The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
How Putin Derailed the West
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“Nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”

— Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Between Two Ages: The Technetronic Era”, 1971

“I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria….not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians.”

— Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Third Presidential Debate

Why is Hillary Clinton so eager to intensify US involvement in Syria when US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all gone so terribly wrong?

The answer to this question is simple. It’s because Clinton doesn’t think that these interventions went wrong. And neither do any of the other members of the US foreign policy establishment. (aka–The Borg). In fact, in their eyes these wars have been a rousing success. Sure, a few have been critical of the public relations backlash from the nonexistent WMD in Iraq, (or the logistical errors, like disbanding the Iraqi Army) but–for the most part– the foreign policy establishment is satisfied with its efforts to destabilize the region and remove leaders that refuse to follow Washington’s diktats.

This is hard for ordinary people to understand. They can’t grasp why elite powerbrokers would want to transform functioning, stable countries into uninhabitable wastelands overrun by armed extremists, sectarian death squads and foreign-born terrorists. Nor can they understand what has been gained by Washington’s 15 year-long rampage across the Middle East and Central Asia that has turned a vast swathe of strategic territory into a terrorist breeding grounds? What is the purpose of all this?

First, we have to acknowledge that the decimation and de facto balkanization of these countries is part of a plan. If it wasn’t part of a plan, than the decision-makers would change the policy. But they haven’t changed the policy. The policy is the same. The fact that the US is using foreign-born jihadists to pursue regime change in Syria as opposed to US troops in Iraq, is not a fundamental change in the policy. The ultimate goal is still the decimation of the state and the elimination of the existing government. This same rule applies to Libya and Afghanistan both of which have been plunged into chaos by Washington’s actions.

But why? What is gained by destroying these countries and generating so much suffering and death?

Here’s what I think: I think Washington is involved in a grand project to remake the world in a way that better meets the needs of its elite constituents, the international banks and multinational corporations. Brzezinski not only refers to this in the opening quote, he also explains what is taking place: The nation-state is being jettisoned as the foundation upon which the global order rests. Instead, Washington is erasing borders, liquidating states, and removing strong, secular leaders that can mount resistance to its machinations in order to impose an entirely new model on the region, a new world order. The people who run these elite institutions want to create an interconnected-global free trade zone overseen by the proconsuls of Big Capital, in other words, a global Eurozone that precludes the required state institutions (like a centralized treasury, mutual debt, federal transfers) that would allow the borderless entity to function properly.

Deep state powerbrokers who set policy behind the smokescreen of our bought-and-paid-for congress think that one world government is an achievable goal provided they control the world’s energy supplies, the world’s reserve currency and become the dominant player in this century’s most populous and prosperous region, Asia. This is essentially what Hillary’s “pivot” to Asia is all about.

The basic problem with Washington’s NWO plan is that a growing number of powerful countries are still attached to the old world order and are now prepared to defend it. This is what’s really going on in Syria, the improbable alliance of Russia, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah have stopped the US military juggernaut dead in its tracks. The unstoppable force has hit the immovable object and the immovable object has prevailed…so far.

Naturally, the foreign policy establishment is upset about these new developments, and for good reason. The US has run the world for quite a while now, so the rolling back of US policy in Syria is as much a surprise as it is a threat. The Russian Airforce deployed to Syria a full year ago in September, but only recently has Washington shown that it’s prepared to respond by increasing its support of its jihadists agents on the ground and by mounting an attack on ISIS in the eastern part of the country, Raqqa. But the real escalation is expected to take place when Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2017. That’s when the US will directly engage Russia militarily, assuming that their tit-for-tat encounters will be contained within Syria’s borders. It’s a risky plan, but it’s the next logical step in this bloody fiasco. Neither party wants a nuclear war, but Washington believes that doing nothing is tantamount to backing down, therefore, Hillary and her neocon advisors can be counted on to up the ante. “No-fly zone”, anyone?

The assumption is that eventually, and with enough pressure, Putin will throw in the towel. But this is another miscalculation. Putin is not in Syria because he wants to be nor is he there because he values his friendship with Syrian President Bashar al Assad. That’s not it at all. Putin is in Syria because he has no choice. Russia’s national security is at stake. If Washington’s strategy of deploying terrorists to topple Assad succeeds, then the same ploy will be attempted in Iran and Russia. Putin knows this, just like he knows that the scourge of foreign-backed terrorism can decimate entire regions like Chechnya. He knows that it’s better for him to kill these extremists in Aleppo than it will be in Moscow. So he can’t back down, that’s not an option.

