Saturday, June 14, 2014

The War on Terror: Downsizing people's freedoms and outsourcing the work of terror to the Thugs United

On June 10, 2014, the ISIS, the original al Qaeda of Iraq (just renamed in order to play the game "Now you know me, now you don't"--for the dis-informed or the lazy in the West) seized the second largest city in Iraq with vast oil resources. 

On Friday June 13, Obama brought himself to address this astounding fall-out and consequence of the invasion of Iraq and the War on Terror. This vast global enterprise the aim of which is a creation of a new "final" order out of deliberate chaos calculated by well-endowed US "think tanks" cost already by June of 2011 up to $4 trillion in U.S. spending, as established by scholars with the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies. A Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government 2013 report put the figure already around $ 6 trillion. Other detailed study put the costs of this vast enterprise officially meant to make the US and the West "safer" and "more secure," while building up a vast machinery of outsourced terror, close to $ 4 trillion as of March of 2013.  In other words, the War on Terror, which is making terror a key element of this new emerging order, has been the US "New Deal" with the world. It is "the Deal." 

So, in the face of these nasty realities to which many Americans have already wakened up before, while many others feel that they have been suddenly hit with something bizarre, Obama, the pseudo-father in chief, took it upon oneself to reassure 1) that the Iraq War has nothing to do with the massive swelling of al Qaeda, 2) that the White House, as always, carefully follows what is happening and is thus in good control (of the message), 3) that al Qaeda's takeover of perhaps half of Iraq is not "a brand new" threat or fact, 4) that it is largely the fault of Maliki himself, and 5) that the Obama administration always knows what it is doing and why it is doing it. 

Since, however, this crude dawning inflicted upon the "exceptionally good" American nation is undeniable blowing up to smithereens the former justification, rationalization, and lies of the "War on Terror" and its force-fed cognitive and moral disorder, Obama felt compelled to explain away and cover up again the stark deception, contradictions, and lies that veiled the ugly truth staring now into the eyes of the whole world, including even many of the diminishing deniers. 

But since the reality and the official tale spun by Washington are so apart, Obama understood that, while he needs to say something, he cannot dwell too much on it. In other words, he needed to come up with 2-3 plausible talking points, then repeat them several times for retention effect, and then flee. Almost literally. To flee one's own shadow as well as responsibility and accountability. 

That's apparently also why Obama or rather his advisers-handlers chose the presidential chopper for the background of Obama's statement. 

The helicopter waiting for Obama to lieft him out somewhere as soon as he finishes made it look as if Obama was in a hurry to get somewhere else for something more important, But he was kind enough to stop for a moment to explain to the kids about the mess in Iraq, which "was not brand new": "Don't worry, we had intelligence and we told the Iraqis: 'We told you so.'" In other words, the statement on al Qaeda emerging now as a de facto state partioning Iraq and Syria was cast as Obama's "by thew way" remark in his passage from a breakfast to some new, yet undisclosed location. 

So let's look closely at Obama's statement on the ISIS, the original al Qaeda in Iraq (from early 2004), which has now occupied a large part of Iraq and significant areas in Syria. 

Obama: "Now, this threat is not brand new. Over the last year, we’ve been steadily ramping up our security assistance ..."

Obama seems to acknowledge, yet, in fact, he conceals the fact that this al Qaeda militia turned into a large terrorist quasi-state came to Iraq with the US invasion and its War on Terror. 

Obama: "I do want to be clear though, this is not solely or even primarily a military challenge. Over the past decade, American troops have made extraordinary sacrifices to give Iraqis an opportunity to claim their own future. Unfortunately, Iraq’s leaders have been unable to overcome too often the mistrust and sectarian differences ..."

Suddenly, when ISIS/al Qaeda makes all these huge gains, for the US and Obama, the War on Terror and the whole justification for the Iraq War is no longer "solely or even primarily a military challenge." And what is the reason cited for this great terrorist threat? According to Obama, ISIS/al Qaeda has grown so much because of "Iraq's leaders" and Iraqi "mistrust." If the Iraqis only trusted their al Qaeda more, would this ISIS/Qaeda army be less of a threat?

So what to do? According to Obama, sending U.S. troops back is out of question, but he advises Iraq that, when confronting this ugly continuous legacy of the US war on Iraq, he has a piece of advice to the Iraqi government by helpfully calling for "a serious and sincere effort by Iraq’s leaders to set aside sectarian differences, to promote stability, and account for the legitimate interests of all of Iraq’s communities." The US destroyed Iraq for the Iraqis, but now "we can’t do it for them." So now Obama says, "in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action ... won’t succeed." IN other words, Obama says that he does not believe in the efficacy of any "short-term military action" (perhaps as short as the war and occupation in Iraq) for the Iraqi government should "account for legitimate interests of all communities," which seems to include the "community" of the ISIS/al Qaeda as well. 

Obama then proceeds, echoing similar words of John Kerry: "So this should be a wake-up call." The audacity of imperial hypocrisy. After 13 years of the War on Terror that turned al Qaeda into a quasi state and a large army capable on occupying much of Iraq, Obama is now telling the Iraq’s leaders "to wake up"!

Part of the "waking-up" part of Obama's speech is his assurance to the Iraqis that the US is basically washing its hands and saying the chaos brought about by the invasion, war, and occupation is now your own mess--good luck: "So the United States will do our part, but understand that ultimately it’s up to the Iraqis, as a sovereign nation, to solve their problems."

Another essential point needs to be noted and emphasized: slyly, Obama made sure that he never in his statement mentions the word "al Qaeda" or that he admits that the ISIS is actually al Qaeda of Iraq--after a series of relabeling itself. Its current name adopted in April 2013, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Sham), moreover, makes it clear that al Qaeda has now been considering itself not merely as a franchise or an organization, but as a state in its own right. Indeed, it now controls a vast territory with millions of people under their control. On January 3, 2014, the ISIS did, moreover, declare its "independence" as a state.  A fact kept by the Western media away from the public. 

In the face of these stark realities, Obama then apologetically and insincerely reassured the world that the US made sure that the ISIL would not "establish a a safe haven" which it has ... not mention in this tremendous size: "Indeed, across the region we have redoubled our efforts to help build more capable counter-terrorism forces so that groups like ISIL can’t establish a safe haven." In the face of this grave and imminent threat of a fast expanding terror state, Obama furthermore generously promised to support--Iraq's " moderate opposition in Syria," which is so moderate that it includes the very same ISIS besides al Nusra and other al Qaeda groups as their main corps. 

So, according to Obama, the invasion of Iraq and the long, violent occupation was really just "giving Iraqis the opportunity [for] a better destiny." Somehow, it turned out that this opportunity became al Qaeda's opportunity that happens once in centuries. 

And here comes Obama's schyzoid or rather a cynical liar: "ISIL has been able to gain a foothold in Syria. That's part of the reason why we’ve been so concerned about it. That's part of the reason why we’ve been supporting the Syrian opposition there." The US support for this "opposition" the main force of which has been ISIS and al Nusra has greatly supported the rise of the same ISIS and al Nusra. But saying, as Obama does, that the US was concerned about the ISIS, so it needed to support the opposition so much can work only for those who, even after three years, remain criminally clueless about the fact that al Qaeda and the opposition much overlap. They are not the same side against the Syrian government, as they are against the Iraqi government.

Sociopaths and empires have no shame.

Can we still continue in denial? Can the US still afford to be an Empire in denial as David Chandler and Nial Ferguson (also here) correctly diagnosed the condition of the hegemon and, before them, Geir Lundestad?

For example, the real identity and existence of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq (ISIS), has been till recently presented as a great mystery and secret. Some in the West even argued that he might be fictional. Well, as it turned out, the US knew very well who he was for  as many as four years in one of their facilities in Iraq since 2005 till 2009. In 2009, the US released him even though they knew that he was a multiple murderer and dangerous terrorist.As a Pentagon document confirms, Abu Bakr al-Baghdad was involved in the intimidation, torture and murder of local civilians in Qaim ... He would kidnap individuals or entire families, accuse them, pronounce sentence and then publicly execute them.” Why such a ferocious individual was deemed fit for release in 2009 is a critical question in its own right. One possible explanation is that he was one of thousands of suspected insurgents granted amnesty. Under his command, as the Telegraph now acknowledges without emphasizing it too much, "al-Qaeda [became] the pre-eminent rebel movement in the fight against President Assad." The bottom line is that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was released just in time before the US pullout from Iraq and, before the engineered regime change attempts in Libya and Iraq, in which Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's al Qaeda played a pivotal role.

Speaking of Libya and Syria, the two wars are not only connected through al Qaeda, the two are also connected by a enormous gun-running operation of the CIA, which was centered in Benghazi and around the misleadingly called "embassy" or "consulate" of the US where Ambassador Stevens was killed on 9/11 in 2012. Earlier that year--at the end of 2011/the beginning of 2012, the CIA dropped in Libya's desert what has been dubbed "the sea of weapons." And it so happened that the one who found and seized this "sea of weapons" was ... well al Qaeda. 

And is it a coincidence that Iraqi Parliamentary Speaker visited Turkey on June 2 on an unofficial tour and the Mosul surrendered to the ISIS on June 10 by the speaker’s brother Esil Nujayfe ?

No comments:

Post a Comment