While mainstream media has been obsessing over Donald Trump's alleged indiscretions and we in Alt Media have been obsessing over Hillary Clinton's proven but never brought to justice High Crimes and misdemeanours which include treason, fraud, perjury, aiding and abetting a sex criminal and being a general cunt (actually that last one is not a crime but it ought to be,) we have all forgotten to keep asking the big question, the one which not just American voters but every human being in the world has a right to have answered. Why is Hillary Clinton so eager to intensify US escalate the conflict in Syria when US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all gone so terribly wrong?
OK, we know she's an incredibly arrogant, stupid, self centered woman who thinks she can do as she wishes and neither the laws of physics, nature or man apply to her, but there is more to it.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t think that these interventions went wrong. In common with other foreign policy hawks in the US political establishment, she believes these pointless wars have been successful. OK, there has been criticism of the public relations backlash from the nonexistent WMD in Iraq, or the logistical errors like withdrawing US and NATO occupationm forces from Afghanistan prematurely, thus allowing the Taliban to re - establish themselves, but–for the most part the foreign policy establishment in Washington and among the NATO allies is satisfied with its efforts to destabilize the region and remove leaders that refuse to follow orders. And as a bonus of course, these wars have been hugely profitable for the corporate suppliers of hardware, software and services to the military.
Ordinary people find it hard to grasp why elite powerbrokers would want to transform functioning, stable countries into uninhabitable wastelands overrun by head amputating terror squads, sectarian death cults and brutal mercenaries. Nor can they understand what has been gained from Washington’s 15 year-long rampage across the Middle East and Central Asia that has turned a vast swathe of strategic territory into wastelands?
First, we have to understand that the destruction of these countries is part of a plan. If it wasn’t part of a plan, than the decision-makers would change the policy. 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 change in the policy, only in the window dressing. The ultimate goal is still the destabilisation of the state and the destruction of the rule of law. The 'humanitarian' protests that dictators like Saddam, Gadaffi and Assad start tp sound hollow when you realise the west is happy to prop up far more brutal dictarorships. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe spings immediately to mind but there are plenty more.
But what is gained by destroying these countries and generating so much suffering and death?
The case is, I suspect, Washington is involved in a grand scheme to remake the world in a way that better meets the needs of he elite constituents of people like George w Bush and Dick Cheney, of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the international banks and multinational corporations, the billionaire investors and the million dollar bonus hedge fund managers.
And where does Vladimir Putin stand in all this.
The real escalation in Syria is expected to take place when (if) Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2017. That’s when the US will directly engage Russia militarily, because Hillary has (nsanely) declared that her first priority on becoming president will be to depose Assad, a task Obama failed to accomplish. Neither party wants a nuclear war, but Washington believes that doing nothing is tantamount to backing down, therefore, Hillary, who is prone to throwing typically female hissy fits when things don't go her way, and her neocon cronies whose money is invested in the military / industrial complex can be counted on to up the ante. She has already said the will declare a No-fly zone over Syria, though how she will accomplish that when Russia has its most sophisticated air defence sustems in place is a mystery.
The assumption in Washington is that eventually, if enough pressure is applied, Putin will throw in the towel. But this is a miscalculation as great as the one Obama made when he decided Syria would be as much a pushover as Libya. Russia is not in Syria because he wants to be (though Obama is) nor is he there because he values his friendship with Syrian President Assad that much. Putin is in Syria to protect Russia’s national interests. If Washington’s strategy of using well armed (by Hiullary) and well trained (by the Pentagon) terrorists as proxies to remove 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 he can compromise where Obama could not and Hillary would not be able to. Russia entered the conflict at the request of Assad, all incursions by the US and its proxies into and over Syria have been acts of war. And when you start a war you have to win, as Cersei Lannister said, "When you play the Game of Thrones you win or you die.
But why would he do that? Why wouldn’t he continue to fight until every inch of Syria’s sovereign territory is recovered?
It is not in Russia’s national interest to continue the conflict until every inch of ISIS occupied territory is recovered. Putin has never tried to conceal the fact that he’s in Syria to protect Russia’s national security. And unlike Obama and Clinton he’s not an idealist but in common with Donald Trump and Britain's recently appointed Prime Minister, he's a pragmatist who’ll do whatever it takes to end the war in a way that protects Russia's interests.
This doesn’t matter to the Washington warlords, they will keep pushing in the belief they can get everything they want. For example, one would not imagine Putin would launch a war on Turkey to recover the territory that Turkish troops now occupy in N Syria, a few hundred square miles of semi desert does not matter to Russia and Trukey is likely to pay a high price for its gains as the land it is Kurdistan and the Kurds will fight for a homeland until they win.
Putin has his red lines of course, any compromise will be on his terms. Aleppo is a red line. Turkish troops will not be allowed to enter Aleppo. The no fly zone is a red line, the USA will pay a high price if crazy Hillary tried to impose a no fly zone.
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 US backed 'moderate rebels' may continue to control sections in the east (that really depends on Iran.
Unfortunately any settlement in Syria is still a long way off, mainly because Washington is nowhere near accepting the fact that its project to establish global hegemony has failed and is now destroying the USA. The shadow government who really run the country are still in denial. Their nutty jihadist-militia proxies plan has failed, they just haven't understood that yet. And if Hillary Clinton becomes president then Americans will be in for a lot of pain before Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping make the Washington elite understand it.
Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [ It's Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [Latest Posts] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [Ian at Minds ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]
[ Ian at Facebook ]