally for prompting a Festung Europa like you've never seen. (Trump's proposals will be blah-blah compared to that. Much of Eastern Europe is crossing over into fascism, in case you haven't noticed, and if things blow up in Turkey they will pull the EU core into compliance on an aggressively xenophobic stance lest the "European project" be endangered.)

All this is not manageable by any simple US master plan (other than the only rational option - withdrawal of these attempts "management," throwing open the books, negotiating with the Russians to end the arms trade and stop supplying money and guns to any of the wars - which is less conceivable than ever at this moment of total unity around "Destroy ISIS," even though none of these jokers even know what the fuck they're saying, including Sanders!). That there is an effective secret 15-step master plan to eventually produce some kind of desired result out of this mess makes a lot less sense than that there are (transnational) factions at war over the policy. Presumably there are multiple such plans, and at conflict with each other, but who says any are working?

A US policy (other than the only rational option) may not make a difference. The rendering of 2003 as "failure" is going to stick. There isn't going to be a cure for it like with "Vietnam syndrome." The drones barbarity, the relentless bombing of rubble pits in Syria and the resort to proxy wars may look like low-cost chaos generation for neocons, but to the present management it's just an acknowledgement of inability to project any other kind of military strength into this situation, and also a means to keep the MIC popping and locking without own casualties. A "New 9/11" might mobilize the domestic political support for any level of madness, I suppose, but the difference from 2001 is they've seen there's not all that much they can can do beyond what they are doing. "The world" wouldn't be going along with "We are all Americans" and opening up adequate platforms to facilitate larger interventions. The capitals that could be captured to create the illusion of initial victory and to allow leverage like declarations of new constitutions and the like are no longer capitals of very much. And what are they going to do, have a nuke war with Russia? (Note that there are elements who want to go with that, as there have always been!)

[lunarmoth]

CIA and Pentagon do not "control" ISIS and Al Qaida any more than Mickey Mouse can control his proxy armies in Disney's Fantasia. The gas attack which was blamed on Assad can be traced to the same 'rebels' who are joining ISIS in numbers: http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-s ... es/5347190

[smiths]

the question of whether ISIS is controlled, or who controls ISIS always ends with a grey answer, speculation of degrees,

but since the US and Turkey gave the green light for the empowering, arming, funding and use of ISIS, through the Saudis etc etc etc

they have surely exercised a degree of control over their strategy and actions,

as someone pointed out in another thread, no attacks on Israel yet ...

so i would speculate they are are given no go zones, and priority targets, but agency to make their own moves within those parameters
and that the vast swathe of the loyal lower orders of the army have no idea what tools they are

[seemslikeadream]

their control is having no control

[AlicetheKurious]

Especially because of that context, the states of Turkey and Saudi Arabia both (like Israel) are capable of autonomous action (and have been for a long time), banking that the US will not fail to back them in public, and certainly not break with them or cut off the arms.

No. There's a huge difference between the relationship between Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the US, on one hand, and that between Israel and the US. Those in charge in Turkey and Saudi Arabia "hear and obey" the orders of their Zio-American masters, and can do nothing else. The situation is radically different between Israel and the US. Never lump them all together, because there's no comparison.

[tapitsbo]

Not to mention, not all transnational networks are created equal. It seems pretty clear to me that Syria and Iraq have been targeted, regardless of the flaws of their legitimate governments.

Jack's post makes it seem as though this is all just the bubbling up of complex and chaotic processes too opaque for us to draw conclusions about.

The fact that Iraq and Syria were targeted is a big clue, though. The state of Jordan hasn't been overrun by hostile militias, for instance.

Turkey may have some limited autonomy but the fact that it's been fingered in the mainstream media as an IS supporter tells me it lacks the protection of Israel by a long shot. The mainstream media simply refuses to print the stories about Israel buying discount oil from IS.

The fact that Obama's foreign policy has been far, far too moderate for many of the folks in Washington and the Israeli government doesn't tell me that it's radically different from what they would prefer.

[JackRiddler]

Jack's post makes it seem as though this is all just the bubbling up of complex and chaotic processes too opaque for us to draw conclusions about.

Hardly. I try to map out geopolitical processes rooted in criminal actions by various sides, allowing that much of the picture is obscured in the "dark matter" of deep and para- politics. Implicit in this is that these multiple processes and underlying actions are worth examining in their bubbling and chaotic complexity, so as to draw supportable conclusions and (here's where I run into the hitch with you) avoid insupportable ones, or leave these open where not enough is known. Unlike the simplistic POOMA approach you seem to prefer, the same post above (that you characterize so falsely) even presents clear proposals for what to do to drain the swamp. Sadly it would take years, even if a President Hedges got to start on it tomorrow.

