Wednesday 6th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the pretense of benevolence...

obamacare...
The Revealed Cynicism of ‘Benevolent Hegemony’

 

by Mark Citadel, via Katehon

Since the collapse of the USSR, and the inception of the unipolar world order with the United States at its center, the term ‘benevolent hegemony’ has entered the lexicon of international relations and geopolitics. The full fleshing out of this idea was revealed in the 1996 essay by American neoconservatives Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, ‘Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy’. Its essence is an excuse for the United States to pursue whichever diplomatic and military means are believed to forward the goals of an American Empire, on the basis that unlike past empires, this one is not based on the prestige of the American people, or indeed any given leader, but instead on a set of ‘universal values and principles’ which are supposedly positive for all who live under them. One need only look at the neoconservatives themselves and come to the conclusion that they certainly do not represent the interests of the American people, as their international operations rarely have any positive impact for working men and women, and in fact very often engender negative consequences for them. Nor could it be said that neoconservatives aid the prestige of a given leader, as their legacy of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan destroyed the presidential legacy of George W. Bush, and notably his British ally Tony Blair.

This is excusable of course, because it has never been claimed by the neoconservative establishment that their policies are crafted with these people in mind. They are in aid of an ideology, and because most Westerners suffer under the delusion that this ideology is itself benevolent, then the means that America uses to propagate and expand its influence must also be benevolent. Slowly however, this facade is beginning to peel away.

Tom Rogan, a foreign policy analyst for the neoconservative publication National Review recently penned an article describing ‘Three Ways the US Can Save Syria‘. Obviously this is in response to the fact that America is being defeated in the country, the Syrian Army’s gradual recapture of Aleppo being just the latest blow to the terrorist rebel groups agitating against the legitimate government. If President Assad ends the insurgency of terrorists, then the American Empire loses not only in terms of its original geopolitical goals which spurred its meddling, but in terms of international prestige, especially among the nations of the Middle East. In light of this, Rogan’s urgent recommendations make sense, but in his zeal he gives the world a very clear picture of what ‘benevolent hegemony’ looks like.

The first recommendation concerns the oil market. Russia, the key counter-force to the United States in Syria, has been economically harmed by a dramatic dip in global oil prices, Russia is presently in talks with OPEC members about capping oil production, which would raise the price back up to reasonable levels. Rogan proposes diplomatic interference with this effort (mainly involving Saudi Arabia) in order to do as much economic damage to Russia as possible. The carrot he wishes to lead the Saudis with is the proposal for surface-to-air missiles given to allied rebel groups in Syria, but could just as easily be more rockets for Saudi aircraft to target funerals in Yemen.

Consider how benevolent this is; the stated aim being to wound a sovereign nation’s economy and by extension its people, the means being to arm dangerous groups within a sovereign nation in order that they can kill more civilian and government targets.

The second recommendation is perhaps the most alarming, as it can be perceived to be a direct terror threat against the nation of Turkey and its president, Tayyip Erdogan. Rogan acknowledges that after the failed July coup orchestrated against America’s own supposed NATO ally, the country does not trust the US, and is seeking to mend relations with Russia. For a long time, the relationship between Syria and Turkey was decidedly negative, but as the war has dragged on and millions of the displaced have flooded across borders with no checks on their movement, Ankara knows that stability in Syria is in fact vital to its own national security interests, and has thus moved away from its previous position on the conflict. In response to this setback, Rogan has the following proposition:

Here America’s golden ticket is the Kurds — specifically, U.S. armament support to Kurdish militias such as the Syrian-based YPG. At present, the U.S. carefully qualifies its support to the YPG to mollify the Turks. Erdogan fears U.S. support will enable the YPG and other Kurdish forces to destabilize Turkey’s southern frontier. And to some degree he is right. But if Erdogan wants to play us, we should play him.”

In case the severity of this is not clear, the insinuation is that if Turkey does not end rapprochement with Russia and pursue an aggressively anti-Assad agenda, the American military should arm groups it knows may conduct violent attacks against the Turkish state. Is there any way this cannot be taken as blackmail via terror, and if so how benevolent is such a proposal?

The third recommendation is to supply “humanitarian airlifts” to rebel-held areas of Syria. Rogan recollects the Bush-era airlifts to Georgia during the 2008 crisis, but there is a key difference between the two scenarios. In 2008, Georgia was a sovereign nation undergoing an incredibly complex regional dispute with breakaway provinces, but nevertheless the government there invited American assistance. This is not the case in Syria, where the government has expressed no permission for America to even enter its airspace, an international norm which the American Air Force has been violating for over a year now. In fact, in the wake of the brutal air-assault on Deir el-Zour which killed 62 Syrian soldiers, President Assad has been even more strident in making its long-held case that Western powers are working hand-in-glove with ISIS. This proposal more than the other two brings the world dangerously close to a conflict that nobody wants to even entertain, as Rogan recommends escorting these “humanitarian airlifts” with “fighter patrols” who would challenge Russian air superiority. Is laying the groundwork for WWIII benevolent?

Rogan finishes his essay by explaining that the goal of these dangerous pieces of foreign policy advice is to express “that America is unwilling to cede Syria to Russia”, apparently indulging in a fantasy that America ever possessed Syria, and indeed with a staggering sense of authority that the entire nation of Syria is something which can and should be possessed by America.

This is the not the first example of this kind of rhetoric coming from mainstream Western think-tanks and foreign policy journals which are intricately tied into the workings of the US State Department, however it is one of the less varnished ones. There is not even the mask of benevolence present in these proposals; they are dangerous, lawless, and cynical. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, she has made clear that this is the course she will take.

In a secret speech to Goldman Sachs which was revealed by Wikileaks, Clinton admitted the following regarding a no-fly zone in Syria:

They’re getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports. To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas.  So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.” 

And yet, even with this understanding, Hillary Clinton maintains support for the institution of a no-fly zone. Donald Trump of course represents the antithesis of such a hazardous foreign policy, abandoning the commitments of neoconservatives and their ideology, in order to focus on the various internal problems that his country faces. Even so we cannot rely on a Trump victory, for by now we are all aware of the Clinton campaign’s ability to martial all of her friends and colleagues in the Orwellian media, as well as stoop to even more subversive means to steal an election result. We must assume the worst, and thus we must assume and anticipate President Clinton and her craven approach to geopolitics. De-constructing the myth of ‘benevolent hegemony’ is an important part of this anticipation, and writers like Rogan help with this effort in their bungling inability to bejewel the ugly reality of the Atlanticist designs upon the Middle East and indeed the wider world.

Dropping the pretense of benevolence, this is just hegemony, and when we look at its consequences not just for the suffering people of Syria, but also Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, etc. then  perhaps these outlets ought to be more accurate and deem such projects ‘malevolent hegemony’ instead.

war as a generous gift to the bombed...

The economic, political and security strategy that the United States has pursued for more than seven decades, under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, is today widely questioned by large segments of the American public and is under attack by leading political candidates in both parties. Many Americans no longer seem to value the liberal international order that the United States created after World War II and sustained throughout the Cold War and beyond. Or perhaps they take it for granted and have lost sight of the essential role the United States plays in supporting the international environment from which they benefit greatly. The unprecedented prosperity made possible by free and open markets and thriving international trade; the spread of democracy; and the avoidance of major conflict among great powers: All these remarkable accomplishments have depended on sustained U.S. engagement around the world. Yet politicians in both parties dangle before the public the vision of an America freed from the burdens of leadership.

What these politicians don’t say, perhaps because they don’t understand it themselves, is that the price of ending our engagement would far outweigh its costs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-cant-afford-to-end-its-global-leadership-role/2016/04/22/da297be0-062a-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html?tid=hybrid_content_3_na

With these last magic words, Robert Kagan reinforces the hubris that keeps the Empire alive. 

Kagan of course is the other half of the Project for A new American Century, now morphed into the glorious FPI (Foreign Policy Initiative) which is an aggressive think tank designed to encourage (advise) the US government make other nations tighten their butt in fear or in debt of the USA. If you don't salute, you will be economically destroyed or bombed. Europe, Iraq, and a host of minor Latin America countries have been targeted. Russia is on top of the list of targets and Ukraine is a big chunk of the former Eastern Block being slowly imported into the US Empire, with bribes, pats on the back and other corrupt incentives. Europe is being used to achieve the US aim against Russia through NATO and other crap.

The way the threats are made range from the very subtle including economic "gifts" or agreements such as dreadful TTiPs designed to favour Yamerika, to the not so subtle. The end argument is "we won't defend you against the Russians if you don't let us screw you". It's simple. Straight to the point. And look at our glorious Empire army doing manoeuvres in your flat country...

Hidden destruction include currency manipulations, secret offers of cash (Greece) and, discounts and goods devised to divided countries and break alliance of countries, such as the EU. Rome did the same, including the surface warfare. 

 

See

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/31873

good and bad bombs...

One of the largest German newspapers, Das Bild, seriously claimed that there are "good" and "bad" bombs that are being dropped on Middle Eastern countries.

According to the newspaper, the first ones were used in Aleppo by "bad" Putin whose goal is "to level the city with 300,000 residents to the ground in order to increase his personal power and that of his regime."

The good bombs, as the newspaper claims, are on the contrary used by the US and its allies in the Iraqi city of Mosul. Their motive, according to the article, is "to liberate the city of millions from the terrorist regime of Daesh."

The author, Julian Reichelt, made every effort to draw things black and white: he repeatedly contrasted the Russians with the Americans and even wrote odd comments in brackets, apparently making sure that the reader is "on the right side." "Bombs are clearly better in the hands of those who respect elections, follow laws and are controlled by the free press (for example Obama), than in the hands of despots who react to criticism with violence and oppression and are not accountable to anyone (for example Putin)," the article said. In his attempt to turn the situation upside down, the author went even further, saying that "American nuclear weapons have always been better than the Russian (Pakistani or Chinese) ones because they have been controlled by politicians who have much more respect for human life and the will of their voters."

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201610281046854122-food-bad-bombs/


see toon at top...


meanwhile:

Terrorist group Islamic State has forced tens of thousands of people, mostly women and children, into Mosul from surrounding areas to serve as human shields, the UN human rights office has said. It comes as Shiite militias announced an imminent attack on the city.

Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) is preparing for a major attack on its Iraqi stronghold by the Iraqi army and its allies, possibly including Shiite militias, Kurdish militias and Turkish forces, with the US-led coalition providing air support.

Read more:

rt.com

good terrorists and bad terrorists...

“Today in the propagandaspiegel: no danger for civilians! While [east] Aleppo is being 'destroyed' by the evil Russians and Assad, Mosul is 'liberated' by the brave Iraqis, Turks and Americans …who would have thought that," one of the messages said.

“It is interesting that in Mosul good bombs are apparently hitting bad terrorists, in Aleppo bad bombs are being dropped on good rebels,” another comment said.

Reacting to the comments, Sydow tried to explain the differences between Mosul and east Aleppo by using several examples, with the humanitarian situation being one of the key points. He claimed that east Aleppo is “isolated” from the rest of the world, with people also “starving” and lacking water.

“In Mosul the situation is different at the moment. The city can be supplied, people have water, people have electricity, people have enough to eat. No one should starve so far,” Sydow said. His words are accompanied by a video that shows calm streets and people having a barbecue and drinking tea.

BILDblog soon  out that the video used is a propaganda clip by Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) militants released over a week earlier. The footage contains the logo of the Al-Amaq news agency, considered to be an official mouthpiece for IS-propaganda.

On its official Twitter feed Der Spiegel acknowledged its mistake, calling it an “oversight.” 

readmore

https://www.rt.com/news/364771-spiegel-isis-mosul-video/

 

See toon at top...


when the lefties go to war...


Once the home of the anti-war movement, under Barack Obama the Left advocated a continuation of war and mass murder by using the political expediency of humanitarian interventionism. In this episode of The Geopolitical report, we unpack how establishment Democrats have continued the wars begun by President George W. Bush and expanded them into Syria and Yemen through illegal proxy wars and an ongoing and intensified drone campaign across the Middle East. Now that Donald Trump is president and the wars continue, the antiwar movement will emerge from the shadows and reveal its hypocritical political coloration. Links, sources and show notes here.

 

https://off-guardian.org/2017/02/11/how-the-left-killed-the-anti-war-movement/

 

 

See toon at top.

benevolent bombing past...

This interview dates from December 2000, but is still highly relevant to today. NATO’s conduct in Kosovo can be seen as anticipating much of its current actions on Syria and/or Ukraine. The same exploitation of emotional and inaccurate narratives, the same promotion of wars of aggression in the guise of “humanitarian intervention”, the same promotion of dangerous elements such as terrorists and gangsters as “rebels” or “freedom fighters.” The same utter disregard for the longterm consequences for the people who have to live in these regions. In 18 years little or nothing has changed, and the same playbook is still in use.

INTRODUCTION

 

This is the second Emperor’s Clothes interview with Čedomir Prlinčević (pronounced Ched-o-meer Pra-linch-eh-vich).

Mr. Prlinčević, an historian, was chief archivist in Priština, capital of Kosovo, and head of the Jewish community there until, as he explained in his first Emperor’s Clothes interview, the terrorist KLA drove him and his family and thousands of others from their homes. Heavily armed British NATO forces stood by, watching the terror, ignoring the Yugoslavs’ pleas for help. You can read that interview here 

In his second interview, Mr. Prlinčević gave an in-depth answer to my question, “Why did Albanians flee Kosovo in large numbers at the start of NATO bombing?”

The media claimed the Albanians were fleeing Serbian terror. NATO bombing was portrayed as a reaction to supposed Serb terror.

Some anti-Serb leftists, notably Noam Chomsky, made a fake criticism of NATO, saying that the Albanians had indeed fled Serbian terror, but this was NATO’s fault because the Serbs instituted their anti-Albanian reign of terror in response to the NATO bombing, as NATO knew they would. I say this was a fake criticism of NATO because Chomsky endorsed the NATO/media attack on the Serbs while posing as their defender. As in, “Yes! He beat his wife! But you drove him to it!” I argued with Chomsky about this. Our email exchange is published here.

I and others in the antiwar movement thought the Albanians must have fled for the same reason many Serbs fled – to escape the bombs.

But Mr. Prlinčević says all these explanations were wrong. Something else was at work here: the manipulation by Western military and intelligence organizations of certain aspects of Albanian culture, both to create the terrorist apparatus known as the KLA and to stage public dramas, especially the mass Albanian flight in April 1999, which dramas were then used by the media to smear the Serbs as war criminals.

There’s a lot in this interview. As you will see, at first I had trouble understanding what Mr. Prlinčević was getting at. This was for two reasons: because I held onto the fixed idea that Albanian flight was a response to NATO bombing; and because Mr. Prlinčević was hesitant to speak frankly about Albanian culture, lest he appear culturally insensitive. But we cannot afford to ignore the features of clan-based cultures, whether in Kosovo or in the Middle East, that make them susceptible to manipulation by unscrupulous forces for nightmarish geopolitical goals. The points Mr. Prlinčević finally explained, and explained clearly, can help us understand, by extension, how military/intelligence forces can manipulate such groups around the world.

Jared Israel
Editor, Emperor’s Clothes

read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2017/02/21/why-albanians-fled-kosovo-during-the...

under the gloss...

 

Et tu, Barack? That was my reaction when I heard the news that former US President Barack Obama has agreed to a speaking gig on Wall Street for which he will be paid $US400,000 ($535,000).

Not bad coin in anyone's language. It's twice what Bill Clinton commanded when he went on the post-presidential speaking circuit.  It's in addition to the $US200,000 annual pension, plus lifetime free healthcare Obama gets for having been President. It's on top of the $US65 million he and wife Michelle are reported to have negotiated for their book deal with Penguin Random House.

read more:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/barack-obama-seemed-different-but-hes-just...

 

Anne! Barak was like the rest of the previous presidents an invention of the USA system. He was no more a turd than Bush or Clinton. But a turd he still was. Yes we can say he was a turd from day one. Just a different colour. He was conning people not just on the money for whatever, but also on the decisions points... Not a single day in his presidency was spent without bombing something or someone. This is the USA we are talking about. 

So your illusions have been shattered. We never had any about the guy except he was replacing a real bad turd in the name of G W Bush. This is why the sooner, we Australians de-couple ourselves from the US and start to think independently like Paul Keating has been suggesting for a while, the better. Start dealing with Russia in a more adult manner than the infantile US generals are unable to shake. They still live in the past when the world has moved on. They still listen to and arse-kiss the most despicable country on the planet -- Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are now in charge of Human Rights and Women rights at the UN ! Isn't this imbecilic? Are we nuts? They also dictate to US policy in the Middle East which to say the least has been duplicitous and loony -- Barak's included...

Never been a grown up's game but school yard bully attitude which has gone worse since the 1950s. 

Trump is not even worse than Obama. Trump IS ONLY DIFFERENT is what he says and what we see, but the same shit as before lingers. He has not been able to "make friend" with Russia because the establishment won't let him and that would also mean to let the Saudi on their arse which the US establishment does not want to do. Iran would not be so bad if the Saudis were considered for the arseholes they are.  No-one should be allowed to talk to them, but they control the flow of oil. Either way, they can flood the market or restrict it, creating havoc to a badly designed world economy that also needs to grow up into the renewable future. 

We won't see this for another ten years... Meanwhile the US can measurably blow up the world tomorrow. Whether it was going to be Hillary or Trump, it was going to be the same difference. CRAP and MORE CRAP.

 

read from top.

 

too bad if you get an apology for being killed....

 

The Pentagon released a statement Sunday acknowledging that since 2014, 352 civilians had been killed in airstrikes made by the US-led coalition in its war against Daesh in Syria and Iraq. It’s a number widely refuted by many sources.

A minimum number of 352 civilians are acknowledged to have been killed in US-led coalition airstrikes since the onset of hostilities in the region, as the Pentagon has gone on the offensive in attempts to counter an increasingly horrifying civilian death toll.


 

Far below even the most conservative death counts of multiple independent reporters in the area, the US statement, while lauded for its existence, has nonetheless been criticized not only for being far too low, but also for taking far too long to be released.

 

The Pentagon statement also included an apology: "We regret the unintentional loss of civilian lives… and express our deepest sympathies to the families and others affected by these strikes."

Casualty figures have risen sharply in the wake of the siege of the Iraqi city of Mosul, known to be a Daesh stronghold, as densely populated areas have seen rapidly increasing numbers of bombing runs by US-led forces, especially following the inauguration of US President Donald Trump.

According to UK-based activist organization Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the 42,234 documented air strikes in the country have resulted in a minimum estimate of some 7,000 civilians killed by the US-led coalition.

Additionally, Airwars, a UK-based non profit, has documented at least 20,997 airstrikes in the war, leading to an estimated minimum 3,164 civilians killed as a result of US-led coalition attacks since 2014.

Keeping counts is hard, particularly without knowing how many bombs the Pentagon has actually dropped in the area, as Human Rights Watch has reported a high degree of difficulty in getting accurate reporting concerning the civilian death toll.

But experts observe that the higher figures are thought to more closely resemble the truth, as the Pentagon has a history of downplaying collateral damage.

read more:

https://sputniknews.com/military/201704301053158872-us-admits-some-civil...

 

see toon at top...