But, by the same token, he can compromise, in other words, his goals and the goals of Assad do not perfectly coincide. For example, he could very well make territorial concessions to the US for the sake of peace that Assad might not support.

But why would he do that? Why wouldn’t he continue to fight until every inch of Syria’s sovereign territory is recovered?

Because it’s not in Russia’s national interest to do so, that’s why. Putin has never tried to conceal the fact that he’s in Syria to protect Russia’s national security. That’s his main objective. But he’s not an idealist, he’s a pragmatist who’ll do whatever he has to to end the war ASAP. That means compromise.

This doesn’t matter to the Washington warlords….yet. But it will eventually. Eventually there will be an accommodation of some sort. No one is going to get everything they want, that much is certain. For example, it’s impossible to imagine that Putin would launch a war on Turkey to recover the territory that Turkish troops now occupy in N Syria. In fact, Putin may have already conceded as much to Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan in their recent meetings. But that doesn’t mean that Putin doesn’t have his red lines. He does. Aleppo is a red line. Turkish troops will not be allowed to enter Aleppo.

The western corridor, the industrial and population centers are all red lines. On these, there will be no compromise. Putin will help Assad remain in power and keep the country largely intact. But will Turkey control sections in the north, and will the US control sections in the east?

Probably. This will have to be worked out in negotiations, but its unlikely that the country’s borders will be the same as they were before the war broke out. Putin will undoubtedly settle for a halfloaf provided the fighting ends and security is restored. In any event, he’s not going to hang around until the last dog is hung.

Unfortunately, we’re a long way from any settlement in Syria, mainly because Washington is nowhere near accepting the fact that its project to rule the world has been derailed. That’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? The bigshots who run the country are still in denial. It hasn’t sunk in yet that the war is lost and that their nutty jihadist-militia plan has failed.

It’s going to take a long time before Washington gets the message that the world is no longer its oyster. The sooner they figure it out, the better it’ll be for everyone.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

(Republished from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Syria 
Hide 16 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Diogenes says:

    Mike is trying to make sense out of the chaotic American foreign within the Arab lands hosting the world’s largest fossil fuel deposits. He thinks it’s really about corporate globalization aiming at the destruction of Nation State by destroying it’s infrastructure, breaking down state institutions which control the social and economic order and thereby freeing the former nation’s control of economic resources so it can be plundered by multinational corporations. This seems like a rational explanation of an otherwise senseless, pointless American military rampage throughout the region which has created nothing but destruction, inter ethnic and religious carnage, global terrorist movements, anarchy and chaos without any worthwhile payoff to date. So,to date, it must therefore be a job half finished. If that was the plan how are the global corporatetists going to restore order and take control of the economic prizes they so much covet? How are they going to stop the reestablishment of nationalist or ethnic forces from reclaiming the land and it’s resources? How are the globalists going to impose law and order and take control if not through the forceful imposition of a state apparatus that they, in some way, control? Is this not simply a recipe for imperialism? What does a corporate global imperialism look like? How do corporate multinationals realise their goal of running a former nation state? I’ll believe it when I see it.

    • Disagree: Kiza
    • Replies: @mtn cur
    , @Bill Jones
  2. I don’t want anybody’s bigshots to rule the world, nor to rule America either. That ought to be left to the American people, to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

    Currently, the multinational corporate bigshots aren’t exporting democracy to the world, but oligarchy. The most effective way to export democratic accountability to others is through example, one that we are surely not now exemplifying. It’s not going to be easy to reclaim that ground at this late date, as the Trump nomination and opposition shows. It’s very late in an apparent losing game for populism, when only a celebrity billionaire can make a stand for us, a kind of loose cannon traitor to his class.

  3. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    This doesn’t matter to the Washington warlords….yet

    Washington “warlords” are extremely uneducated, in fact–largely ignorant, on the issue which makes them “warlords”–a war, a warfare and everything associated with it. But then again, looking at American “academe” one has to seriously question the adequacy of most (not all) those people. But then, yet again, “being exceptional” will do this to almost anyone.

  4. While our Trotskyist neo-cons seek savagely to avenge their God Who Failed, China has the trains running into the wasteland we have created in Afghanistan. When the two Silk routes are up and going full tilt, the Empire can watch as most of Eurasia is serviced by China and fed by Russia and we are back in the homeland broke and sulking.

  5. Diogenes says:

    Now let’s address part 2 of Mike’s thesis, that Russia will save the Assad Regime and thereby foil the American designs in Syria. First, lets be clear that there can be no doubt that the Americans and their allies have supported Terrorist Rebels and Jihadists in order to overthrow the Syrian regime. Let’s also remember that these terrorist organizations, ISIS, Nusra, et al, are anti -western, anti -American, anti -imperialists, anti -christian political Islamists! All they have in common with the West is that they want to depose the secular nationalist Syrian regime. So after Assad is overthrown and a religious bloodbath ensues with large scale “ethnic cleaning” of Syrian lands how are the global imperialists going to take control of an anti western Sunni controlled Syria. Well that’s where the “Moderate” opposition comes in, the Americans have pre-selected corrupt Syrian puppets [traitors] who have cut a deal with the devil, waiting in the wings. Presumably after the Assad regime falls the Americans will use a R2P pretext to end the bloodshed and bomb the Islamists into submission or drive them out of the country leaving their compliant puppets to rule over the ruins and spoils. Perhaps part of the deal is for American contractors to rebuild the country and American companies to run the new Syrian economy. If that was the plan, it seems the Americans will get control of only the oil rich eastern parts of Syria, the Turks the northern central part and the Kurds the north eastern part, with a populous, secular, pro Iranian ,pro Russian regime controlling the rest of Syria, in which case, the American plan was only a partial success. A similar outcome will probably occur in Libya and Iraq. These lands will be weakened and partitioned with only parts controlled by the neo- imperialists. Perhaps a partial success but at what human and environmental costs? If this is indeed the plan what does it say about capitalist globalism and the “New World Order”? May I suggest that it is ruthless, destructive and morally bankrupt with no place in the future of a peaceful and prosperous world.I hope you agree.

  6. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    So many revolutions or transformations were made possible by foreign affairs.

    Romans over-extended and eventually lost not only their empire but their own core domain(to barbarian hordes).

    The French Monarchy’s greatest triumph also paved to way for its tragic downfall. French Monarchy got deeply involved in the American Revolution and bankrupted itself to defeat the British. It succeeded but soon was brought down by a revolution far more frightening than anything that happened in the British colonies.

    Ottoman Empire fell with the defeat in World War I.

    WWI led to downfall of both German monarchy and Russian monarchy.

    The Tokugawa Dynasty fell from power due to foreign intervention, mainly by Americans and British.

    Without foreign involvement or intervention, a political system can be remarkably stable, resilient, and long-lasting, even if stagnant(or precisely because it is so), oppressive, corrupt, and etc.


    Most political orders are dominated by a few centers. It’s like whatever happens in New York(center of finance and news media), Los Angeles(center of entertainment), Washington D.C.(center of government), and San Francisco(center of high tech) pretty much determines what happens in the rest of the country. A few centers lead and dominate; and all others follow.

    Before the Meiji Revolution, the Tokugawas in Edo(now Tokyo) ruled Japan. Whatever happened there shaped the rest of Japan. It’s like ‘flyover country’ doesn’t matter to those in the centers of American Power. (In a larger sense, whatever happens in Washington DC and New York also defines whatever happens in all the vassal-nations of the US.)
    So, how did the Tokugawa lose its grip? During its long reign, rival clans submitted to Tokuogawa authority and only quietly maintained a degree of independence and autonomy. As long as the Tokugawa Shogunate seemed invincible, the other clans went along. They were fry-obah kantry. But when the Tokugawa order was finally shaken by the arrival of foreign naval power, the rival clans saw an opening. Tokugawa lost its legitimacy in having failed to defend Japan from foreigners. So, the Japanese Revolution, aka Meiji Restoration, was made possible by foreign intervention. Even though the rival clans were just as anti-foreign(possibly even more so) as the Tokugawas, they were empowered by the opportunities presented by crisis brought about by foreign intervention.

    So, for would-be revolutionaries, nothing is as useful as foreign matters. Sometimes, revolution is the product of over-extension of empire or foreign wars. Russian Empire over-extended itself and lost in WWI. Soviet Empire also over-extended and fell.
    In the case of China and Japan, foreign invasions gave an opening to revolutionaries and rebels who’d effectively been suppressed in ideas or power by the ruling elites.
    Without the foreign threat to destabilize the system, the few key centers of power could keep a firm grip on the entire kingdom or state almost permanently. But when foreign matters shake those key centers of power, everything becomes possible.

    The rise of Putin and consolidation of Russian nationalism couldn’t have been possible without the foreign-aided disasters of the 1990s.
    If the Soviet Union collapsed due to foreign pressures of capitalism that created more wealth and power, the Russian order of the 90s collapsed from foreign exploitation via pirate-capitalism.

    Revolution or Reaction, it results when the effective centers of power are shaken. Even though they can be shaken entirely by domestic factors, it is far more likely that the key impact will be supplied by foreign affairs or foreign forces. (Even the social revolutions of the 60s had a much greater impact due to the Vietnam War.)

    Look at North Korea and Cuba. Miserable as those nations are economically, the tight political control of Pyongyang and Havana prevents fundamental change to the system. They keep foreign influences out.
    But in Iraq and Libya, where US was able to remove central authority, everything fell apart. (Gaddafi’s fate was sealed when he got too close with and trusting of Western powers that were secretly using their newfound access to plant the seeds of strife all over Liyba.) And there are powerful forces in the US that wants to see the fall of Assad for the same reason. Now, might not the fall of such leaders pave the way for rise of new even more fearsome and troublesome leaders? After all, the fall of Old Japan led to rise of New Japan that was a threat to Western influence in Asia. And the fall of Imperial Germany eventually led to rise of Nazi Germany.

    But US elites aren’t so worried about such prospect in Middle East and North Africa because the demographics are so different there. When the old order fell in Japan, Japan was still all Japanese, and all these Japanese would be behind the new order, if anything even more so since it gave more voice to the people. Same with Germany and Turkey. Even with the fall of the Kaiserian order, Germany was all Germany and could reconstitute itself into a great German power. And with the demise of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks in Anatolia could rebuild themselves into a united nation-state.
    In contrast, Middle Eastern and North African nations are too diverse. A ‘Libyan’ or ‘Syrian’ has no great historical sense or meaning as identity; they are ‘ancient’ identities long lost to conquests by Arab clans and tribes; they were retroactively reapplied by ‘Orientalist’ Western forces. (It’d be like Chinese conquering Mexico and renaming everyone there — white, mestizo, mulatto, indigenes, etc — as ‘Azteca’.) So, if the center of power is destabilized in MENA, division and distrust will prevent the rise of a new unified order. Iraq can never be put together again. Same with Libya, and same with parts of Syria.

    This may seem like a great triumph for the globalist forces in the US, but it has a destabilizing impact on the West as well. All those ‘refugees’ unloosed by wars and crisis in Middle East and North Africa have sent shockwaves throughout Europe, and this may lead to the rise of ‘far right’ politics. Merkel’s government has been weakened by the fateful decision to bring in all these foreigners. Again, foreign forces are making revolutionary conditions possible. Revolutionary conditions that were once thought of as unthinkable have become thinkable due to these massive foreign invasions.

    And Trump wouldn’t have a campaign if not against globalism that opposes the invade-invite strategy of the globalists who expend too much of America’s resources on foreign wars & intervention and undermine the American electorate with massive infusions of immigrants who will fundamentally change the character of the nation.

    Win or lose, Trump’s candidacy heralds a new kind of politics in America: Racial Reaction-Revolutionary Politics. Whites are beginning to think, “If the globalist elites who rule over us bring in all these non-whites and encourage their tribal pride and anti-white animus, why shouldn’t we whites recover and reignite our racial identity and pride?”

    Foreign Forces are the main impetus to revolution, reaction, and/or transformation.
    Foreign Influence/Intervention inspires revolutionary release or ignites reactionary resistance. Sometimes, the two, revolution and reaction, are fused into one, as in Vietnam when Revolutionary Communists waged a reactionary-nationalist war against the foreign French and Americans.

    Foreign Forces are the fire that makes the forging of the new order possible. The smart revolutionary or reactionary uses this fire carefully and sensibly, as Kemal Ataturk did in exploiting foreign crisis to create modern Turkey.
    But the dumb, reckless, or crazy revolutionary or reactionary uses this fire stupidly and gets burned in the process, like Hitler and Tojo in WWII.

