SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
perpetual war
Beware 'Sunni-Stan': Neocons are Back and Their 'Vision' is Darker than Ever
Dec 23, 2015
John Bolton is a tarnished character. The former United States Ambassador to the United Nations is now promoted as a scholar by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a pro-Israel lobby group.
Bolton is not a peacemaker, nor, in his defense, did he ever try to appear as if he were one. When he was appointed as the US Ambassador to the UN by George W. Bush, his stint lasted for only one year, starting in August 2005. His time in this position was marked with discord and conflict. He stole the limelight with such statements as "The (UN) Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a difference."
When the Iraq war failed to achieve any of its objectives, thus signaling an American retreat in the Middle East, neo-conservative politicians like Bolton retreated to their right-wing, neo-conservative institutions. Those who did not have one, established an organization of their own and began issuing press releases at random, hailing Israel at times, and chastising their President, Barack Obama, for one thing or another.
When the so-called 'Arab Spring' took place, neocons, like Bolton, saw in it an opportunity, but one that was difficult to discern. On the one hand, they understood little of the mechanisms that propelled popular actions, for they are used to operating at the highest power level with a total disconnect from the people. On the other hand, it was clear to them from the start that Obama was taking no chances by stepping back into a Middle East quagmire that was originally designed by his predecessor.
Unable to affect much change in the region, as they once envisioned under the leadership of Richard Perle and his Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the neocons mounted a strategy predicated mostly on discrediting their administration's lack of strategy.
In a sense the 'Arab Spring' invigorated the neocons, but also reminded them of their political impotence. Gone were the days of concocting foreign policies from neo-conservative think tanks such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the Center for Security Policy (CSP), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), of which, among others, Perle is an active member.
Perle is quite a cherished member of the American Enterprise Institute, where Bolton often mounts his occasional articles in mainstream US media, offering a 'vision' regarding how to take on Iran, how to reform Arab states, and how to redraw the map of the Middle East in ways that are conducive to US foreign policy interests.
The latest of such intellectual charges by Bolton was published in the New York Times on November 24. Under the title, "To Defeat ISIS, Create a Sunni State," he theorized once more, raging against "Obama's ineffective efforts" to destroy ISIS and demanding, instead, a "clear view shared by NATO allies." The main drive behind his logic is that once ISIS is destroyed, the region that the militant group designated as a 'state' should be turned into a Sunni state, which, as a working title, he called "Sunni-Stan."
Bolton's reasoning is as predictable as it is arrogant. It is predictable in the sense that, like other neocon initiatives in the past, it has no respect for the wishes of the people of the Middle East. His arguments are constructed upon the same worldview that sees conflict as an opportunity and warring nations as pawns in a larger game aimed at subduing people to achieve 'security' and 'stability' for the US and its supposed allies.
It is also arrogant for the obvious reason that he believes the world should be designed to fit the narrow, self-serving, and often violent visions of failed politicians like himself, who, alas, has access to the US's most respected newspapers.
Bolton's conceit has completely blinded him to the failures of the Bush administration and the entire collapse of the neo-conservatives intellectual discourse during and following the Iraq war. On the contrary, he is asking to repeat what went wrong in Iraq.
"As we did in Iraq with the 2006 'Anbar Awakening,' the counter-insurgency operation that dislodged Al Qaeda from its stronghold in that Iraqi province, we and our allies must empower viable Sunni leaders, including tribal authorities, who prize their existing social structure," he wrote.
Only an unreasonable person cannot appreciate how the sectarian seed that the US has sowed in Iraq, based on the recommendations of the likes of Bolton, has resulted in the disfiguring of the Iraqi nation. This massive tampering with the social, cultural, religious, and political fabric of society - by first empowering the Shia, oppressing the Sunni, then turning the Sunnis against one another, and so forth - has paved the way for unity among various Sunni groups, which ultimately formed ISIS.
It is the grand experimentations of Bolton and his peers that made ISIS the 'state' that it is today, which he is proposing to replace with yet another sectarian state, thus slicing up two Arab countries that were once the seats of the two most prominent Caliphate civilizations in history, the Abbasid and the Umayyad.
But for what purpose and at what price? If meddling at a relatively small scale has turned the Middle East into a perpetual inferno and roped in regional and international rivals into a war that seems to be in constant expansion, one can only imagine what such a large-scale reconfiguration of the region could lead to; and for what? So that Bolton can ensure the complete dismantling of the region in favor of Israel and that a buffer state can be established to block the Iranian influence in Syria and Lebanon? So that his country could gain access to more oil supplies? So, would Russia's attempt at having a stake in the future Middle East be thwarted?
Whatever it is, the neo-conservatives should never be allowed access to the Middle East discourse, and their visions, those of doom and destruction, should remain confined to their ever-mushrooming think tanks.
True, it is the perpetual war and horrific rivalries in the Middle East that have finally empowered the neocons to stage a comeback, but considering the damage that these groups have already done, one is certain that no good can come from Bolton and his clique.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Endless Flow of Weapons Fuels Endless War in Iraq and Syria
New report shows how flood of munitions from across the globe, including the United States, are making peace impossible in Middle East
Oct 06, 2014
An analysis of new data (pdf) collected by a group which tracks weapons in global conflict zones has found that a large proportion of the munitions now being used by ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria are from U.S. manufacturers, either captured on the battlefield or sold to them by supposed U.S. allies.
According to the New York Times on Monday, the available data put together by the Conflict Armament Research, "suggests that ammunition transferred into Syria and Iraq to help stabilize governments has instead passed from the governments to the jihadists, helping to fuel the Islamic State's rise and persistent combat power. Rifle cartridges from the United States, the sample shows, have played a significant role."
The report notes that a majority of ISIS munitions it examined from Syria were from China and Russia, while those munitions being used by ISIS in Iraq were more likely to be from the United States. The analysis shows that of the approximately 1700 pieces of munitions examined, more than 300 were US-manufactured cartridges, dating from the 2000s. This amounted to nearly 20 percent of the total material documented. "IS forces appear to have acquired a large part of their current arsenal from stocks seized from, or abandoned by, Iraqi defence and security forces," the report states. "The US gifted much of this materiel to Iraq."
The new report focused on munitions follows a similar report from the same research group last month which found the same troubling pattern when it came to light and heavy weaponry being used by ISIS.
Taken together, the pattern shows how the persistent flood of weapons into the region--not just from the U.S., but from China, Russia, and other large suppliers as well--has fueled the violence and the killing on all sides of the conflict.
As the Center for Public Integrityreports:
Much of the Islamic State arms and ammunition were captured on the battlefield, but intelligence reports have suggested that the group's income from oil sales and other sources is high enough to finance purchases of additional weapons directly from the companies and dealers that routinely profit from strife in the Middle East.
Experts say the fact that the armaments have such disparate sources - some were even made at a major U.S. munitions plant in Missouri - provides a cautionary note as Washington prepares to undertake expanded shipments of military supplies, including small arms, to rebel groups in Syria and to a revived Iraqi Army force.
Though Congress recently approved $500 million for arming and training "moderate" Syrian rebel forces last month, many foreign policy experts have warned against such spending, arguing that only diplomatic efforts--not military ones--can ultimately solve the conflict.
As Phyllis Bennis, senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, told Common Dreams in reaction to CAR's September report on weapons in the region: "This is one more piece of evidence of why military solutions have devastating consequences in the immediate and long terms. We see an example of the consequences of the over-arming of the region if we look back at Afghanistan in the 1980s during the anti-Soviet War when the U.S. provided stinger missiles that can bring down aircraft to mujahedin guerrillas who morphed into al Qaeda."
And as a new short video by Brave New Films argues, it is this steady flow of weapons and militaristic mindset that creates a cycle of "perpetual war," in which bombing, drone attacks, and sending of weapons only fuels and worsens the very "terrorism" that such wars are said to be aimed at stopping. "How does this end?" the film asks.
How Perpetual War Fuels Terrorism • BRAVE NEW FILMSSince 1980, we have militarily intervened at least 35 times in more than 27 countries. We keep bombing, we continue spending ...
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Senate Approves $500 Million to Arm Syrian Militants
Lawmakers back president's plan to expand new war in the Middle East
Sep 19, 2014
Despite loud warnings from many quarters--including foreign policy experts, the anti-war left and dissenting CIA analysts--that such a move could prove disastrous, the U.S. Senate on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to approve $500 million in government funds to help arm, train, and support so-called moderate military forces inside Syria.
The 78-22 vote--which came packaged as part of a continuing resolution for broader government spending--received bipartisan support with only 9 Democrats, 12 Republicans, and one independent (Sen. Bernie Sanders) voting against it. (See the full roll call vote here.)
Approved earlier in the week by the House of Representatives, the legislation is now headed for President Obama's desk where he is likely to sign it.
Obama has said that he does not think he needs Congressional approval for his overall strategy to confront the militant group known as the Islamic State (or ISIS) that has no taken over large swaths of territory in both Iraq and Syria. Simultaneously, however, the president has tried to garner as many visible signs of support from lawmakers as possible. The votes this week offer him plenty of cover as the Pentagon continues to make plans for expected, though deeply controversial, airstrikes against ISIS targets inside Syria.
As Obama has deployed increasing numbers of ground troops back into Iraq in recent weeks and expanded the U.S. bombing campaign, lawmakers have largely stood aside.
Explaining his vote against Thursday's measure, Sen. Sanders said, "I fear very much that supporting questionable groups in Syria who will be outnumbered and outgunned by both ISIS and the Assad regime could open the door to the United States once again being dragged back into the quagmire of long-term military engagement."
On Thursday, filmmakers at Brave New Films released a succinct anti-war video arguing against Obama's flawed strategy in Iraq and Syria, saying that the president and those who back him are making the same mistakes that have plagued U.S. foreign policy for decades.
"Since 1980," the narrator of the films states, "we have militarily intervened at least 35 times in more than 27 countries. We keep bombing, we continue spending trillions of dollars, but we're no safer as a result."
Watch:
How Perpetual War Fuels Terrorism • BRAVE NEW FILMSSince 1980, we have militarily intervened at least 35 times in more than 27 countries. We keep bombing, we continue spending ...
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular