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
Kerry’s Debacle in Vienna
🔊 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

Can someone explain to me why President Obama decided to announce that he’s going to deploy U.S. Special Forces to Syria on the same day that Secretary of State John Kerry was scheduled to meet with Russian and Iranian diplomats to discuss how to end the four and a half year-long war?

What was that all about?

Did he think he was going to scare the Russians and Iranians by rattling a few sabers?

Did he think that they’d call off their military offensive and withdraw their support for Assad?

What was he thinking?

Even Kerry was embarrassed by the announcement, which accomplished nothing except to convince the attendees that US foreign policy is concocted by amateurs who have no idea what they’re doing. That’s all it achieved.

According to the New York Times, “Mr. Kerry told reporters the timing of the announcement was ‘a coincidence’ and that he was not aware a decision had been made until earlier Friday.” (Obama Sends Special Operations Forces to Help Fight ISIS in Syria, New York Times)

“A coincidence”? Kerry thinks it was a coincidence?

Fortunately, the Times isn’t nearly as clueless as Kerry, in fact, they even admit what the real objective was. Check it out:

“President Obama announced on Friday that he had ordered several dozen Special Operations troops into Syria for the first open-ended mission by United States ground forces in that country…

… the dispatch of American troops …was meant to bolster diplomatic efforts by Secretary of State John Kerry, who on Friday reached an agreement in Vienna with countries with opposing stakes to explore “a nationwide cease-fire” …(Obama Sends Special Operations Forces to Help Fight ISIS in Syria, New York Times)

See? It wasn’t coincidence at all. It was intentional. It was designed to “bolster diplomatic efforts by Secretary of State John Kerry.” In other words, it was a threat, pure and simple.

To really appreciate how short-sighted the move was, we need to try to understand why these talks were convened to begin with. What’s the purpose of these negotiations and who requested them?

Well, Washington requested them; not Russia, not Iran, not Saudi Arabia, not Turkey and not Europe. Washington. And the reason Washington wanted these meetings is because (as the Times says) they want “to explore a nationwide cease-fire”. The administration wants to stop the fighting. Now. That’s why Kerry has been running around like a chicken with his head cut off to get all the diplomats together in one place ASAP.

But don’t presume for a minute that because Washington wants a ceasefire, that they also want a “political solution” or “negotiated settlement” or peace, because they don’t. Peace isn’t even on the agenda and it never has been. For the last four and a half years the US has been supporting Sunni extremists and other militant groups to make sure that peace is avoided at all cost, because peace would be an obstacle for the real objective, which is regime change.

So what changed; in other words, why is Kerry so eager to convene meetings now when he’s had every opportunity to call off the dogs for the last four years?

What changed is Vladimir Putin. Putin got sick and tired of the US ripping these Middle East countries to shreds and decided to put an end to it. So he formed a coalition (The 4+1: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah) and started bombing the hell out of the jihadis.

This created a big problem for Washington because many of these violent extremists have been armed and trained by the US. They’re Washington’s “guys” and they’ve been doing Washington’s dirty-work by prosecuting a proxy war that is designed to topple Syrian President Bashar al Assad. That’s why Kerry convened the meetings, because he needs a ceasefire to save as many of these US-backed scoundrels as possible. Here’s Kerry’s actual statement following Friday’s confab:

“The theory of the ceasefire is very simple: Certain parties control or influence people with guns and the ability to fight. And if we do reach an agreement with respect to some of the road forward, there would be a responsibility for those with influence and those with – those who have direct control over certain parties, they would control them. Obviously, with respect to Daesh and al-Nusrah, there is no ceasefire, there would be none, and those are the early parameters. But much more needs to be discussed between militaries, the politics….. There are all kinds of possibilities, but they remain to be explored.”

Does it seem to you, dear reader, that Kerry is a lot more interested in working out the particulars of a ceasefire than he is in ending the conflict? That’s because his real aim is not peace and humanitarian assistance, but saving as many of these bloodthirsty hyenas as possible. That’s Washington’s goal.

Why does it matter?

It matters because if Washington doesn’t really want peace, then we have to assume that the talks are a charade and that Kerry is just buying time so he can regroup his forces and resume the war at some later date.

How do we know this?

We know it because Kerry delivered a speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace the day before he left for Vienna in which he announced exactly what the US strategy is. Here’s what he said:

“In northern Syria, the coalition and its partners have pushed Daesh (ISIS) out of more than 17,000 square kilometers of territory, and we have secured the Turkish-Syrian border east of the Euphrates River. That’s about 85 percent of the Turkish border, and the President is authorizing further activities to secure the rest…….

We’re also enhancing our air campaign in order to help drive Daesh, which once dominated the Syria-Turkey border, out of the last 70-mile stretch that it controls.” (U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on the Future of U.S. Policy in the Middle East, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)

There it is in black and white. Kerry is basically telling his inner-circle friends that Washington is moving on to Plan B, a fallback plan that will involve the establishment of a “safe zone” on the Syrian side of the Syrian-Turkish border where the US and its partners can continue to arm, train and deploy their jihadi hoodlums back into Syria whenever they choose to do so. So now we know what Obama’s Special Forces are really going to be doing in Syria, don’t we? They’re going to be overseeing operations that will put this plan into motion.

How do you think Putin is going to like the idea that Washington wants to annex sovereign Syrian territory so they can continue hostilities for the foreseeable future?

He’s not going to like it at all, in fact, it could be a big problem for him. If the US secures an area where it can dig in for the long-haul, then they might actually succeed in turning the conflict into another Afghanistan-type quagmire, which appears to be what many of Washington strategic planners actually want.

So what should Putin do? How does he achieve his objectives without getting bogged down?

Well, the first thing he’s got to do is realize that Vienna is a joke. The Obama administration isn’t serious about a diplomatic solution at all. It’s all just smoke and mirrors. Kerry’s admission that the US controls “about 85 percent of the Turkish border, and the President is authorizing further activities to secure the rest” proves beyond a doubt that Washington is already moving ahead with Plan B. That’s the whole deal in a nutshell.

Putin has probably already figured out that Vienna is fraud, which would explain why his main man, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, has refused to make any concessions on any of the points that are being discussed. (in Vienna) As far as Lavrov is concerned, all of Russia’s demands are going to be met or there’s not going to be a deal. The state and its institutions will remain intact, the terrorist groups will be exterminated, Assad will be a part of the “transitional government”, and the Syrian people will decide for themselves who leads them in the future. This is the basic Geneva roadmap and Lavrov is sticking to it like glue. Washington is going to comply because they’re not going to be given a choice in the matter.

As for the ceasefire: Well, Lavrov shot down that idea too. Here’s what he said: “If a ceasefire is declared, no terrorist organizations should be subjected to it.” In other words, the Russian-led coalition is going to keep killing these jokers until every last one of them is dead.

This statement hasn’t appeared in any western media, probably because it clarifies who is really setting the agenda. Russia is setting the agenda. It also suggests that there is no wiggle room in Moscow’s approach, and there isn’t. The terrorists, moderate or radical, are going to be hunted down and exterminated. End of story.

Here’s something else Lavrov said:

“Russia remains firm on its position that fighting terrorism should be conducted in accordance with the solid basis of international law, whether we are talking about military interventions from air or ground operations, these need to be conducted in agreement with the government or with the UN Security Council.”

In other words, if a country, like the US, decides to conduct military operations in Syria illegally, (which it is) then they do so at their own risk. Russia is going to continue to aggressively implement its battle plan whether US Special Forces put themselves in harms way or not.

Also, the Russian-led offensive is going to reestablish Syria’s sovereign borders. If Obama wants to claim a part of Syria’s territory as a refuge for his for-hire assassins, then he’d better be prepared to fight for it, because that’s what it’s going to take.

Putin has shown a remarkable ability to anticipate Washington’s moves and take preemptive steps to minimize their impact. Even so, it’s going to be tough sledding if Obama is able to create a sanctuary on the Turkish border where jihadis can enter and exit Syria at will keeping the country in a permanent state of turmoil. In that case, Putin would face his worse nightmare, the prospect of staying in Syria forever.