Turkey may have some limited autonomy but the fact that it's been fingered in the mainstream media as an IS supporter tells me it lacks the protection of Israel by a long shot. The mainstream media simply refuses to print the stories about Israel buying discount oil from IS.

Circular argument, wonderland logic. "It's in 'the media,' [which media?] so it must be false." "It's in the media, so it must be Israel" - the monocausal producer of 'mainstream media,' apparently, nothing more need be shown.

"Turkey" is nothing that can be reduced to a word. The current Turkish government is not a foreign puppet, it's not even a satellite. (Name three Turkish parties without searching and I might let you off easy.)

The fact that Obama's foreign policy has been far, far too moderate for many of the folks in Washington and the Israeli government doesn't tell me that it's radically different from what they would prefer.

Golly gee, that's true! It's also more than loose enough to allow plenty of POOMA room.

[tapitsbo]

Because it's 2016, I'm not going to put emotional labour into responding to all of this.

But I didn't claim anything like what you're suggesting, not even close, in fact!

So, let's underline again that the media and institutional protection given to Turkey, especially in the context of the IS bamboozle, is wildly different from that awarded to Israel, whose role is even better obscured than the US' role.

What "parties" (I don't mean political parties) associated with Turkey arouse your curiosity most of all, JackRiddler? Turkey's future status within NATO is an amazing thing to wonder about.

Maybe we can equivocate between Turkey and Israel when Vice publishes articles about the latter that have real teeth (comparing the discontinuities between their policies around identity with those that prevail in the West, for instance.)

Of course neither country's influence comes close to the overwhelming power of International Hellenism in terms of manicuring the narrative of Canadian kimchi recipe discussion boards.

[tapitsbo]

All this is not manageable by any simple US master plan (other than the only rational option - withdrawal of these attempts "management," throwing open the books, negotiating with the Russians to end the arms trade and stop supplying money and guns to any of the wars - which is less conceivable than ever at this moment of total unity around "Destroy ISIS," even though none of these jokers even know what the fuck they're saying, including Sanders!). That there is an effective secret 15-step master plan to eventually produce some kind of desired result out of this mess makes a lot less sense than that there are (transnational) factions at war over the policy. Presumably there are multiple such plans, and at conflict with each other, but who says any are working?

JackRiddler is definitely right that not everything is being controlled by the Western powers in this part of the world.

Maybe if close US allies like the Gulf States, Jordan, Israel, Saudi etc. were to collapse like Syria/Iraq have we can say that the situation truly was not "manageable", regardless of multiple plans having been put in place.

If Turkey is going to be sacrificed, this has yet to happen. Independence for Kurdish areas of Turkey wouldn't come close to the devastation visited on so many Arab countries (although I realize you're hinting at greater upheavals than this hitting Turkey). All I can see, however, is that the governments that are best characterized as Western proxies remain stable, whereas Middle Eastern governments that have pushed more boldly for sovereignty have, at worst, turned into warzones.

I don't wish this development on anyone and hope the entire region becomes more stable and peaceful.

And I note unhappily that "Festung Europa" doesn't necessarily mean an end to US occupation of Europe.

[JackRiddler]

Yes, we're agreed that the U.S. policy factions are in consensus that they like to see independence-minded secular Arab governments (dictatorships or not) dismantled, but would rather not (in consensus anyway) see such a result in Turkey or the oil kingdoms.

The upheaval that is hitting Turkey right now is its own government with its own agenda, and with a high risk of (more) civil war (than so far).

(You should admit to yourself at this point that you can't name three Turkish political parties without googling, which matters not because of the necessary importance of political parties, but just as an indicator of the level of knowledge from which you are proceeding. Such self-insights may help you have a better year. I constantly run across my own ignorance of various things and it almost always pleases me to correct it.)

It is unremarkable at this stage that the Erdogan state's support for ISIS has leaked out of "things everyone in the world other than Wolf Blitzer has been talking about the whole time" and ever-so-slightly into the incipiently obsolete U.S. "mainstream" media (and show me where in this "MSM" it's being highlighted as more than a detail). An Israeli role in this follows from it no more necessarily than a role for any other actor whose actions remain relatively obscured by comparison. But it's easy to say everything's all and always for Israel, isn't it?

[tapitsbo]

Knowing the parties and naming the parties are two different things. My year was pretty good, and I'm almost certain this year may be even better, not least because of self-insights of a completely different order.

Maybe you're not LITERALLY saying that an Israeli role hasn't leaked, but that's what you appear to be saying. I disagree of course - Turkish and Israeli connections have both leaked but these are treated very differently.

You're obviously a (very) intelligent person but I feel like everyone here is too smart to buy some of the framing it seems you're applying to this situation: ideas that Israel is equivalent to other states or can't be demonstrated to have links to (or at the very least heavy influence with) groups like IS, or that the US is on the retreat in the Middle East, or that European sovereignty and freedom from US military and political occupation is fascism.

You're not literally making these claims but maybe we can all disown these ideas together...

My only hope is that nobody comes away from reading this board with ideas like this. I trust you don't hold them yourself!

And I certainly don't believe that everything is being done for Israel in the Middle East wars. I simply feel that country is awarded exceptional status by the West.

Sure the mainstream media is obsolete, and I don't trust alternatives to it, either. But I figure its messaging is anything but random and there's a lot to be ascertained by reading between the lines, there.

So, I don't magically trust everything that someone like (the certainly partisan) AliceTheKurious says. But it seems you're calling a lot of her rather well argued and documented claims BS...

[seemslikeadream]

Israel and Turkey Agree to Restore Diplomatic Ties
By ISABEL KERSHNER and TIM ARANGO DEC. 17, 2015

[JackRiddler]

Why should I hold any of these ideas that you are attributing to me? I can write for myself, and people can read what I write for themselves.

Just to stick to your hobby horses, Israel is not equivalent to any other state, nor is any given state equivalent to any other state. Within that framework, and given that everyone's foreign policy also has transnational aspects, it certainly has more pull in US politics than Turkey, which doesn't really change the geostrategic logic that both are preferred as secure satellite states, but neither conforms all that well. Your ideas of Israel's central steering function in Daesh are no better than possible-plausibilities taken as certainties because the word Israel is in the sentence and no further evidence is required.

The US is perpetually on the retreat in the Middle East. That's a driver behind why it's been invading and intervening and bombing and fucking things up there for many decades: the assumption that the entire region is bound to one day be lost to US influence, which really took off in the 1970s.

"Europe" (the EU, or its "core," or even Eastern Europe) is not involuntarily under "US military occupation" -- or other form of US occupation, unless we're talking about how European big banks until recently relied on the Fed ZIRP/QE thing even more than Wall Street did. Which also was not involuntary. And there are many different and contradictory ways for "Europe" to become more independent of US foreign policy, not all of them good, and some of them heading toward or really already at elected fascism -- a tendency that has become more pronounced of late. But please, defend that Hungarian government.

Where are you again, by the way? (Relax I mean country, not address.)

[tapitsbo]

I guess you could say the US/"West" has always been on the retreat in the ME/NA; I'm not sure people in Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc. would agree. Oh right, I forgot the part where Israel's borders have been contracting wildly for the past fifty years.

But then again it's hard to keep track of who is a satellite of who. I get what you mean about politics being transnational (I don't doubt that yours are), but they look awfully different in different countries still, somehow.

You really think a majority of Germans (for example) want Merkel and US military bases at this point? If we really made this voluntary you'd think most of the world would want disarmament, and certainly an end to foreign bases.

I'm not a personal cheerleader for the Hungarian government but I'm confused about what basis a lot of other, much more powerful governments would have to criticize it. I laughed at Europe in quotes, though.

[JackRiddler]

I guess you could say the US/"West" has always been on the retreat in the ME/NA; I'm not sure people in Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc. would agree.

Depends who you're talking to, there or elsewhere. The European empires maxed out on territory shortly before they were forced into decolonization. Of course, not that this was the end of the story! FDR sitting down with King Saud on an aircraft carrier, that is power. Bush being compelled by God to invade Iraq, not so much. Obama late at night picking targets off a menu of unknown suspects in 14 countries, even less so.

Historically speaking, ever higher walls and perpetual wars on the imperial periphery, involving a multiplication of proxies indistinguishable from enemies, are horrific for those who experience the carnage directly -- and the end for millions who die -- but these devices should not be understood as a sign of underlying strength for those who see fit to build the walls and push the wars. Speaking of ever-higher walls:

Oh right, I forgot the part where Israel's borders have been contracting wildly for the past fifty years.

Not relevant to the point. I suppose it always seems relevant to you.

But then again it's hard to keep track of who is a satellite of who. I get what you mean about politics being transnational (I don't doubt that yours are), but they look awfully different in different countries still, somehow.

Sure. Where do you sit tapitsbo? If we're talking, I'm curious about your spatial perspective.

You really think a majority of Germans (for example) want Merkel and US military bases at this point?

Merkel yes (as opposed to the current alternatives). Bases no. I figure.

If we really made this voluntary you'd think most of the world would want disarmament, and certainly an end to foreign bases.

Whether we're talking Empire City or Hillsville, most of the world doesn't get to make policy.

I'm not a personal cheerleader for the Hungarian government but I'm confused about what basis a lot of other, much more powerful governments would have to criticize it. I laughed at Europe in quotes, though.

Perhaps. I am not an "other, much more powerful government." I am me, and I observe that the present Hungarian government is openly fascist, and that others in Eastern Europe are more than just tending that way.

.