Eric ZUESSE | 17.04.2016
| WORLD
Why Obama Prioritizes Ousting Assad Over Defeating Syria’s Jihadists (II)
See Part I
In
the US Presidential contest this year, the big foreign-affairs issue
that separates Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on one side, and all of
the other candidates on the other, is whether to prioritize killing
jihadists, above defeating Assad and any other ally of Russia.
Both
Sanders and Trump say that killing jihadists is definitely the top
priority. Hillary Clinton and the other Republicans say that both
priorities are equal and must be pursued with equal vigor, even though
that will mean helping the jihadists whenever they’re causing damage to
Russia or to Russia’s allies – such as to Assad in Syria. Judging Obama
by his actions not his (lying) words, he’s on the side of Clinton and
the other (the self-acknowledged) Republicans. The reality is that
anyone (such as Clinton, Cruz, and Kasich) who says that both priorities
are equal, is really in favor of placing the defeat of Russia as being
a higher priority than killing jihadists – but for political
reasons can’t afford to admit it publicly. Those candidates are actually
the candidates who (like the Bushes and the Clintons) represent the
Saud family, who financed al-Qaeda before 9/11, and who continued doing it after 9/11, and whose friends the other Arab royal families, are financing the other jihadist organizations.
On
the one side in this ongoing international war are Russia and its few
allies, which include the Shiites, both the secular Assad in Syria, and
the fundamentalist Khamenei in Iran; and, on the other side are the
United States and its many allies, which include the fundamentalist
Sunni royal families, which own Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE,
Bahrain, and Oman, but which also include the fundamentalist Sunni,
Tayyip Erdogan, in Turkey, who is the Saud family’s agent in the US-led
NATO anti-Russian military club. And, of course, NATO and Japan are also
on the American team. And so is Israel.
This
is geopolitics, the contest for power between the two blocs of
aristocracies – the US-Saudi-led bloc on the one side, versus the much
smaller Russia-led bloc on the other.
Here is how Brzezinski put it, on page 46 of his classic 1997 statement of the position of the US-Saudi-led bloc, in his book The Grand Chessboard,
where he was discussing specifically Ukraine, and also explaining why
the West must support the fundamentalist Sunni, or jihadist, groups that
threaten to break up and thus weaken or destroy Russia:
«Ukraine,
a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical
pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to
transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian
empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but
it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely
to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who
would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and
would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south …
However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million
people and major resources as well as its access to the Black Sea,
Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful
imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia».
Brzezinski
was born a Polish nobleman, to a family who were dispossessed by
Russians, and he never lost his hatred of Russians. In 1973, he and his
friend David Rockefeller (like the Arab royals a hereditary
oil-billionaire) founded the Trilateral Commission, to coordinate
America and Europe and Japan, so as to conquer Russia by breaking it up –
classic divide-and-conquer aristocratic thinking. That’s what his Grand
Chessboard is all about: conquest, for global dominance. To understand
not only Obama but the Bushes, and the Clintons, that book is the
classic. And the reason why the American aristocracy loathes both
Sanders and Trump – different though those two candidates are – is that
both candidates present the first possibility since the end of the
Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact in 1991 to end the purely aristocratic war
that has continued on since then (with the public financing it via their
taxes, and providing the corpses for it in Libya, Ukraine, Syria, and a
few other places) to conquer Russia.
Obama
is an extraordinarily gifted politician, notwithstanding any
deficiencies he has as a national leader, and so here was from his brief
exchange (and there was no follow-up on this question) dealing with his
biggest achievement and his biggest error as President, speaking with Chris Wallace of Fox News and telecast on April 10th:
«WALLACE: Worst mistake?
OBAMA: Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya».
But,
even without any follow-up question, that actually says a lot: it says
that, though Obama didn’t even «plan for the day after» (a shocking
admission, which really shows the abysmal caliber of the man), his
bombing Libya till Muammar Gaddafi was killed «was the right thing to do». (George W Bush feels the same about his having gotten rid of another Russia-ally,
Saddam Hussein.) And, of course, the unasked question there was: Why?
Why was it «the right thing to do»? But, if his foreign policy is driven
obsessively by the goal of taking down the leader of any nation who is
friendly toward Russia, then it does make sense, after all – the same
sense as what Obama also did to Yanukovych in Ukraine, and is still so
persistently trying to do to Assad in Syria. (And Chris Wallace’s having
not even noticed that he had, just then, elicited from Obama the most
shocking statement in Obama’s entire Presidency, showed that that TV
network of psychopaths was functioning true-to-form – the interviewer
didn’t even care that the US President had perpetrated a huge bombing
campaign without even concerning himself about what the consequences
would be – other than to get rid of a leader who was friendly to
Russia.)
And,
as regards America’s future international relations, the continuance
(or not) of this psychopathic goal, is the top issue in the current US
Presidential campaign. Whereas the American public don’t even think much
about it, America’s billionaires certainly do, which is why they’re
pouring billions into the campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, and
the other candidates who want to continue that goal (taking control of
Russia), but with even more intensity than Obama has been doing.
Properly
understood, history isn’t only about the past; it is, far more
importantly, about the future. That’s why the aristocracy don’t finance
the careers of truthful historians: the public is supposed to believe
the myths, which have been shaped by the aristocracy in the past.
Truthful history would endanger the aristocracy. And that’s why the
public isn’t supposed to know such things as, «Why Obama Prioritizes
Ousting Assad Over Defeating Syria’s Jihadists», nor even to know that he does.
But, he does; and here has been provided an explanation as to why he
does (and understanding why, will pose an even greater threat to the
aristocracy – which is why few media will publish this).
The con isn’t supposed to be known; or, if it’s known, it’s not supposed to be noticed.
«OBAMA: Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya».
And
that’s also the reason «Why Obama Prioritizes Ousting Assad Over
Defeating Syria’s Jihadists». He says: doing it in Libya was his «worst
mistake». But he cares so little, that he’s trying to do it again, in
Syria. He’s true-to-form, for a psychopath.
And
this answers the question, as well as it can be answered. It’s not a
matter of corpses, and bloodshed, and immiserated nations, to him; it’s
«The Grand Chessboard». He simply wants to be the person at the
mountaintop, even if it’s a mountain of corpses. Or,
maybe, especially if it’s a mountain of corpses. This has been the way
of aristocracies for thousands of years, and he’s a natural at it. Just a natural. Especially because the CIA has been aiming since at least 1957 to
overthrow the Ba’ath Party as Syria’s leadership, and to replace them
with a partitioned Syria, whose key oil-and-gas pipeline route would be
controlled by a fundamentalist-Sunni ally of the Sauds.
After all, the Grand Chessboard may be just a game, but it can be a very profitable one, for the right people.
No comments:
Post a Comment