Tag Archives: Barack Obama

The Fun of Empire: Fighting on All Sides of a War in Syria

By  

Featured photo - The Fun of Empire: Fighting on All Sides of a War in Syria

U.S. President Barack Obama (R) joined by Vice President Joe Biden delivers a statement on Syria in the Rose Garden of the White House on August 31, 2013 in Washington, DC. Photo credit: Kristoffer Tripplaar-Pool/Getty Images

(updated below)

CBS News, August 18, 2011:

President Barack Obama officially demanded that Syrian President Bashar Assad resign for the sake of his own people, saying he was no longer fit to lead after “imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people” during a crackdown on pro-reform protesters.

New York Times, October 24, 2012:

Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.

Barack Obama, August 31, 2013:

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. . . . [W]e are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus.

New York Times, today:

President Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there, but a mounting concern for the White House is how to target the Sunni extremists without helping President Bashar al-Assad. . . . The flights are a significant step toward direct American military action in Syria, an intervention that could alter the battlefield in the nation’s three-year civil war. . . .

On Monday, Syria warned the White House that it needed to coordinate airstrikes against ISIS or it would view them as a breach of its sovereignty and an “act of aggression.” But it signaled its readiness to work with the United States in a coordinated campaign against the militants.

It was not even a year ago when we were bombarded with messaging that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a Supreme Evil and Grave Threat, and that military action against his regime was both a moral and strategic imperative. The standard cast of “liberal interventionists” –  Tony BlairAnne-Marie SlaughterNicholas Kristof and Samantha Power – issued stirring sermons on the duties of war against Assad. Secretary of State John Kerry actually compared Assad to (guess who?) Hitler, instructing the nation that “this is our Munich moment.” Striking Assad, he argued, “is a matter of national security. It’s a matter of the credibility of the United States of America. It’s a matter of upholding the interests of our allies and friends in the region.”

U.S. military action against the Assad regime was thwarted only by overwhelming American public opinion which opposed it and by a resounding rejection by the UK Parliament of Prime Minister David Cameron’s desire to assume the usual subservient British role in support of American wars.

Now the Obama administration and American political class is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the failed “Bomb Assad!” campaign by starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad – the very same side the U.S. has been arming over the last two years.

It’s as though the U.S. knew for certain all along that it wanted to fight in the war in Syria, and just needed a little time to figure out on which side it would fight. It switched sides virtually on a dime, and the standard Pentagon courtiers of the U.S. media and war-cheering foreign policy elites are dutifully following suit, mindlessly depicting ISIS as an unprecedented combination of military might and well-armed and well-funded savagery (where did they get those arms and funds?). Something very similar happened in Libya: the U.S. spent a decade insisting that a Global War on Terror – complete with full-scale dismantling of basic liberties and political values – was necessary to fight against the Unique Threat of Al Qaeda and “Jihadists”, only to then fight on the same side as them, and arming and empowering them.

Nobody disputes the brutality and extremism of ISIS, but that is a completely different question from whether the U.S. should take military action against it. To begin with, the U.S. not only ignores, but actively supports, all sorts of brutal and extreme parties in the region.

More important, what are air strikes going to accomplish? All one has to do is look at the horrific chaos and misery in Libya – the Successful Humanitarian Intervention™ – to know that bombing Bad People out of existence accomplishes little in the way of strategic or humanitarian value. If one really wants to advocate that the U.S. should destroy or at least seriously degrade ISIS, then one should honestly face what that actually entails, as detailed by the New America Foundation’s Brian Fishman:

No one has offered a plausible strategy to defeat ISIL that does not include a major U.S. commitment on the ground and the renewal of functional governance on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border. And no one will, because none exists. . . .

Bombing ISIL will not destroy it. Giving the Kurds sniper rifles or artillery will not destroy it. A new prime minister in Iraq will not destroy it. . . . [W]ar makes the jihadist movement stronger, even in the face of major tactical and operational defeats.

The conflicts in Syria and Iraq strengthen ISIL because war is the only force terrible enough to hold together a broad and extreme enough Sunni coalition to be amenable to ISIL. Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi recognized this in 2004 and built a strategy of provoking Shia militias in order to consolidate fearful Sunni groups. . .

Without war, ISIL is a fringe terrorist organization. With war, it is a state. . . . This is where I am supposed to advocate a brilliant strategy to defeat ISIL by Christmas at some surprisingly reasonable cost. But it won’t happen. The cost to defeat ISIL would be very high and would require a multi-year commitment. . . .

The country must be ready to accept the sacrifices necessary to achieve grand political ends. Until then, any call to “defeat ISIL” that is not forthright about what that will require is actually an argument for expensive failure.

If you like running around sermonizing on the need to destroy ISIS, at least be honest enough to acknowledge what that will really require and then advocate that. Anything short of that is just self-glorifying deceit: donning the costume of Churchillian Resolve and Moral Purpose without any substance.

It seems pretty clear at this point that U.S. military action in the Middle East is the end in itself, and the particular form it takes – even including the side for which the U.S. fights – is an ancillary consideration. That’s how the U.S., in less than a year, can get away with depicting involvement in the war in Syria – on opposite sides – as a national imperative. Ironically, just as was true of Al Qaeda, provoking the U.S. into military action would, for the reasons Fishman explained, help ISIS as well.

But the only clear lesson from all of this is that no matter the propagandistic script used, U.S. military action in that region virtually never fulfills the stated goals (nor is it intended to do so), and achieves little other than justifying endless military action for its own sake. How long before we hear that U.S. military action is needed (again) in Libya to restrain the chaos and extremism unleashed by the NATO intervention in Libya? Does anyone really believe that “limited” bombing of Syria and Iraq in a rage against ISIS will result in anything other than more justifications for military action in that region?

 

UPDATE: The U.S. “is sharing intelligence about jihadist deployments with Damascus through Iraqi and Russian channels,” the Agence France-Presse reports today, citing one source as saying: ”The cooperation has already begun.”

From The New Hitler (back) to U.S. Partner in less than a year: an impressive feat for both Assad and U.S. propaganda.

America’s Nazi Allies in Israel and Ukraine

snakeREVOLUTIONiscoming

“The world of men is dreaming, it has gone mad in its sleep, and a snake is strangling it, but it can’t wake up.”

-D. H. Lawrence

America’s Nazi Allies in Israel and Ukraine

Eric Zuesse

The U.S. is now the chief sponsor of two nazi, ethnically cleansing, nations. In one of them (Ukraine), the U.S. President, Barack Obama, himself placed nazis into control there; the nazi control was imposed by him, via his agents. In the other (Israel), nazis have controlled for decades, and Obama merely extends their control by continuing American support.

The difference between nazism and mere fascism is that, as exemplified by Mussolini, fascism is pure “corporationism” (see page 426 there), not necessarily racist; whereas nazism, as exemplified by Hitler, is a profoundly and ineradicably racist, usually religious-based, form of  fascism. It’s “corporationism” plus  ethnic bigotry. Hitler’s version of nazism happened to be focused against Jews, but that’s not necessary to nazism; any racist fascism is nazi. (NOTE: a lower-case “nazi” is any  nazi, but an upper-case one, a “Nazi,” refers to a member of Hitler’s Party, which was Germany’s  nazi party, the first-ever nazi party, the original “Nazi Party.” Similarly, Mussolini’s party was the Italian “Fascist” party, the first fascist party, but other nations have their own fascist and/or nazi parties.)

ISRAEL:

People of any ethnic group can be nazis, and Jews are no different from other ethnicities in that regard. For example, on July 21st, Jonathan Cook headlined from Nazareth, “Calls for genocide enter Israeli mainstream,” and he documented his headline-claim by quoting Jewish nazis around Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

First, Cook quoted Ayelet Shaked. From 2006 to 2008, she had been the Office Manager for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In January 2012, Netanyahu’s Likud Party appointed her to be their “Coordinator.” A half-year later, in June, she co-founded her own right-wing Party, “My Israel.” In 2013, Israelis elected her to the Knesset, their parliament, as a Jewish Home Party leader.

On 1 July 2014, she posted to facebook an article by Uri Elitzur, who “was also close to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, helping him in his 1996 campaign, and took a leave of absence from his journalistic activities to work in the Prime Minister’s Office, which he headed in 1998-99.” So: Elitzur had been Shaked’s mentor. She introduced his article by saying that it was “Relevant today as it was then.” Here are excerpts from it, in the Bing translation at her facebook page:

“The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we need to fight back. … Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? You ask him, he started [the war]. … All the Palestinian people is the enemy. All war is between two peoples. … All the enemy fighters and bleeding in the head. It’s also the mothers of the martyrs, that send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They need to follow them [to die], there’s nothing in it. They need to go [die], and the physical House [in] which they raised the snake [must be destroyed]. Other small snakes grow more [if that house stands]. … Each bomber should have known he was taking with him both his parents and his home and neighbors. All UM Jihad hero that sends her son to hell needs to know that she’s going with him. Along with the House and all that.”

In short: she was (and he was) saying to exterminate the Palestinian “people,” and to destroy “the House and all that.” Extermination-intent is clear. Shaked and Elitzur clearly are Jewish nazis, and not merely  Jewish fascists. What Hitler was to Jews, Elitzur and Shaked are to Palestinians. Their “war” is against an entire “people,” and victory means exterminating it, killing “the snake,” so that there will be no “small snakes.”

Mr. Cook then quotes a scholar in Israel, who was not censured by his university for saying: “A terrorist, like those who kidnapped the boys [in the West Bank on June 12] and killed them, the only thing that will deter them, is if they know that either their sister or mother will be raped if they are caught. What can we do? This is the culture that we live in [surrounded by Muslims].” That person, Mordechai Kedar, a lecturer on Arabic literature at Bar Ilan University, is also a nazi. Hitler, too, blamed his racism on the ethnicity that he hated, and he cited the Bible as justifying it (both the Old and New Testaments, both of which are racist; and he knew the Bible well, and cited more than a hundred of its passages, as I documented in my WHY the Holocaust Happened).

Finally, Cook quotes Moshe Feiglin, a deputy speaker of the Israeli parliament and a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud: “The IDF [Israeli Defense Force] will conquer the entire Gaza, using all the means necessary to minimize any harm to our soldiers, with no other considerations. … The enemy population that is innocent of wrong-doing and separated itself from the armed terrorists will be treated in accordance with international law and will be allowed to leave. Israel will generously aid those who wish to leave.” Similarly, Hitler had long entertained proposals to expel some Jews instead of to exterminate them all. However, because of his hatred of Jews, he ultimately rejected all such proposals, and just killed them. He called them “snakes,” and even “the international snake”: Hitler was as collectivist a thinker about Jews, as Israel’s nazis are about Palestinians.

Albert Einstein called zionists themselves, “fascists,” but what really galled him about zionists was their racism; he simply didn’t distinguish between mere “fascists” and full-fledged “nazis.” Jews in Palestine/Israel at that time went far beyond their rights in the way that they treated local Arabs. The day after the Deir Yassin massacre — the massacre of the Arab town of Deir Yassin on 9 April 1948 by Yitzhak Shamir’s Stern Gang and Menachem Begin’s Irgun organization — Einstein sent a letter to the American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, declining their offer to meet with him, by saying: “When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine the first responsible for it would be the British and the second responsible for it the Terrorist organizations build [sic: built] up from our own ranks [referring here to Stern and Irgun]. I am not willing to see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people.” Later, on December 4th of the same year, The New York Times published a letter dated two days earlier and signed by Einstein and other Jewish intellectuals, saying: “The terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.” This letter explicitly called Menachem Begin a Jewish “Fascist,” and regretted “that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel.” (The New York Times excluded that letter from its online archives, and so independent opponents of censorship posted it as “To The Editors of The New York Times” “December 2, 1948”.) Einstein would have been shocked that Israelis subsequently elected Mr. Begin Prime Minister. He would be revolted by current America’s fascism represented now no longer merely by the Republican Party but also by a “Democratic” U.S. President, who continues the $3 billion annual military aid to that “fascist” regime, even after the Jonathan Pollard case. Einstein was anti-zionist till the end of his days, and never respected Israel. Alfred Lilienthal’s 1953 What Price Israel? quotes Einstein (p. 130) as having said in 1946 “I have always been against it.” The United States, which has none of the guilt for the Holocaust, especially has no moral obligation to Israel, and merely besmirches America by funding it, a vile thing this country does. The very idea of a “Jewish State,” like that of a “Christian State,” or of an “Islamic State,” is racist-fascist, or nazi, and was repulsive to Einstein, who considered them all, “fascist.” That characterization was correct, but they’re also nazi, which is even worse.

After Christian anti-Semitism nearly exterminated all Jews in World War II, Britain and other Christian-majority nations shoved surviving European Jews off onto a majority-Muslim area, “Palestine,” and racist Jews were eager to take the offer, though decent Jews took it only because majority-Christian nations, which had actually perpetrated and cooperated with the Holocaust, wouldn’t accept more Jews. Those decent Jews, tragically, had no choice.

There is no real “Jewish State.” There is only a nazi police-state that claims to be “the Jewish Home.” It invites decent Jews there in order to add to the population and so help more to crush the non-Jewish natives. But it’s Jewish nazism, or “zionism.” The very basis of nazism is the idea of an ethnic state: a caste system, in which some people, by their birth or ethnicity, possess more rights than do other people. Nazism is the exact opposite of the progressive state, the latter being the state where equality of opportunity is the law, and where inequality of opportunity is despised instead of embodied in the Law. Any form of privilege versus non-privilege, caste system, is abhorent to all decent people; and nazism epitomizes evil everywhere — Israel just as much as Germany. Only a racist would say that Jews (or any other ethnic group) are somehow exempt from the universal ethical rule.

Robert Barsocchini headlined on 12 July 20124, “Facts All US Citizens Need to Know About Israel and Palestine,” and he accurately summarized the foul history of this “Israel.” The United States was founded by committed democrats, and with a real Constitution (which Israel doesn’t even have, because a constitution would conflict with the Torah; democracy is impossible in Israel for the same reason it’s impossible in Iran or Saudi Arabia: it runs up against “God’s Law”). (The Iranian and Saudi Constitutions impose the Quran as the Supreme Law, and so are merely fake pass-through “constitutions,” actual dictatorships. Israel’s “constitution” — if any — is the Torah; Iran’s and Saudi Arabia’s is the Quran. Such states are theocracies, fake “democracies.”) A democracy shouldn’t be allied with a theocracy in any way, especially militarily, because it then puts us on the side of nazis against their victims. A democracy doesn’t want to be at war against theocracies, but certainly cannot be allied  with any. Trade with a theocracy is acceptable, but alliance with it is certainly not. The original sin of the majority-Christian countries regarding Israel is their having caused the problem and then dumped the consequences of it onto the poor people who lived in the area that today is called “Israel.” Any decent Jew wants to leave from there, and any decent majority-Christian country is obliged to welcome those decent “Israelis” in, as refugees from nazism, and to apologize wholeheartedly to them for having participated in causing that gross injustice, “Israel,” via Christian  anti-Semitism, for which today’s Palestinians are bearing the final tragic burden, in the form of Israel’s pass-through to those unfortunates of Germany’s original Nazism against Jews.

UKRAINE:

Since I have previously written extensively about U.S. President Obama’s installation of the nazi regime in Ukraine via his coup there in February, and his sponsorship of the regime’s ethnic cleansing program to get rid of the ethnic-Russian voters for the man whom Obama had overthrown there, that won’t be repeated. However, it needs to be noted in the present context, simply to indicate that Obama doesn’t merely support Israel’s nazism, but that he has even installed Ukraine’s — and no previous U.S. President ever installed  nazism, anywhere, before. Obama is thus the first full-fledged nazi U.S. President. He desecrates the Party of the anti-fascist and passionately anti-nazi, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Obama has made himself a profound stain upon his nominal Party — a stain that only that Party can remove.

CONCLUSION: 

nazimericanflag

Consequently, the U.S. is the world’s leading state sponsor of nazism in our time. The aristocratically controlled U.S. “news” media don’t report this ugly fact (America’s fascist and even nazi leadership) to the American public, but it’s true nonetheless. Readers here are thus encountering here American “samizdat.” It’s banned truth, but of the U.S. variety, instead of the U.S.S.R. variety. There’s no difference: Like in the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Germany, and other dictatorships, our “news media” are actually propaganda-media.

One might have thought that FDR had won his battle against nazism and fascism, but those ideologies — even nazism — unfortunately survived (due to the constant propaganda from our aristocracy) and have thrived in the U.S. to such an extent that, in a sense, what FDR fought for, which is progressive democracy, has since been destroyed, right here inside the United States itself. It has been destroyed not only by the Republican Party (which at least after Nixon has had an actual fondness for fascism, and even for nazism), but also by the recent “Democratic” Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, rotting the Democratic Party from its very topmost, best-funded pro-aristocratic level, the Party’s financial pinnacle, even if not yet from its middle and lower levels, which still remain rather progressive populist, though that too will soon be gone if no Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives soon brings forth a resolution to impeach Obama, as he must be impeached, if America (and especially the Democratic Party itself) is to retain any honor, and if democracy is not totally to die here. Republicans could not disown George W. Bush because he really was a Republican. If Democrats do not disown Barack Obama, then Democrats display themselves as being equally despicable and unpatriotic, and now is our only remaining chance to separate ourselves from Republicans in a way that’s more than merely rhetorical, more than merely “lesser-of-two-evils” fake “liberalism” (or whatever else Democrats might then emptily claim  to be).

BAROCKEFELLER1

President Obama is not only the very first U.S. President to install an outright nazi government anywhere, but he is going so far as to try to strong-arm European leaders to accept it (his Ukrainian nazi regime) into the EU. In a sense, therefore, he is even out-doing George W. Bush and his murderous, vile, and totally unwarranted, invasion of Iraq, for which Bush should be in prison, if this nation has any honor, or any real hope.

Without accountability, there can only be dictatorship. America must now choose whether to restore its democracy, for we have certainly lost it. Today’s America would have this nation’s great Founders twisting in their graves. We can do better. We must — if we are  Americans, as they  (our Founders) did all they could, hoping that we would  be. It can be done, and it should be done. And the available time-window to do it is fast closing. And only we  can do it. (Republicans, in their own self-interest, refuse to do it.)

[NOTE: This news report and analysis were offered as an exclusive to the following, none of which accepted it for publication, nor responded in any way: The Daily Beast, Salon, Slate, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Progressive, The Nation, Harper’s, The Atlantic, New Yorker, New York Review of Books, Foreign Policy, The New Republic, TIME, McClatchy, Guardian, Bloomberg, AP. It was then submitted in the regular way to all news-outlets.]

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.