    American Reaction-Revolutionaries need to look to Choshu and Satsuma clans when Tokugawa rule was shaken to the core by foreign powers. Even though Choshu and Satsuma forces were just as ‘xenophobic'(if not more so) as the Tokugawas, they could not have moved against the Tokugawas if not for foreign intervention of Americans and British. It wasn’t isolated domestic uprising that drove Tokugawas out of power. As long as Japan was isolated, the key centers of power had a tight grip on everything. It was foreign forces that diminished the power of Tokugawa Dynasty, and that gave an opening to the other clans whose aspirations had long been suppressed. Even so, the coming transformation of Japan was so huge that it went far beyond the domination by the new clan as the new boss. Even the new rulers were subsumed by transformations that overtook every corner of society and gave opportunity for success and achievement to any individual in the nation.

    Now, US is very different from Tokugawa Japan in this sense: Whereas Tokugawas were threatened by a power far greater than itself, US is the most powerful nation on earth. If anything, it is in the business of threatening and destroying other nations.
    But there are many contradictions in America that may make this kind of globo-imperialism ever more risky for the powers-that-be. For starters, the American conservatives and the Right, traditionally the most supportive of the US military, are moving into anti-war position, much like between WWI and WWII. They no longer see the US-homo-and-female-and-diverse-military as their own. And they no longer identify with the Neocon interests that say white Americans should kill white Russians. So, there is a contradiction on the Right.

    But there are also many contradictions on the so-called Left. Democratic Party is supposed to be ‘progressive’ and dove-ish, but it is now led by the most hawkish person since who knows when. It is into saber-rattling, and etc., and this makes many progs feel uneasy, even queasy. Even though Progs support Hillary as ‘lesser of two evils’, the fact is she is by far the greater evil even by the basic standards of leftist politics. Her policy is that of a foreign imperialist warmonger, and her brand of anti-Russian paranoia makes Joe McCarthy seen like Eugene McCarthy. So far, globalism has morally justified US globalist power on the basis of spreading homomania — just like Western Imperialists morally justified past aggression on the promise of spreading the light of God and Jesus. Western Imperialism once hid behind the notion of Saving Souls; today, it hides behind the fruity crusade or fruitsade of Poofting Holes. This has been effective in getting the progs onboard, but it is also fraught with dangers. Once people began to realize that homomania is really a cynical tool for neo-imperialism, globalism will lose its moral advantage and justification. Today’s progs feel it was wrong for the West to invoke Christianity to conquer and dominate other peoples. So, they will feel shame once they realize that they do exactly the same thing today, the only difference being that their imperialist and aggressive religion is homomania.

    Once, there was a time when ‘democracy’ was a rare commodity in the world, and that alone made the West appealing to much of humanity. The West stood for democracy, the Soviets stood for communist repression, and Third World stood for dictatorship. But democracy has spread all over the world. Most Latin American nations are democratic(and oftentimes, democracy leads to anti-Americanism, as with Duterte in Philippines). Even Iran has elections, and Russia is nominally a democracy too. So, invoking ‘democracy’ hardly makes the US and the West seem so special anymore. For the US and West to seem more special and ‘more evolved’ than others, it needs a new theme, and it’s been ‘diversity is our strength’ and homomania. (Granted the main appeal of the West today is material wealth than moral themes. People would be flocking to the US even if it had no elections cuz they just want a better material life. Americanism has thus become totally crass.) Diversity is both appealing and unappealing to the world. Many people suffer because they have too much diversity in their own nations, and if anything, they want to move to the West cuz of its relative lack of diversity. Even with rising diversity in Canada, Europe, Australia, and US, they are less diverse than messy Latin America, messy Middle East, and messy India(where there are so many ethnic groups who can’t stand one another). Diversity is appealing to non-whites to the extent that white nations will accept them as immigrants. But their main reason of moving to the West is to live with large numbers of ‘superior’ whites who run a better system than diverse morons in their own nations. After all, Somalis would rather move to a part of America that is very white than to another African nation or part of US that is overrun by Mexicans, Hindus, Chinese, and Negroes.

    As for homomania, this is making the US and EU look dumber and trashier, what with the face of ‘human rights’ in America being some guy in women’s dress using the ladies room. This tranny business also undermines the politics of victimology. Progs say, in the name of feminism, that women need to be protected from stronger men who often abuse women… but now, a big guy in a dress is seen as a victim of ‘exclusive’ women who don’t want to share washrooms with cinderfellas. There is something sick and demented about globalism when Hillary attacks both ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘homophobia’. She’s with both those who throw homos off the roof and those who love to find someone to boof.

    If America’s foreign policy falls into total shambles, it might threaten the globalist project as well, and that will shake American domestic politics, and that may lead to change. America has become so globo-imperial that the fall of globalism will be like an octopus with tentacles cut off. It wouldn’t know what to do.

  7. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “This is hard for ordinary people to understand. They can’t grasp why elite powerbrokers would want to transform functioning, stable countries into uninhabitable wastelands overrun by armed extremists, sectarian death squads and foreign-born terrorists… But why? What is gained by destroying these countries and generating so much suffering and death? Here’s what I think: I think Washington is involved in a grand project to remake the world in a way that better meets the needs of its elite constituents, the international banks and multinational corporations.”

    Leaving the ethnic angle out of this gets us nowhere. After all, if it’s just some faceless multi-national network of corporations, banks, and power-brokers, it should try to dismantle and weaken EVERY nation-state. Why not do to Israel what has been done to Iraq, Libya, and Syria? Why not break Israel into so many pieces by aiding Palestinians and Arabs? Why not loot and rape Israel like Russia was looted in the 90s?
    Pure Greed has a kind of dark integrity. It is an equal opportunity plunderer. It robs every people and every land equally. It doesn’t play favorites. It’s like Gordon Gekko will turn on everyone and everything. He is a son of a bitch, but a ‘fair’ and ‘principled’ son of a bitch who cuts no one any slack. And it’s like Dirty Harry ‘hates everyone’ and doesn’t play favorites when it comes to justice.

    Also, globalism doesn’t only attack and destabilize the Third World. Same happens to the West itself. The INVITE as corollary to the INVADE strategy.
    EU is being invaded by hordes of non-white, and people like Soros and his whore Hillary welcome this. Even European leaders whose role is to defend and serve their own nations are on the bandwagon of their own self-destruction.

    YET none of these leaders and none of the globalist big-shots demand that the same thing be done to Israel. IF anything, people like Hillary, even as they call for invasion of Europe and endless ‘diversity’, call for total support of Israel as a secure and powerful democratic-fascist-nation-state with a solid Jewish majority and restrictive immigration laws.

    It’s not just some abstract greed that is running amok around the world. If so, it wouldn’t spare Israel while radically transforming other MENA nations.
    Why is Israel being ‘pass-overed’?

    God may not exist, but the globalist-powers-that-be give special ‘pass-over’ to the Jewish State while others nearby are visited by locusts and running with rivers of blood.

    Back in ancient times(according to myth), God did that to free the Jews from Egyptian tyranny. Today, Jewish oligarchs are the pharaohs with the power of the Biblical deity to smash and destroy entire nations. If not with bombs than with the filth of Hollywood and MTV. Souls are destroyed all over.

  8. KA says:

    Can a weakened empire maintain the control on the breakaway regions of Libya Syria,and Iraq? American power isn’t like it was at the time of vivisection f Vietnam or Korea. Division of Cyprus, India, or Ireland even don’t offer a template of possible hope to make anybody feel comfortable with the unfolding future of America in dissected Syria or Iraq. Once the regional new centers are stable ,they would have no reason to remain beholden to Amertica in a changing world with American economic power slipping away .If they are not stable then the regional powers will insert themselves not necessarily helping American interests . Britan couldn’t maintain control on India or Pakistan or Cyprus despite lingering tensions and wars nd instabilities . It will prove to be a drain on US resources and will pollute the internal economic,military,political arrangements as it did for France in Algeria . ME is not going to be the replay of Central America or Congo or Ethiopia . Powerful adversaries will not allow that to happen.
    Actually ME coud prove to be the proverbial nail on the coffin of America’s manifest destiny. America will rely on drone and sanctions but it hasn’t achieved much beyond sending drones and imposing sanctions in Yemen,Somalia or Pakistan . Another 10 yrs will achieve nothing new while other countries will figure out how to stop supporting America( Ethiopia in Somlia, Phillipnes in SE Asia , Pakistan in Afhhanistan Europe in Eukraine ) and how to have their own plans ready for implementation but free of American influence ( Saudi Arab, Egypt, Malyasia , India and Brazil or S Africa ) . America has accelerated its own replacement as the only power with any say anywhere on the world . By itself this pain of loss will immobilize the politicl direction of America abroad . Current stupid remarks of Democrats,Media,and of Republocan only prove the point that they are still trying to live in the past glory of post WW2 Washington consensus when America could mount successful coup in Iran or Guatamala sending some psychopaths as the harbinger of honesty and democracy. Above all the foreign adventures have already created France of 1960 like is situation and has introduced McCarthy kind of atmosphere .

  9. Rehmat says:

    “Why is Hillary Clinton so eager to intensify US involvement in Syria when US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all gone so terribly wrong?”

    Well, Hillary Clinton is following the path of her Black Zionist Christian sister Dr. Condoleezza Rice who announced Washington’s plan how to secure the Jewish occupation of Palestine in Tel Aviv in June 2006. Her plan to create Hertez Yisrael (Greater Israel) was to create an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

    Rachelle Marshall, an American Jewish freelance writer, in her July 2009 article titled Death of a Myth: Israel’s Support of a Two-State Solution wrote:

    “…..With the exception of Jimmy Carter, American presidents and the Congress have bought into the image of Israel as a peace-loving country whose actions are intended only to protect its citizens from terrorism. Following Israel’s lead, Washington for years refused any contact with the PLO, and it continues to shun Hamas as terrorist. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Congress in April that the Obama administration would consider dealing with Hamas as a member of a unity government only if it renounced violence, recognized Israel, and agreed to abide by past agreements.

    These demands, unfair to begin with, have become untenable in the light of Israel’s unequivocal rejection of a two-state solution. Hamas leaders have repeatedly indicated their willingness to make peace with Israel if it withdrew to its 1967 borders. Hamas also signed on to the 2002 Arab peace proposal that promised full recognition of Israel and was based on the same terms. The recent election of an Israeli government that opposes any form of Palestinian state means that Hamas’ position is now closer to Washington’s than is Israel’s.

  10. Marcus says:

    The Borg were honest at least: “Negotiation is irrelevant!”

  11. attonn says:

    “Why is Hillary Clinton so eager to intensify US involvement in Syria when US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all gone so terribly wrong?”

    That question is easily answered when you look at Clinton Foundation’s biggest bribers (donors).
    Those happen to be are Saudis, Qataris and Emiratis.
    So, Hillary is bought and paid for by the same people who turned Syria into a bloody mess, and to whom she owes a whole bunch of favors.

    Fortunately, this wahabist scum is starting to run out of money, thanks to the low oil prices. But Clintons sell their services cheap and probably keep discounting their offers, so the danger will remain for some time.

    Having said that, I don’t think she has guts to go to war with Russia. “Exceptional” people love to kill, but really, REALLY don’t want to die.

  12. This type of behavior originated deep in our ancestral past. Nothing like slaughtering a neighboring tribe for fertile females and other resources.

    Since almost everyone alive today benefited from such a behavior by their ancestors, killing others for gain is easily implemented and rationalized. Resisting what got you here is what is difficult.

    As a thought experiment, try to imagine how the alpha-male of a hunter-gatherer tribe would motivate the lower tribe members to attack an kill their neighbors.

  13. Urim says:

    Thanks to Killary’s approach the history will be repeated. Due to all this “democratic” actions really beautiful places turned to be dangerous ones to visit. Read why

  14. polistra says:

    I don’t think Deepstate wants total control. If they wanted total control they would fight these wars decisively. We know how to do that. We did it in WW2.

    What we’re doing since WW2 is fighting to create and maintain chaos, not to win and govern. Permanent chaos means permanent “terrorist” threats, which means permanent justification to increase military and intel budgets, and permanent justification for INTERNAL tyranny within US and Europe.

    It’s just good old Parkinson’s Law. Create and maintain an intrinsically unsolvable problem so you can spend forever “trying” to solve it. It’s the same approach we use in education and welfare and drugs and crime.

  15. @Diogenes

    Tell that to the Greeks, who live in a Goldman Sachs world.
    Tell that to people trying to save for retirement in a zero interest rate world- created by the bankster owned Federal Reserve.

    When did you get to vote for someone to run the IMF? The World Bank? Ask the Argentinians how they are doing under the tutelage of the IMF.

    Ask DSK what happens if you suggest straying from the script.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS