Read first part
Part Two
The conflict between U.S. led NATO backed so called ‘moderate rebels’ versus Russia supporting the Assad government forces in Syria.[58][59] These 'moderate' fighters (including Al-Sham and Jahbat-Al-Islam) have been heavily documented to have also been in collusion with Daesh in their actions, and have repeatedly caused violence and killed civilians. [60][61][62]
These actions are of the same veracity that Daesh would carry out. Those conducting foreign policy currently are aware of this although they will not allow any barriers to removing taking out Assad to replace with a ‘moderates party’, which is a contradiction, because as with moderate rebels, they do not exist, despite what propaganda figures such as 7 year old 'Bana' had been tweeting before refusing to be evacuated from Aleppo.[63][64]
US Influence In Iraq
One of the tenets of the maneuver to which encourages foreign policy invasion follows three core principles of problem, reaction, and solution.
In the case of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, intelligence agencies directly or indirectly create the problem [U.S. Jeddah consulate designating visas to 15 hijackers on 9/11[65], then organize a pre-planned reaction (the invasion), to create a favourable 'solution' in the best interests of the host country (such as removing the Taliban and reinstating an America-phile puppet which destabilizes the region due to the public’s disdain for the government, which later creates a further problem, i.e. the rise of wider 'terrorist' groups.[66]
Hypocrisy in regards to Iraq is that the regime change operation to remove Saddam Hussein from power (previously an ally of the U.S. during the 1980s) allowed for the destabilization of the country where civilians have been killed, tortured and are impoverished.[67]
Demonstrations against the corruption of the regime of Iraqi PM Haider al-Abadi were evident when hundreds of Iraqis broke past the green zone, the walled zone that the U.S. constructed.
It was the first time that many of the protesters had ever been inside the Green Zone. Bombings in Iraq since 2003 have killed thousands [68]; hence the reason U.S. officials do not want to spend any time in Iraq and civilians are living under a state that would be characterized a ‘national emergency’ in the U.S.; notwithstanding that Iraq did not ever attack the U.S. homeland in any way, despite the evidently false anthrax scares[69][70] blamed wrongly on Iraq that combined with the Iraq WMD lie [71] and the lie that the Iraq had any association with 9/11 provided pretext for the initial invasion to begin with[72].
Media Lies
Iraq could never pose the threat of 'hitting London in 45 minutes' as sensationalized in the British press[73], Western intellectuals and governments at the time. Therefore we must ask, why the sudden rush to war? Why has over 30 years of interventionism in the Middle East produced less freedoms, and peace and prosperity to the world than before it began; and if true (I would argue proven so) why continue?
Such an interventionist foreign policy has only produced failures as (a conservative estimate of 6 million people killed by the U.S. since WW2[74]) populations impoverished, and whose tyrannical governments are more corrupt and brutal than before the interventionism started. Afghanistan before the intervention had greater women’s rights and was more secular in urban areas in the late 1970s.
Such interventionism has costed trillions of dollars worldwide; and which allowed for the new Taliban that is now characterized as Daesh to metastasise. It is startling that anyone with a moral compass would be in favor of any more carnage. The one noble further action would be to recall all troops based overseas including special operations (JSOC) – of which there are thousands just in Africa for example[75] and stop funding and laundering (e.g. Iran Contra[76][77][78]) arms, as any further action spurs the tidal wave of destabilisation.
Perhaps part of the reason as presented by U.S. General Smedley Butler is because ‘war is a racket’[79], and that those of direct beneficiary in the racket will be enthusiastic in arguing for it, despite 4,500 Americans killed in Iraq alone[80], tens of thousands with life- disrupting injuries; and 650,000 Iraqi people killed, most of whom are civilians.[81]This number for Iraqi’s is greater than the total UK & Commonwealth deaths in WW2 (580, 497).[82] Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, - who was one of the fundamental pushers for the intervention -when asked if she believed that U.S. role upon Iraq that has approximately led to the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi's since 1990-, she replied ''the price- we think it was worth it''.[83]
The 650,000 figure calculated by Les Roberts is a greater figure than passive sources such as the much quoted Iraq body count[84], whose sources do not measure deaths related to disease and sanctions, which the authors of body count acknowledge themselves in result of their estimates in Afghanistan to have been only ‘a fraction of all cases’.[85] British officials also acknowledged the legitimacy of Roberts’ findings.[86]
Supporters of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), as members of the executive, congressional and judicial branch are responsible, by shaping national American identity from being against further intervention before 9/11 to an almost-salivating need for revenge in 2002 and 2003 through ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ that would destroy the ‘terrorists’. The driving neoconservative figures that were publicly and privately backing increased intervention had been shaping government policy for decades.
Hawks & Neocons
Some of those promoting the belief for a new American century had been shaped by a multitiude of ideoligies; neoconism, the divine right of America to do with the land what it pleases, and therefore a deep rooted hubris of patriotism for country that knows no bounds. Statements characterizing interventionist ideology include the statement by George W Bush ''either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists''; and the proclaiming 'axis of evil' that consisted of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The senior W Bush spokesperson Karl Rove espoused this ideology when stating in a press conference that: ''we are an empire no, and when we act, we create our own reality [...] We're history's actors [...] and you, all of you; will be left to just study what we do''. [87][88]
Profound evidence can be identified by a conversation between Bush and Tony Blair in 2003 recorded by Blair's foreign policy adviser that ''toyed with the idea of staging a deliberate military provocation in order to precipitate a casus-belli''.[89]
Such staging of events was known to have occurred previously. Famously the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 that was presented by the U.S. president Lyndon Johnson that a North Vietnamese frigate boat had opened fire on the U.S. vessel, and of which provoked the U.S. invasion of Vietnam, leaving casualties of 58,220 from the U.S.[90] However, this incident never occurred, although it produced the required anger from the general population to support a war that they otherwise wouldn't have.
It is also known that since WW2, the U.S. has attempted to overthrow more than 50 elected leaders[91], and attempt to assassinate 50 more[92], while bombing over 30 countries[93], suppressing populist movements in over 20 countries[94], causing at the least 6 million deaths[95], while being the lead practitioner of torture.
Examples of the latter include torture, such as waterboarding, beatings, solitary confinement, threats, rape and other sexual assault, and other forms of torture still classified at Abu Ghraib prisons, at secret CIA ‘blacksites’[96][97] across the globe; using data intelligence from 78 ‘fusion centers’ in the U.S.[98][99][100][101] This has seriously damaged America's credibility as a nation, which has lost the legitimacy of its power.
Perpetual Warfare
The startling realisation as once stated by Brzezinski ''It is easier to kill a million people than control a million people'' is of higher prominence today that at any other decade in human history; particularly because information on the internet has allowed for the public to have the resources available to question any 'official narrative'.
The third and most important statement by Brzezinski in his work Second Chance is that ''the attack on Iraq has increased the terrorist threat to the United States''.[102] A revised approach suggests that terror attacks have quadrupled in the U.S. since 2004 compared to 2015.[103] The notion that these are not linked fundamentally to the result of destabilising of countries in the Balkans and Middle East for the past 40 years is absurd.
Such as the sustained remote drone operation by the U.S. overseas that are legally used on both non American nationals and American citizens when not in the U.S.; which has killed over 13000 people[104], mostly civilians between 2004-2016.
The United States as official policy by government will continue to strengthen Islamic hostility against countries whom it needs control of (namely Syria, Iran and West Asia) which again repeats the cycle that Washington created in the 80s by funding and providing arms to so called 'rebels' in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and the Contra rebels in Iran. These rebels, known as the 'mujahadeen' did include Osama Bin Laden as Al-Qaeda were used as CIA assets[105], and top U.S. officials have been photographed with them, one of whom was Zbigniew Brzezinski.[106]
Such evidence is necessary to seriously question what appears to have been a plan to completely destabilize Iraq, resulting in colossal deaths caused by interventionist policy. Such evidence can allow for a disruption of funding and arms to such groups, and allow fighting to be carried out by the Syrian governing forces the Ba’athist Party with Bashar Al-Assad as president.
In the case of Syria, it is clear that current Western foreign policy has painted a picture of Al-Assad as being dictatorial, and whom poisons his own people[107], despite that in years previous, Assad was portrayed overwhelmingly in a positive light. These chemical weapons claims are unsubstantiated, and most likely were perpetrated by terrorist factions aligned with Daesh. [108][109]
This was extensively documented by the UN official Carla del Ponte[110], and the Syrian government [111], whose evidence pointed to the rebels having used chemical weapons in which over 1,300 Syrians were killed.
There is evidence that Saudi Arabia [112] and Turkish Intelligence (MİT) were collaborating with terrorist factions in Syria [113], and that the chemical weapons were smuggled with Turkish knowledge across the Turkish southern border with Syria for the so called ‘moderate’ terrorists, and that the MİT was complicit in war crimes [114]. Two members of Turkish parliament also corroborated the allegation by providing an investigation file and audio recordings using wiretapped phone-calls in the acquisition of sarin [115][116], although Turkey released 13 individuals involved.
No Morality
Upon questioning of current foreign policy troubling details emerge that question the legality of U.K. airstrikes in Syria, as the Syrian government hasn't given permission to U.S., U.K., Israel, Qatar, France, Bahrain, Germany, Australia, UAE or others to use its airspace. The only countries it has given permission to do so is Russia, Iran and Iraq.
Therefore these acts of aggression in Syria as designated as a supreme war crime by the Nuremberg tribunals: “the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”. [117]
End Of Part Two
You have read to the end of the second of three parts of my critique of modern interventionism, if you have learned anything or wish to share your thoughts please do so below!
References (Continued)