Does Putin have something up his sleeve to counter this threat? Would he, for example, be willing to deploy his own elite shock-troops from the 7th Guards Airborne-Assault (Mountain) Division, who have been spotted around Latakia, to wrest control of the border from rebel fighters thus putting a swift end to Washington’s twisted plan to create a safe zone, splinter Syria into smaller statelets and create a permanent haven for Islamic extremists?

Putin sees terrorism as a direct threat to Russia’s national security. He’s going to do whatever it takes to defeat the enemy and win the war. If that means he’s got to put Russian boots on the ground to get the job done, then that’s what he’ll do.

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: John Kerry, Russia, Syria 
Hide 45 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Kiza says:

    Yup, it looks like there will only be escalation in Syria. But Ukraine is not dead either. Watch for a restart of the Ukro-Nazi aggression and bombardment of Eastern Ukraine at a signal from the West.

    I was worried that I did not see Putin’s end-game in Syria and I still am. I have commented that the solution for terrorism in Syria cannot be to bomb terrorists, then to bomb the sponsors of terrorism: US, Israel, Saudi, Qatar and Turkey. Naturally, this would mean a big war, possibly a nuclear one.

    What is the current game plan in Syria?
    The Russians will keep hitting the terrorist targets from the air. The Iranians and Hezbollah will be fighting them on the ground, together with regular SAA.
    The Western media will start a howling and braying campaign for a “Safe Heaven for Civilians” in Syria, near Turkey, Israel and Jordan. The Western countries will unload war refugees into these zones and mix them up with their jihadi foreign mercenaires, to protect jihadis from the Russian air-strikes.

    BTW, this is almost exactly the same scenario as Srebrenica during the Bosnian War, when the Western countries, together with their drone Yelstin, declared a UN Safe Heaven of Srebrenica with a whole Bosnian Muslim Army and several paramilitary outfits inside, perfect to conduct guerrilla attacks from and then return. The only difference will be that in Syria they will not be “UN Safe Heavens” because Russia and China do not go along with Western military interventionism any more.

    Therefore, Putin has to promptly send his special forces to prevent creation of the Western “Safe Heavens for the Civilians” in Syria.

    • Replies: @Quartermaster
  2. Rehmat says:

    NYT is always first to get into the brain of every US president because its earphones are attached to Israel’s department of public relations. John Kerry is nothing but another AIPAC political poodle.

    Put is not in Syria to save Syrians or saving the Middle East from next Holocaust. He waited the Syrian army and Hizbullah to defeat the US-Israel-Saudi-Turkish insurgency against the ‘Axis of Resistance’ (Syria-Iran-Hizbullah) for four years. After realizing that the ‘New Middle East’ may lead Russia outside the door, Putin decided to take on the already demoralized ISIS/ISIL terrorists.

    The agenda of both Putin and Obama is to carve the Middle East under their influences in such a way the all threats to Israel are eliminated.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  3. Apparently Putin will do whatever it takes (and no more) to destroy Imperial mercenaries in Syria. Whatever it takes could include a hundred thousand Chinese troops. There are two possible outcomes. Putin prevails or nuclear winter. Either way Obama is the last American Emperor.

  4. Macilrae says:

    Excellent article, Mike.

    After a few more presidential cycles, it’s conceivable that the people of the USA will come to realize that their single most vital issue in any election is Foreign Policy. As things stand, it is treated as a side issue and, effectively, almost all US foreign policy is set being by neocons, who in turn bow to Israel.

    As Mike Whitney reminds us, the Obama troupe is performing with mind-numbing incompetence but, if you think this is bad, consider the array of contenders for his job: all of whom touch upon foreign policy as an afterthought. They are vying with each other to display their ‘toughness’ towards Iran, Russia and China: all the time nervously looking back to make sure they are still getting a small approving nod from Tel Aviv.

    Whomever of these gets elected, the prospect is either for an all-out war or a deep humiliation for the USA – quite possibly both, if there is anything left.

  5. SAW says:

    Good article and a sound analysis of the geopolitical state of affairs. If this conflict escalates further, the blood will be on Obama’s hands.

  6. “the coalition and its partners have pushed Daesh (ISIS) out of more than 17,000 square kilometers of territory, and we have secured the Turkish-Syrian border east of the Euphrates River. That’s about 85 percent of the Turkish border, and the President is authorizing further activities to secure the rest…….”

    This refers to the Kurds, who control that area, not to the US-backed Jihadis. The Kurds would already have taken the border west of the Euphrates if not for Turkey, which backs Daesh and the other Jihadis, forbidding it.

  7. iffen says:

    When will we see the end of this “senseless” diplomacy?

    “We are not seeking some new change. We are not seeking outsiders or others to come in.”

  8. I believe Putin is not just a chess master, he’s also a man with principles. The idea of arming terrorist groups to destabilize legitimate authorities, slaughtering people capriciously (including heads of state, e.g. Gaddafi), and the illegal military occupation of sovereign nations, is morally outrageous to him, as it should be to all men of goodwill. There is something else going on here besides just a reshuffling of the geopolitical card game in the Middle East. There is the attemt tp restore some measure of decency and charity to world affairs. May God bless Russia and Vladimir Putin.

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus, tbraton, Kiza
    • Replies: @Simon in London
  9. Realist says:

    “After a few more presidential cycles, it’s conceivable that the people of the USA will come to realize that their single most vital issue in any election is Foreign Policy. As things stand, it is treated as a side issue and, effectively, almost all US foreign policy is set being by neocons, who in turn bow to Israel.”

    What difference does it make what the American people want? Just as now the only people running in either party are Israeli sycophants. Since it is legal to give as much money as you want to support a candidate….the rich will control the country…as always.

  10. @Macilrae

    How the 114th Congress Compares With the General Public

    PublicProtestants and Catholics continue to make up a greater percentage of the members of Congress than of all U.S. adults. Pew Research surveys find that, as of 2013, 49% of American adults are Protestant, and 22% are Catholic.

    Unz Readers should start to think about fundamentalism and strident zionism among US Catholics: in Congress, in federal bureaucracies, especially the spy and intelligence networks; on staffs; in DoD; and among retirees of all of the above.

    The retirees category is especially interesting:
    My back-of-the-envelope analysis of American Catholics (who would be in the retiree bracket) categorizes Catholics as Irish Catholic; German Catholic; Italian Catholic; and Slavic (incl. Polish, Hungarian, and similar). — We’re talking about older Catholics — children of WWII; Hispanic Catholics were not relevant.

    The ways that these disparate groups express Catholicism vary more widely than the so-called Sunni-Shiaa divide. They differ in their expressions of piety — in my experience, Italians and Polish Catholics are lugubriously pious, devoted to novenas and prayer ritual.

    Since persons of German origin make up the largest share of US population, it might be the case that there are more German Catholics than Italian Catholics, but not likely more than Irish Catholics.

    Irish Catholics are more authoritarian (Italians largely ignore hierarchical diktat), more Puritanical, more social and organizationally inclined and skilled, and far more political.

    In my (highly unscientific) sense, Irish Catholics came into their own in World War II. Italian and German Catholics were present in USA in large numbers in that era, but for obvious reasons did not take prominent roles in leadership.
    If my assessment is correct, Irish Catholics benefited more from GI Bill than did Italian and other varieties of Catholics in USA, and their children — baby boomers now retiring — are also better educated than other Catholics. They’re also less inclined to keep their heads down, as German or Italian Catholics might be inclined to do.
    Ireland was neutral in WWII, and Irish Americans had more freedom of movement. Irish organizations had already formed powerful blocs in the US — FDR owed his political career in almost equal parts to Tammany organization & political acuity, and Jewish financial backing.

    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

    The DC suburbs are riddled with small organizations created by retired federal bureaucrats, spies, etc., who are Catholic, sometimes zealously so, who are rabidly right-wing, Islamophobic, and Irish. They boast of affiliations with Foundation for Defense of Democracy and with groups that David Horowitz spearheads, and they derive much of their funding from the same places as do Horowitz & FDD. That is, they can rely on wealthy Jewish donors to support their organizations. Dancing with them who brung ’em, the message Catholics take to their fellow parishioners and to the small coteries they form may fall on the ear with the remnant of a brogue but it’s distinctly Israelish in content. Stridently so, even to the extent of being anti-Vatican, anti-clerical, definitely anti-Obama.

    These Irish Catholics interact with Evangelical Christians (who are more ‘mainstream’ Christian zionists) and support each other’s causes.

    To the extent that Catholicism in the USA has public intellectuals, they are in this rabid right-wing cohort. This is really scary. Right-wing Catholics are fully capable of confessing, “The Iraq War Was A Major Mistake,” and in the next heartbeat declare, “We Must Go To War With Iran!” They denounce those advisors who led/lead past and present administrations into dunderheaded wars, then invite those worthies to speak at their next forum. For all the advanced schooling the GI Bill or military scholarships have given them the opportunity to pursue, these intellectuals are incapable of seeing the contradiction between those two statements.

    In short, Catholics in the USA will be the marching band that will lead this nation over a cliff. In no small measure, Jewish money will have paid for their drums, traps and tinhorns.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
    , @dahoit
    , @RobinG
    , @Art
  11. Rehmat says:

    Last month in a conference with the leaders of World Jewish Congress (WJC), Pope Francis declared that any criticism of state of Israel or anti-social activities by Jews, is antisemitism, and must be condemned.

  12. dahoit says:

    Jesus Christ,the Catholics?Are you from the school of divide and conquer,that hell hole of ziomonsters?
    The American Christian community is mute.The only ones making noise are the heretical wacko moonie loonies who hate Jesus Christ.
    And the looniest one Carson,tells US Joseph(dreamcoat) ,the pyramid builder,made grain storage instead of tombs.That’ll get em some wacko votes.

  13. RobinG says:


    Can you give some examples of the small organizations riddling the DC suburbs, and of the “public intellectuals”?


    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  14. @Kiza

    Nah. Look for the Hitler wanna be in the kremlin to light things off again, unless his extraction economy can bounce back so he can play imperial games in the Donbas again. It’s looking more and more like his efforts there are gonna peter out because he won’t be able to pay for it anymore. That is, unless the Eurotrash withdraw the sanctions allowing Putler some breathing space.

    • Replies: @Stan D Mute
    , @pyrrhus
    , @Hunsdon
  15. @Quartermaster

    Nah. Look for the Hitler wanna be in the kremlin to light things off again

    Hitler? Do you get paid per post where you conflate Hitler and Putin? Or are you on salary?

    • Replies: @Kiza
    , @Wizard of Oz
  16. @dahoit

    no, not divide & conquer, some different category that I can’t precisely define but will describe anecdotally —

    My initiation (hazing?) to zionism evolved from a profile of Dick Cheney by Nicholas Lemann in New Yorker mag, April 2001 (before the world changed forevah.
    Lemann mentioned Cheney’s ideological mentor, Bradford Westerfield, I got hold of some of Westerfield’s books that were likely used as texts in his poli sci classes in the mid-1950s. I bought used books, including “Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics” (or something like that) in which someone had noted assigned chapters. The only chapter not assigned was the one on zionism.

    Among the reasons cited for the success of the “well-funded and very zealous Jews who advanced the zionist cause” was that no other group existed with the interest, energy, or institutional and organization ability to counter zionism.

    Coming from a Catholic background, my immediate thought was, “The Catholic church has all those attributes.”

    But my experience & observations in 2001 was that the Catholic church was expending all its internal energy on pro-life (stupidly, imo), and was being attacked from without and within on sex abuse scandals.
    Further, the dominant media presence of Roman Catholicism was decidedly right-wing — specifically, EWTN, which emerged with significant help from Pat Robertson, follows the Robertson/televangelist format & ideology, and featured many, many converts from Protestant denominations who became the message-shapers for the “Catholic” media message (this would have been ~10 years ago; after researching EWTN pretty heavily I’ve eliminated it from my brain pan — it was too toxic for my tender neurons).

    So the institutional Catholic church was not in a position to contend with the (then-) rising power of zionism, and to the extent that Catholic ‘competition’ did take the field, it was more likely to be simpatico-to-sycophantically supportive of zionism. Richard John Neuhaus (deceased) of First Things is emblematic of the evangelical-converts-to-right-wing Catholicism that, it is my impression, have taken over the public face of Catholicism.

    I guess what that comes down to is this: I was looking for a counterweight to zionism, just as foreign policy looks for balancing powers. I thought institutional Catholicism in US could be that force, but it was not and is not.

    I’m still looking & hoping . . .

    Pat Buchanan and I come from the same era of idyllic Catholicism, but from radically different places on the social scale. I understand some of his nostalgia for that old time religion, but I do not see it in action today, and I see way too many Catholics doing the bidding of USA-destructive zionists, in exchange for their daily paycheck and a place to hang their sheepskin.

    • Replies: @bunga
  17. @RobinG

    difficult to do.

    these organizations are rabid & not above destroying anyone who gets in their way. As far as I can tell, they cluster around Catholic parishes, and key personnel may be members of the same parish, but that does not imply that the parish supports their work or perspective, although it does give them access to an audience that will give them a forum and credibility.

    It might be safe to mention George Weigel’s group, the Ethics and Public Policy Center

    I have my own list of high profile Catholics who are carrying zionist water buckets for devilment and profit. They include Michael Hayden, Juan Zarate, Rick Santorum, and a bunch of others. I think they should be ashamed of themselves, or that other Catholics should get their asses in gear and shame these traitors out of the community. Exile was good enough for Cicero, Dante and Machiavelli; if Hayden, Santorum, etc. like Israel so much, then find them a nice place in the West Bank to ply their trade.

  18. @dahoit

    The American Christian community is mute.The only ones making noise are the heretical wacko moonie loonies who hate Jesus Christ.

    Mute? Is that because they’re preoccupied managing America’s genocide against whites? Too busy “resettling” all the “refugees” and harboring all the “migrants” from Central America?

    It is hilarious to see people castigate Jews for their Zionist agenda while giving evangelicals, Catholics, and other Christians a pass for their even more virulent Zionism. Meanwhile the Jeebus freaks have created a world ending demographic time bomb in Africa with four billion Sub-Saharan Stone Age shock troops coming by the end of the century – all courtesy of Jeebus, Inc.

    I know you’ve got to have your Armageddon before you can have your eternal puppies and rainbow unicorns, but why can’t you do it on ISIS scale instead of taking the whole world down with you? The Muzzles only need to blow themselves up for their fantasyland (and theirs is a lot more manly than yours too), while you Thumpers want to end all intelligent life on the planet.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  19. Art says:

    “Did he think that they’d call off their military offensive and withdraw their support for Assad?

    What was he thinking?”

    Obama was thinking that “Mufti” Netanyahu was coming to town next week and he had best do what the Jews want.

    This whole idea that Assad has to be taken out is Jew inspired – PERIOD.

    How can people not be pissed off about all these wars for the Jews?

  20. bunga says:

    That’s the way empire works Look at the Wahabist running amok all over the planet .Some out of faith but a lot out of the need for acceptance .
    The” lower” class in Soviet did that their own people serving as foot soldiers for the administration .

    Today in India ,most of the violence against Christian/Muslim and leftist are done by the lower class not by Brahmin or by next in line upper class .

  21. Johann says:

    Apparently the American people through their elected government, their educational institutions, and their information media are intent on eradicating Christianity from the Middle East. They have created and financed one of the most barbaric killing armies in the history of warfare; i.e. ISIS which is a child of the McCain, Clinton, and Obama regime; an evil regime which seeks to bring about the killing of millions and the destruction of what is left of the Western World. Meanwhile the American idiot and USA cheerleader run their 24/7 porno freak show.

    • Replies: @Avery
  22. Art says:

    “These Irish Catholics interact with Evangelical Christians (who are more ‘mainstream’ Christian zionists) and support each other’s causes.”

    For some reason many Irish defer to the Jews in intellectual matters. They think that Jews are superior to themselves intellectually – perhaps they have an inferiority complex.

    A disastrous example is Ted Kennedy and US immigration policy – he had Jew staffers write the immigration bill that has destroyed our European culture.

    One can question Jew intellectual prowess – is it their brain power – or is it their aggressive money culture that is short term successful?

    Look at how Jews have overturned our well meaning 1950’s superior middle class Christian culture – making what we considered to be “good” – into being a bad thing — and making what we considered to be “bad” – into being a good thing.

    Inherent modern Irish Christian goodness is always superior to the old world inferior Jew hate culture. Who can question that? Just look at the evil nature of the Jewish state – apartheid Israel. It has a bloody crazy man “Mufti” Netanyahu running it.

  23. @Intelligent Dasein

    I agree he does not wish to spread global chaos, even when this might seem to be to Russia’s advantage, and in this his moral superiority to the US leadership is notable. One could ascribe it to hard-headed realism rather than altruism, though – as William S Lind has repeatedly argued, all States need to be fighting to maintain global order in the face of forces (“Fourth Generation War” forces in his analysis) that seek to destroy the State system and bring on a new dark age. The insane ideology of the US & its vassals actually furthers the goals of the 4GW entities like Daesh.

  24. I wonder why Whitney neglected to mention in his otherwise excellent article why Washington wants regime change. Washington wants regime change because the cabal of Zionist traitors who control our foreign policy have been ordered by their Israeli friends to accomplish this most important of all Israeli foreign policy goals, thereby knocking off the last secular, nationalist Arab state that can possibly pose a creidble threat to Israel. Full stop.

    If Trump is elected I hope he hauls out these vermin, shoots them in the back of the head and dumps them in the Potomac.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    , @tx_progressive
  25. Kiza says:
    @Stan D Mute

    Nah, he is a Hilary bastard child with Monica Lewinsky.

  26. pyrrhus says:

    Another propaganda troll at work….

  27. Hunsdon says:

    Well you’ve certainly convinced me.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  28. tbraton says:

    “Well you’ve certainly convinced me.”

    I detected no “sarcasm punctuation marks,” and you are usually a man of common sense. So, if you’re convinced, I guess I have to say I am also convinced. I’m not sure what I should be convinced of, but I can say with certainty that I am also convinced.

  29. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Thierry Meyssan’s view from Damascus……..

    A whole lot a change going on!

  30. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    While Washington dithers about whether or not it is “premature” to invite Syrians to discuss THEIR OWN FUTURE (how insanely arrogant) … the Russians are apparently locating and communicating with rebel forces willing to be involved in a political settlement at some point. Soon to present Washington squawking headless chickens with another fait accompli.

  31. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    We are all going to get blown to smithereens.

  32. @Southern Sage

    It’s not Israel that’s pushing for regime change as much as it’s Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Saudi Arabia fears the strengthening Syria-Iraq-Iran alliance, which is primarily Shia. Turkey’s Erdogan hates Assad because of his toleration of the Kurds.

    • Replies: @Avery
  33. Avery says:

    {It’s not Israel that’s pushing for regime change as much….}

    You are only partially right.
    Israel is working behind the scenes not so much to “regime-change” Syria, but to destroy it as a viable state. With Syria shattered into unrecognized statelets, Israel will get to keep the strategic Golan Heights.
    No Syria as a state, no one to demand Golan Heights be returned to its owners.

    The theft of land also motivates perennial thieves from Uyguristan: nomad Turks.
    After having stolen Syrian Alexandretta (…look it up), nomad Turks are eager to steal more.
    Killing off Syrian Kurds is a bonus.

    And you are right that Saudi Sunni Wahhabist scum fear (Shiite) alliance of Syria-Iraq-Iran.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  34. @Macilrae

    Rand Paul doesn’t treat foreign policy as an afterthought, and is the only one in the GOP field who shows some promise and support for a much more restrained use of our military.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @Macilrae
  35. @Stan D Mute

    Sorry, bro, especially in Arab cultures the Muslim man’s fantasyland, and in fact his actual life, is strangely homosexual, not to mention dishonest and weasely, and not “manly” at all.

    I don’t know any other religion or culture which more consistently causes more tension and hatred between men and women, and more cruelty and brutality and spiteful hurt against women, than Islam and Muslim countries.

    Islam’s view of women is not the view of someone who loved women in any normal, healthy fashion, let alone respected them. And you can look up plenty of well-documented stories about the rampant homosexual pedophilia and ephebophilia in Afghanistan and other Muslim shitholes.

    “Manly” the Muslim men are not.

  36. @Stan D Mute

    Quartermaster’s post appeared as if he was on my Ignore this Commenter list. But he/she isn’t by that name. So what is going on? And btw my list of Commenters to Ignore seems to have deleted its contents about two or three weeks ago so it now only has a reduced number of names….

  37. @Avery

    It is indeed so obvious that the breaking up of Syria, and probably the whole of the ME, into small statelets is in the objective interest of Israel’s long term survival as a nation that it is good to read a moderate and sensible version rather than an extravagant rant from your anti-Israel standpoint. I refer to your limited point about securing the Golan Heights.

  38. Avery says:

    Sen Rand Paul is no Rep Ron Paul.

    Rand Paul sold himself and prostituted himself to Neocons: he came out publicly against the peace deal with Iran.
    He did it after he went on a long vacation to Israel and got some Neocon chips injected under his cranium.

    No American Senator who cares about America and American taxpayers would vote against the Iran peace deal on behalf of a foreign state.
    He is a Neocon prostitute and warmonger-light.

  39. Mr Whitney you are confusing me. You write of the “thugs” backed by the US that Kerry is trying to save with a ceasefire which I do not take to be that famous handful left in the field after costing $500 million to train and equip. But then you quote Kerry as saying (without comment or contradiction by you) that the ceasefire doesn’t apply to Al Nusra or Daesh.

    Are you also confused?

  40. Macilrae says:

    I wish you were right because I have enormous respect for his father but his signature on this letter (headed by Tom Cotton) totally discredited Rand in the arena of foreign policy:

    Now, to be fair, you may say that it’s unthinkable for any US presidential candidate to run who displays even the tiniest whiff or displeasure with Israel – and that is profoundly true. If a candidate intended to reverse this ghastly situation, the only way would be to pose now as an Israeli sycophant, revealing their true beliefs after election.

    Some of us here hold a hope that this is exactly what Donald Trump is doing – but I fear it’s a forlorn one.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  41. tbraton says:

    “Some of us here hold a hope that this is exactly what Donald Trump is doing – but I fear it’s a forlorn one.”

    That would be the cherry on top, but, if you listen to Trump’s foreign policy positions carefully, he has basically stolen Rand Paul’s thunder when it comes to a more restrained foreign policy. At the first debate, he brought up on his own two important points: first, he questioned the presence of 25,000 American troops on Korea’s DMZ, and, secondly, he said he was the only one on the stage who was opposed to the Iraq War, receiving not a peep of protest from Rand Paul. (In fact, Paul found it necessary to state at the second debate that he was opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning, but I think his late response didn’t seem to register with anyone.) Subsequently, he has stated his opposition to our involvement in Syria and spoken out in support of Russia’s attack on ISIS. (Better for the Russians to fight ISIS than us.) While he has spoken out against the Iran agreement, he has stated that he will abide by that agreement as President. Finally, he was outspoken in his opposition to the Libyan war back in 2011. Now, one of those positions may be explained away as an exception but stringing together all those positions seems to constitute a relatively coherent foreign policy, more coherent than Rand Paul’s at this time. There is always the possibility that he will turn around as President and betray his supporters, but I would rather run that risk than take a chance on a candidate who promises a very aggressive foreign policy and sticks to his promises as President, which seems to cover the rest of the field, if you exclude Paul, who stands at the low single digits in the polls and appears extremely unlikely to secure the nomination.

    • Replies: @Macilrae
  42. Macilrae says:

    It’s a bit like when you meet a potential new partner and, in your enthusiasm for their many interesting and novel qualities, you start projecting onto them all the attributes you ever hoped for.

    Donald has somewhere said that he has a great and affectionate regard for Netanyahu – and I noted his numerous statements which express warmth and understanding for the people of Israel. However, such remarks are absolutely obligatory from any person who has any chance of being elected president of the United States so the forlorn hope still smolders.

    Mind you, given the lack of control the usual actors have over Trump – not only financial but also with regard to who gets onto his team and who gets promised what appointments etc. – some people must be damn nervous that Donald will indeed slaughter a few sacred cows if elected. All the more reason to deploy the establishment media to destroy him – just as they did so successfully with Ron Paul (who never had a chance anyway). Trump has a chance for sure, if he doesn’t get assassinated – literally or otherwise.

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