ISIS, Militarism, and the Violent Imagination

18 Sep

 

 

 

 

Before ISIS

 

The beheading of American and British journalists who were being held hostage by ISIS creates a truly horrifying spectacle, and quite understandably mobilizes the political will to destroy the political actor who so shocks and frightens the Western sensibility, which is far from being free from responsibility for such lurid incidents. Never in modern times has there been a clearer example of violence begetting violence.

 

And we need to ask ‘to what end?’ Political leaders in the West are remarkably silent and dishonest about what it is that they wish to achieve in this region beset since 2011 by a quite terrifying outbreak of political extremism, whether from above as in the cases of Syria, Egypt, and Israel or from below as with ISIS and al-Nusra.

 

It is difficult to recall that at the start of 2011, just three years ago, progressive voices around the world were inspired by the Arab upheavals, especially in Egypt and Tunisia, that burst upon the political scene unexpectedly. These extraordinary events appeared to repudiate the prevailing patterns of authoritarian, exploitative, and corrupt collaboration between oppressive domestic elites, neoliberal economic forces, and the regional imperial juggernaut that had kept this humanly disastrous reality stable for so long. Yet even during that time of optimism about the Arab future, a closer scrutiny of what was happening disclosed many reasons to be worried. It is helpful to look to this recent past to have some comprehension of the perplexing present.

 

A Revolutionary Spirit Without Revolutionary Action

 

The goals of these upheavals were far too ambitious to be realized by such limited challenges directed at the established order. These movements were essentially confined to getting rid of a hated ruler. Associating single individuals such as Mubarak, Ben Ali, or Assad with the grievances of an exploited and oppressed people overlooks the degree to which class interests and entrenched bureaucracies constituted structures. The popular forces bravely challenging the status quo lacked leadership, program, and even a clear agenda, and naively expected the remnants of the old regime to disappear or go along with the anguished call of mass discontent that sought bread, freedom, and dignity as the effect of removing the hated leader.

 

This innocence of exaggerated expectations made what had seemed a remarkable achievement of doing the impossible more vulnerable to reversal than was generally understood at the time when the immediate results seemed so stunning. What particularly impressed thoughtful commentators was being described as ‘a new subjectivity’ of the Arab masses. It had long been presumed that these Arab publics were reconciled to their fate, and would remain passive victims of their sorry fate. That they rose up with such force and resolve surprised the world, and themselves, by these courageous displays of self-empowerment and political creativity. It was also impressive that these upheavals, each distinct, shared a vision of an inclusive democracy that when established, would henceforth govern society with respect for all classes, religious and ethnic identities, genders, and political persuasions.

 

The reluctance to challenge the old order more fundamentally and punitively became coupled with a paradoxical and perverse situation of dependence on the old regime to manage in good faith the transition to the promised new dawn of constitutional democracy and freely elected political leaders. There seemed to be no understanding that these old elites in each country had interests that had been generally served by the previously established order, and would inevitably be threatened by the longings of the people, including expectations of moves toward greater social and economic equity threatening the prior acceptance of predatory arrangements with neoliberal globalization.

 

Preconditions for Transformative Political Ambitions

 

In this sense, there seemed little awareness in these movements of Lenin’s insistence that a successful transformative politics necessarily depends on substantially destroying the prior state structures; (“you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”), that is, by rebuilding the new transformed state from the ground up and getting rid of the old bureaucracy. This generalization is especially true if the old order was managed by indigenous leadership, and not imposed from without as in the colonial era. Also, as Hannah Arendt argued in her book on revolution, if the overthrow of the former regime does not have a radical social agenda, as was the case with American Revolution, only then does the possibility of a smooth and peaceful transition exists. [See Hannah Arendt, On Revolution (1969). Excluding the prospects for improved material conditions, including jobs for youth, was a political impossibility in the Arab world, where conditions of mass misery were what partially explained the role of oppressive structures and the assignment of security forces to prevent workers from organizing effectively.

 

Revealingly, in contrast to the activists in Tahrir Square, Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran encouraged a kind of Islamic Leninism, rejecting all pleas to reach compromises with the Shah’s regime in exchange for social peace and shared political power. From the perspective of late 2014 we take note of contrasting realities: Iran’s Islamic Republic is celebrating its 35th anniversary without a serious threat to its governance, while the so-called Egyptian Revolution barely lasted two years before the old regime in a more extreme form was fully restored under the bloody military leadership of General Sisi.

 

 

 

Underestimating Political Islam

 

There were additional factors at work in Egypt and the region. Perhaps, most significantly, those who sought to liberalize the governance structures without shaking their foundations greatly underestimated the electoral strength of political Islam, especially the Muslim Brotherhood. Although the ideals of the Tahrir movement affirmed inclusionary democracy, the assumption of many who initially championed a new political order was that the MB would participate as a minority presence that would not displace the old urban ruling classes or threaten its privileges. When this turned out to be wrong it immediately shifted the political balance in such a way as to promote counter-revolution. As Europe discovered after 1848, nothing is worse for progressive politics than revolutionary ambitions to exceed revolutionary means.

 

This situation was further stressed by the rich and influential Gulf oil dynasties that felt deeply threatened by the Arab upheavals, and cared far more about their own stability than they did about promoting Sunni politics in the region. These governments were disturbed by the fall of Mubarak, and hoped for a political reversal in Egypt, welcoming the counter-revolution led by Sisi with an avalanche of funding, without blinking when this new military leadership proceeded to commit major atrocities against members of the MB and to criminalize the organization. It should not be ignored that this counter-revolutionary violence also served the strategic interests of Israel and the United States, restoring stability, marginalizing Muslim and democratizing forces, and avoiding the emergence of governments much more inclined to support Palestinian aspirations and to challenge neoliberal links with global capitalism. Into this mix that emerged in Egypt, must also be added the political ineptness of the MB, neither appreciating its popular support nor recognizing that MB political hegemony would never be accepted by either the remnants of the old regime nor by secular liberals who wanted Mubarak overthrown, but not the system. In this sense, it appears in retrospect that it was a great mistake of the MB to withdraw their earlier pledge after the Tahrir success story to refrain from seeking either to dominate the parliamentary elections or compete for the presidency.

 

Not Forgetting Iraq or Syria

 

If we consider other developments in the region there is another disturbing ‘truth’: the region at this stage seems better off being governed in an authoritarian manner than by either the sort of ‘democracy promotion’ that was the theme song of the George W Bush presidency (2000-2008) or through the political responses to the kind of popular uprisings that erupted in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, elsewhere, but turned out to be unsustainable. The least bad outcomes as of now appear to be those countries where the old authoritarian regimes prevailed without much struggle (e.g. Morocco) and made a few gestures of reform averting both civil strife and a more brutal turn in authoritarian rule. The alternatives to authoritarian in the region now seem far worse: terrible civil warfare (as in Syria) or chaos without respite (as in Libya). Given the mess that unfolded in Iraq during a decade of American occupation, what Washington policymaker would not at this point secretly consider the second coming of Saddam Hussein in Iraq as a gift of the gods?

 

Syria, as well, sent the wrong signal throughout the region. First, there occurred a popular challenge to the Assad regime that occasioned a bloody counterinsurgency campaign. Then outside forces, Turkey, the United States, Gulf countries teamed up as ‘Friends of Syria Group’ to help the insurgency prevail, badly underestimating the military capabilities and political support of the Damascus government, which enabled it to withstand these efforts to repeat the Mubarak/Qaddafi experience of overthrow either from below (by a mass movement) or from without (by a NATO air campaign). In Syria instead of regime change there occurred an ongoing civil war that has taken upwards of 200,000 lives, caused millions to flea the country as refugees and millions more to become internally displace.

 

Three negative political effects also followed: neighboring countries were destabilized, the unresolved Syrian struggle gave rise to various forms of Islamic extremism within Syria and in the region, and the atrocities of Assad gave license to others in the region (such as Sisi) to commit crimes against humanity with the prospect of impunity.

 

What lessons can we learn? Above all, beware of what is wished for. In effect, above all else, the last several decades should teach the West that the days of staging successful colonial interventions at acceptable costs are long past, and that premising post-colonial interventionist diplomacy on a moral crusade of human rights, democracy, and counter-terrorism fools almost no one except some of the people in the metropole, and wins few real friends in the target societies other than cynical opportunists or desperate insurgents. If intervention is followed by military occupation many of those who were initially willing to accept any and all outside help to get rid of the hated leader quickly get disillusioned and turn on their earlier benefactor, a process dubbed ‘blowback.’ [For identification of the phenomenon and its naming see Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 2004) If the intervention is not followed by an occupation the results are not much better. Piles of bodies and debris are left behind, but the new reality is likely to be, as in Libya, the kind of ungovernable chaos with armed militias substituting for the rule of law. Washington tends to call such situations ‘failed states’ as if it had nothing to do with the collapse of governance.

 

America’s and NATO’s Unlearned Lessons

 

America and NATO should have learned the limits of military superiority and the problematics of occupation from their failures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Military superiority and shock and awe tactics can generally overwhelm a Third World government and quickly destroy its military capability, but that is only initial and easy phase of an effort to control the political future of a targeted country. Notoriously, Bush didn’t understand this in relation to Iraq when he infamously announced ‘mission accomplished’ to the world immediately after Iraqi military resistance crumbled and Saddam Hussein was driven from power.

Phase two of the Iraq undertaking involved occupation and state-building neoliberal style, and the emergence of formidable political resistance. The early glow of victory soon fades away, and a variety of troubles start to overwhelm the intervening side. A movement of national resistance takes shape, and adopts insurgent tactics against the foreign invader that takes away many of the benefits of military superiority that earlier achieved an easy battlefield victory. Resistance consists of various acts of violent disruption that gradually turn a hostile and foreign occupation into a long nightmare. The high tech weaponry of the occupier remains an effective killing machine, but it increasingly kills the wrong people, alienates far more, and seems helpless to establish minimal order much less to deliver on the promise of democracy, economic prosperity, and human rights for all. The prime objective of the occupier becomes one of crafting a graceful exit that disguises the abandonment of the original enterprise, and if that fails, leaving in a humiliating manner without being able to disguise the defeat. It should have been evident from the outset in Iraq that the effort to embed democracy is in tension with the strategic goal of integrating the country in accord with Western ideas of security and political economy. The idea of turning over security to an indigenous and partisan army trained to make safeguard the government put in place by a military intervention is truly a ‘mission impossible.’

 

Strategic Failure

 

What was the real outcome of both of these major military interventions that cost many lives, generated mass refugee and internally displaced populations, and expended trillions of dollars on these futile ventures? In Afghanistan the results were a mixture of chaos, destabilization of Pakistan, and the reemergence of the Taliban as a formidable political force. In Iraq, the ironic outcome after a decade of occupation was a strategic victory for Iran and its pro-Shi’ite foreign policy, along with sectarian strife and widespread chaos, culminating during this past year with the eruption of ISIS occupying a significant expanses of territory in Iraq, and Syria. ISIS had the audacity to proclaim itself the Islamic State and to found a new caliphate without regard to international borders.

 

In both societies these results are exactly the opposite of the goals set by the intervening side. What were the real motivations of the intervenors? There are, I believe, three overlapping answers given varying weights by commentators: for oil, for arms sales and the political economy of militarism, and to ensure the desired strategic hegemony of the American/Israeli partnership throughout the Middle East.

 

The failure results from a basic disconnect. Securing the neoliberal priority of assuring access to Middle Eastern oil at stable prices bolstered by a maximum Western private sector investment depends upon maintaining good relations with stable governments and receptive societies. Stable political structures, given the American commitment to Israel, together with capitalist predatory behavior, produces a hostile cleavage between state and society throughout the region, making political order fully dependent on effective authoritarian governance. Under these conditions it is evident that any claimed commitment to human rights and democracy is hypocritical, and at best peripheral. Such claims serve as misleading rationalizations for intervention in a post-colonial era where naked imperial justifications are no longer credible. It puts the West in the position of inevitably collaborating with national elites that suppress the most fundamental human right of their own peoples—that of the right of national self-determination, which is highlighted as common Article I of both the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

 

Remembering Vietnam

 

There is a further disconnect. Relying on military intervention to achieve the goals of foreign policy is not a new recipe for political failure, and such an approach should have been discarded long ago for realist reasons. A repudiation of interventionary diplomacy should have been the crucial lesson learned from the Vietnam War. Remember America won all the big battles, controlled every combat zone, and yet lost the war. A Vietnamese military commander’s response is worth pondering made to an American official who insisted that despite the political outcome of the war, the United States was never defeated militarily by Vietnam: “Yes, that is true, but it is irrelevant.”

 

Understanding why it is irrelevant is the great unlearned lesson in relation to the conflicts taking place the period since World War II. It should by now be clear even to the most dimwitted real politik analyst that every colonial war since World War II was won by the militarily inferior side. Perhaps, the most dramatic instance of people power triumphing over imperial power occurred in India’s defeat of the mighty British Empire without firing a shot. In Indochina and Algeria French colonialism finally gave way to national movements with far worse weaponry. National resilience in the end proves stronger than foreign military and police control.

 

The real untold story of this string of losses sustained by the West is the empowerment of people. This empowerment was eventually accorded moral and legal respect by a global diplomatic process that now seems a false gesture of imperial disempowerment. Acceptance of the moral claims of and legal right to self-determination was formally acknowledged, but the geopolitics of power and wealth went on as before, and continued at great costs to seek by force of arms what could not otherwise be justly acquired.

 

The recent Israeli military operation against the helpless people of Gaza is an extreme illustration of this dynamic. No people in the Middle East have endured as much cruelty and suffering during their long national movement for independence and sovereignty than have the Palestinians. And no state has been as determined as Israel to rely on its vastly superior military means to maintain control, expand, and ruthlessly suppress opposition. And yet after nearly 70 years of dispossession, occupation, militarist subjugation, and Western backing, the Palestinians are far from defeated. In the recent one-sided Protective Edge campaign over 2100 Palestinians were killed, 75% of whom were civilians, as compared to Israel reporting losses of 70 dead, of whom 66 were members of the IDF. It suggests that ‘state terrorism’ is far deadlier for the civilian population than is the violence of enemy resisters. But consider the political dynamics: the Israeli reasons for staging this horror show seemed to be mainly to convince the collaborationist leadership in Ramallah to stop cooperating with Israel and to weaken decisively the organization structure and political support of Hamas. As with the cases mentioned earlier, the military dominance produced great devastation combined with a political defeat: instead of weakening Hamas, the organization gained in popularity not only in Gaza, but even more so in the West Bank where new polls show that in any forthcoming election Hamas would easily win over the Palestinian Authority, which was unlikely before Israel launched its latest deadly attack to once more ‘mow the lawn’ in Gaza.

 

The next concern, following from what has been argued, is ‘why such a clear pattern of repeated failures should not lead to policy adjustments?’ There are two explanations: the political elites of the world are hard-wired to think within an anachronistic realist box in which military power is the controlling force of history. Such thinking is also part of the political culture of the United States where security is correlated with hard power, no matter the facts are. This defiance of reality is sadly reinforced by American political culture. When recent horrific crimes in movie theaters and schools where innocent persons are willfully slaughtered by a deranged heavily armed individual, the militarized mentality of the citizenry leads it not to demand the prohibition of assault weapons in private hands, but perversely to a surge in private arms sales.

 

The ISIS Challenge Revisited

 

This brings us back to ISIS, and what might be done that improves the situation rather than worsen it. Barack Obama has presided over shaping the regional response. He was confronted by a multifaceted dilemma. He had been elected president twice partly to end American engagement in overseas wars, especially in the Middle East, and here he was once more rallying the region and Europe for yet another war against an adversary that posed no discernable threat to the American people. To overcome this awkward fact, it was necessary to dramatize the barbarism of ISIS tactics, pointing to the

American victims of ISIS atrocities, and at the same time promise there would be no American casualties. Barbarous as were these atrocious acts, beheadings were unfortunately not new to the region, and were regularly used upon by the Saudi Arabian government in punishing convicted criminals. True, these incidents involved American and British nationals who were innocent of wrongdoing, but the emphasis was not so much placed on their innocence as on the horrifying technique used to carry out the executions.

 

Here is the core problem: America’s leadership in the region depends on actively protecting the authoritarian status quo, especially in the Gulf, and so doing nothing about ISIS was not an option. What Obama is proposing to do repeats the old formula of failure: air strikes; training, arming, and advising friendly forces (Iraqi Kurds, moderate Syrians, Iraqi military units), disrupting ISIS overseas recruiting and funding. Obama’s program is a pale version of post-Vietnam counter-insurgency doctrine where risks of American casualties must be minimized while air power, including drones, plus native ground forces with their own political agendas are relied upon to carry out the dirty work. Yet, as in earlier encounters, the likely result is to induce chaos and alienation arising from accidental targeting of innocent civilians arousing public resentment, and a no win/no lose standoff that causes great suffering to the society, including producing many refugees and internally displaced persons. It is illustrative of thinking within the old militarist box, and its prescriptions are almost certain to make any particular situation worse than if left alone.

 

Of course, there are far preferable options, but to adopt these requires looking below the surface. It would have to start with the admission that the American occupation of Iraq was the proximate cause of the emergence of ISIS, especially due to the purge of Bathist elements in the government and armed forces, and the encouragement of Shi’ite sectarianism. Abandoning sectarian maneuvers is one way to avoid some of the worst recent mistakes.

 

Another productive path presupposes an American diplomatic outlook oriented around wider ethical and world order concerns. Such an adjustment would require loosening the dependency ties to Israel, and follow a rational line of geo-strategic self-interest in the Middle East. Such a course of action, hardly ever mentioned because it seems too unrealistic, would involve taking three steps: bringing Iran into the effort to find a political solution for the Syrian civil war; proposing a nuclear free zone throughout the Middle East; exerting pressure on Israel to uphold Palestinian rights under international law. This is a distinctly political approach that contrasts with militarism that has produced destructive turbulence in the region in the period since the partial stabilities of the Cold War era collapsed along with the Berlin Wall in 1989.

 

Militarist geopolitics seems destined to lead to yet another Western catastrophe in the tormented Middle East. There is no political will visible anywhere on the horizons of world politics that might pose a humane challenge to such disaster-prone policymaking. And so the murderous cycle of violence repeats itself yet again, the alien militarism of this Western led coalition is confronting the indigenous violence of ISIS that the mistakes of earlier interventions by the West have helped to nurture. And so dispiriting repetition occurs instead of uplifting innovation, and the wheels of violence turn with accelerating velocity.

18 Responses to “ISIS, Militarism, and the Violent Imagination”

  1. Mansour Farhang September 18, 2014 at 4:44 am #

    Dear Richard,

    Did you receive the e-mail (below) I sent to your UCSB address on September 2?

    Mansour Farhang
    Sep 2

    to Richard
    Dear Richard,

    It was a pleasure to hear from you. Soheyla and I, both fully retired, have moved to Jackson Heights area in Queens. We would love to have you and your wife for dinner when you are in New York city. You choose the night and let us know. We have somewhat elevated our culinary skills in retirement, but the division of labor between us remains the same. She is the chef and I am the cook.

    Warm regards,
    Mansour

    • Richard Falk September 18, 2014 at 6:13 am #

      Dear Mansour:

      Forgive me. I was hesitating to respond until we had a clear idea of our NYC schedule. I have to be in Washington one day, Hilal
      has UN responsibilities, and my son Dimitri lives in the city. Thanks for your gracious, and highly tempting offer. We are in Europe
      for the next month, and until I clarify my schedule, I cannot make any social commitments. BTW we have been playing lots of ping-pong,
      and so it is time we renewed our rivalry! It is hard to imagine you in retirement. Hilal joins in sending our warm best wishes to you
      and Soheyla.

  2. Gene Schulman September 18, 2014 at 10:14 am #

    Richard, you had gone missing for a while, and I was wondering why. This must have taken you some time to write, but it was worth waiting for. A long summation of the tragic events that have taken place since 9/11. I fully agree with you about who is to blame. But that famous question is still to be begged: “What is to be done?”

    • wingsprd September 18, 2014 at 4:58 pm #

      Yes Gene, that pithy saying by Lenin. Trouble is we are human, we age, die and pass away. My hope for the world is at rock-bottom. So many disruptions when we really should be united in protecting our little green globe!!

      • Gene Schulman September 19, 2014 at 1:06 am #

        wingsprd: Can’t help responding to your despair with another quote. This one from Albert Camus, philosopher of the absurd:

        ‘This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational and wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart. The absurd depends as much on man as on the world. For the moment it is all that links them together.’

        It seems, no matter how hard we try to change things, the world remains absurd.

      • ray032 September 19, 2014 at 3:33 pm #

        Before Camus, 2600 years ago, Isaiah expressed the same ideas using different words:
        Therefore is Judgment far from us, neither does Justice overtake us: we wait for Light, but behold Obscurity; for Brightness, but we walk in Darkness.
        We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.
        We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for Judgment, but there is none; for Salvation, but it is far off from us.
        Isaiah 59

      • Gene Schulman September 20, 2014 at 1:09 am #

        Sorry, Ray. I do not see any relationship between what Isiah says so many years ago, and Camus’ thoughts on the absurd. Let us look for practical answers to the problems of today rather than succumbing to palliatives from biblical myth. The Bible can be interesting literature, but it has nothing to teach us. This is not a personal put down because you spend so much time quoting from the bible, rather just to let you know can’t put much credit to ideas and prayers of “prophets” of 2600 years ago.

      • ray032 September 20, 2014 at 2:37 am #

        Good Morning Gene. As I said downstream, I am only one voice among billions. If you can’t see the connection, I can!

  3. rehmat1 September 18, 2014 at 6:50 pm #

    Well, Dr. Falk, everyone has his/her “story” of ISIS. Below is mine for you to ponder.

    John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Peter King have warned Barack Ben Obama that unless he put “American boots” in Iraq, to destroy the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (SIS)” it will soon become an “existential threat” to the United States.

    “ISIS is a direct threat to the United States,” said Rep. Peter King, former fund-raiser for the Irish terrorist militia IRA.

    “Washington should bomb ISIS in Syria and Iraq,” Sen. John McCain thundered.

    “We need to go offensive. There is no force within the Middle East that can neutralize or contain or destroy ISIS without at least American airpower,” Sen. Lindsey Graham told CNN.

    “The Islamic State is an “existential threat” to our homeland,” Graham added, asking, “do we really want to let America to be attacked?”

    If I’m not wrong, Graham was trying to insult Washington’s two powerful allies in the Middle East. First, Israel which has more fire-power at its disposal than the US military. Pentagon has claimed that Israel’s air force is the best in the region. Second, Turkey, which has the largest military force in the region plus 87 nuclear bomb at the US military base on its soil. How, come these two US allies are not drying to destroy ISIS, as they have been arming the ISIL and other insurgents in Syria to topple Assad’s regime?

    However, the American tragedy in Iraq is that nearly ten years of “American air power” Washington could not stop Iraq becoming Iran’s top Arab ally without firing a single shot by Iranian forces.

    Only a few months ago, they were criticizing Obama administration for not arming ISIL terrorists to bring an anti-Iran regime change in Damascus.

    Currently they’re campaigning for more funds and arms for Israel to continue its slaughter of innocent Palestinian civilians. They supported military coup in Egypt against country’s democratically elected president Dr. Morsi.

    I’m sure these three Israeli stooges are aware of the fact that ISIS, like Al-Qaeda and the Arab Spring, is a creation of US-Israel-UK to protect their illegitimate Zionist child in Palestine.

    In the past, these three Israeli stooges had supported US invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon and Syria.

    Anyone, who has followed the political careers of these three Israeli stooges, will tell you, they really don’t believe the ISIS poses any threat to the United States or its national interests in the Middle East. They simply want American boots in Iraq and Syria in order to maintain Israel as the regional bully.

    Iraq is now a very weak nation split in three, with the Kurds up north, the Sunnis around the middle, and the Shiites down south. United States spent four trillion dollars and is now broke. Nearly five thousand young Americans lost their lives and at least 30,000 were wounded, some grievously, blind, without limbs, and needing hospitalization for the rest of their lives. Iraqi casualties were estimated to be as high as one million, a number that is dwarfed by the number of Iraqis who became displaced. And gained from American and Iraqi losses? Israel, of course, as it remains the only nuclear power in the region.

    In February 2012, Patrick Buchanan, an American conservative politician, journalist and author was interviewed on Russian Television (RT). During the interview he claimed that Israel with 300 nuclear bombs is naturally greater threat to United States than Iran which has no nuclear bomb.

    http://rehmat1.com/2014/08/22/israeli-stooges-isis-is-existential-threat-to-us/

    • ray032 September 19, 2014 at 3:52 pm #

      Stripping away all false patriotism, propaganda and BS, the realities on the ground are ISIS just walked in and took control of oil wells the Americans spent so much blood and treasure on to control.

      ISIS is the devil in the details the US had not worked out before the destructive invasion in violation of International Law.

      Remember the only world body who gan give sanction/permission to militarily invade any other country if it is not actually at your doorstep, is the UN Security Council and the world knows the US was denied that permission.

      In my view, the moral order broke down with that US/British action.The US ignores Israel for breaking International Law, but condemns Russia, when the US has shown it’s disrespect for International Law. This is the recipe for nuclear confrontation as the people of this world passively see it coming, but say nothing in Public for fear of being a buzz kill!

      This picture of me wearing my “trademark” no. 13 jersey appeared in The Ottawa Citizen July 15, 1978, 13 years before the 1st Gulf War. when gas masks were the big concern.

      It was to protest economic, military and economic pollution and Public Complacency. I should have included religious pollution as well.

      This is a Public Record:GAS MASKS AND THE 1st GULF WAR
      March 21, 2011
      http://ray032.com/2011/03/21/gas-masks-and-the-1st-gulf-war/

      Much more of the same these days!

  4. Clif Brown September 18, 2014 at 8:21 pm #

    this essay is proof that reason is out there, but has no influence on politics. Having been around during the Vietnam war, like many who are in Congress, it astounds me that, as noted, nothing was learned from such a costly mistake – the machinery continues to go through the same process as if history did not exist.

  5. imleif September 19, 2014 at 3:55 am #

    Practically all Western leaders and “centrist” politicians will categorically deny any Western responsibility or contribution to the rise of ISIS.
    Arguing the opposite does seem based on speculations in your essay, and even if causality can perhaps be argued, ISIS was an unpredictable side effect of a failed war.

    • Richard Falk September 19, 2014 at 2:35 pm #

      Yes, specifically, yet not entirely. When military intervention disrupts an established political
      order it creates a situation that leads to various unintended consequences, although no one of them
      seems predictable.

  6. rehmat1 September 19, 2014 at 5:34 am #

    The phony al-Qaeda, War on Terror, Arab Spring, ISIS, Iran’s controversial nuclear reactors, etc. are all part of Israeli Oded Yinon plan to divide and Balkanize the Muslim nation-states which could pose threat to Israel’s supremacy in the region.

    Last month, a senior official at the Dutch Justice Ministry in Twitter message claimed that the so-called “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” is a Zionist plot, funded by the US and Israel to demonize Islam.

    Yasmina Haifi, a project leader at the ministry’s National Cyber Security Center, posted on Twitter: “ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. It’s part of a plan by Zionist who are deliberately trying to blacken Islam’s name.”

    http://rehmat1.com/2014/08/14/dutch-official-isis-is-a-zionist-plot-to-demonize-islam/

    • ray032 September 19, 2014 at 7:54 am #

      I am only one voice among billions, but I see this world unfolding Generally along the lines recorded by The Kansas City Times, September 13, 1976.

      One line in that Public record says: “and explained his own mission as ‘waging war against the beast’ – the beast defined as government of man and tyrants” which is what the Arab Spring of 2011 and the Occupy movement was all about. I was not talking about being engaged in that violent struggle personally, but speaking as a “Messenger” the Spirit of the Times moved me to speak.

      Another “prophecy” in that 1976 article warns about the incitement of increasing defence spending and getting ready for war with Russia. Obviously, the spirit of that prophecy is being activated for real THESE DAYS.

      It was a wonder to me, having the image the Kansas City Times shows, when the Secret Service led me to the restricted balcony having the podium of the President of the United States set up. as the President was expected at that very spot momentarily. Being pre-cable, ABC, CBS & NBC were broadcasting live and should have the video of that scene in their archives, as well as the SS having the record. Such a revolutionary image was not seen before or since, standing at The Presidents podium

      Not only was I surprised when they led me to stand at that symbol of power and authority, but I was even more surprised when the SS asked me if I was Jesus Christ? I had no illusions of that then and now. My immediate answer was No!

      Obviously, I had nothing to do with the world unfolding along those General lines other than being a messenger in the right place, at the right time.

      It seems to me I have been afflicted with Cassandra’s Curse, like when God sent Moses to talk to Pharaoh, and as the record points out, hardened Pharaoh’s heart to not listen to Moses.

      http://ray032.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/kansas-city-times-september-13-1976-22.jpg.

      Even having the different than usual Sunday church goers experience of God that I have experienced these last 39 years, I still have my personal struggle in the Faith.

      The Way requires dying Daily to my old self-seeking, self-centred ways of this world, and resurrecting with the Spirit of Christ, to be God-centred in all that I think and do. To worship God in Spirit, and in Truth!

      The Truth I have to acknowledge within myself is I know my own sins, faults and failures. They are more than the hairs on my head as Paul compared himself to the chief of the sinners. The Apostle Paul described this reality as the “thorn in the flesh” he could not get rid of during his lifetime. It is the natural built-in to keep us humble before God once we are “Born Again” of the Spirit of God.

      This is what all Christians are supposed to be doing 24/7, in their own personal thoughts and lives with their personal relationship with the Redeeming Spirit of Christ.

      This is the individual Jihad in the war between the Spirit and the flesh all humans must undertake alone. It is at that sense of individual aloneness, can we meet with God alone in the Spirit.

      Let ALL THOSE that seek You Rejoice and be Glad in You: let such as Love Your Salvation say continually, The LORD be Magnified.

      But I am poor and needy; yet the Lord thinks of me: You are my help and my deliverer; make no tarrying, O my God.
      Psalm 40

      If I am the last man standing, The Truth I know within myself is the Spirit of that letter is True.

      Knowing that, I have found a Peace, Joy and Satisfaction in my Life quenching the unsatisfied wants, I never knew before, even with the war drums increasing in tempo and other dark storm clouds taking shape along the horizons that can be seen in this material world!

      NO ONE will find GOD if they don’t look for GOD. Many are called, but few are chosen.

      There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
      The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
      He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
      John 1

      In the Spirit of the Resurrected Christ Today, the 1st line, “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John” is revised to: “There was a man-woman sent from God, whose name was John, Tom, Dick, Harry, Mary, Sue and Jane, etc., etc., etc.

  7. mohamadreza Badiei September 19, 2014 at 4:02 pm #

    Dear Sir I enjoy your thoughts,but I believe it does not need to be written using such a difficult language. Using a more common vocabulary helps those for whom English is a second language enjoy your blog more. Sincerely yours Mohamadreza Badiei

    Sent from my iPad

  8. dawn September 30, 2014 at 5:46 pm #

    ISIS is the construct of US government, Israel, Britain and their puppets, Arab head of state and the imposter Erdugan. Down with them all. They cannot fool anyone. First, it was Taleban, then Al Qaeda. Hillary Clinton, the baby killer, said it all when she revealed that Al Qaeda was US government construct. Now, people, even ignorant Americans, have found out that the terrorist groups are pawns of the US to redraw the map. Stop fooling yourself.

  9. anan October 26, 2015 at 10:58 pm #

    After Osama Bin Laden died, there was a dispute over who should succeed him as head of Al Qaeda linked networks. The factions that backed Zawahiri are still Al Qaeda linked. The factions that backed Bagdadi are now called ISIS, or Islamic State, or Daesh.

    ISIS is a splinter from the old Al Qaeda, and as such is an organization that has been around since the 1980s.

    ISIS (like Al Qaeda) is very clear regarding its objectives:
    — Conquer and rule the world to establish “God’s will” on earth.

    ISIS is also what use to be called the “Iraqi resistance”. ISIS largely militarily defeated and absorbed the remaining Iraqi sectarian Sunni Arab militias 2003-2006. In 2005, the remnants of the non ISIS Iraqi resistance begged MNF-I to save them from ISIS, and MNF-I to a limited degree tried to protect the remaining Sunni Arab militias from ISIS, albeit this strained relations between the GoI/ISF and MNF-I.

    In 2006, virtually the entire Iraqi resistance that remained was ISIS, and committed to establishing a global caliphate that over time conquered and ruled the world.

    Noticed that dawn described ISIS as a construct of the US government. Obviously this is not true. But from 2003, Iraqi civilians, the Government of Iraq, and Iraqi Security Forces have believed conspiracy theories that America backed the “Iraqi resistance” and Al Qaeda (which is now called ISIS.) This conspiracy theory became even stronger after the transfer of sovereignty to the Government of Iraq in June, 2004. MNF-I often appeared disengaged and agnostic in the war between the Iraqis (including GoI/ISF) and the Iraqi resistance/ISIS.

    Commanding 4 star General Casey of MNF-I from June 2004 to 2007 said under oath before Congress in 2007:
    1) He never talked to President Bush while Commanding General of MNF-I
    2) He was never told even once that his mission was to “win” a war. He thought that was the job of the Iraqis.
    3) He thought his (MNF-I’s) mission was transition rather than fighting a war.

    General Casey’s point of view partly originated from the fact that the “Iraqi resistance” and Al Qaeda were more interested in fighting Iraqis, the GoI, and ISF than they were interested in fighting MNF-I.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: