April 14, 2017

Why neocons limit focus to only "ISIS" rather than jihadists in general

Against Trump's repeated emphasis throughout the campaign of eradicating "radical Islamic terrorism," the neocon Deep Statists led by NatSec Advisor McMaster are trying to re-frame the battle to be against only "ISIS" or perhaps also "al-Qaeda".

More encompassing terms like (radical) Islamic terrorists, jihadists, Islamists, Salafis, Wahhabis, etc. are not to be used because they will insult "our Muslim allies in the region" -- namely the Saudis, Turks, et al. who spread Salafi ideology through radical mosques all over the world, and who bankroll jihadist violence, whether that be conquest in the Middle East or spectacle terrorism in the West a la 9/11.

It has been SOP since the 1980s that the US foreign policy Establishment will align with jihadists against a government that resists incorporation into the American sphere of influence -- in Palestine (Hamas over PLO), Afghanistan (Mujahadeen over Soviet clients), Iraq (topple Saddam), and Libya (topple Qaddafi).

The difficulty comes with these jihadists turning on their paymasters, in most spectacular form on 9/11. It needs to be emphasized that these are not foreigners who we have attacked and are settling scores with us. They are Frankenstein's monster turning on its creator -- ethnocentric zealots stabbing foreign supporters in the back.

It's no different from naive Europeans who "welcome refugees," only to get robbed, raped, and run over by them.

"You knew damn well I was a snake, before you took me in!"

Blowback makes it impossible for the Establishment to continue supporting the group responsible, yet they still want to carry on the general program of aligning with jihadists. So the propaganda ramps up attacks on the specific group who blew up the World Trade Center (al-Qaeda), or the specific group whose loyalists shot up the Bataclan nightclub (ISIS).

That leaves the whole rest of the ever-evolving roster of jihadist groups out of sight and out of mind, for the general public. It's best not to name them at all, but if so, with non-alarming qualifiers like the "opposition" or "rebel" or "Sunni militia" group al-Nusra. Since al-Nusra is simply al-Qaeda by a new-and-improved name, the Establishment and its propaganda outlets in the media can go on supporting jihadists while not taking flak from the public, who has only heard of ISIS and al-Qaeda in the context of jihadism.

And if al-Nusra becomes too infamous for killing or threatening Americans, they can always re-brand to Ahrar al-Sham, or Tahrir al-Sham, or any other damn name that is too hard to pronounce or remember for the American people.

That is why our foreign policy Establishment will only commit to fighting "ISIS" and "al-Qaeda" in Syria, while we openly provide money, weapons, and positive spin to their jihadist brothers with different names.

And that is why we will remain at an impasse with the Syrian / Russian / Iranian side who are winning the war against the jihadists -- they intend to neutralize all jihadist groups because jihadism is a threat to their nation's security and stability. The American Establishment only intends to neutralize ISIS and al-Qaeda for bringing such bad reputation to the cause of supporting jihadism against governments that do not want to be part of the American sphere of influence.

Doesn't jihadism threaten America's national security, though? It does to some extent, but the Establishment is willing to write off those losses, in order to scoop up more of the oil-rich and militarily strong nations of the Middle East into its sphere of influence. It's another way in which the elites concentrate the benefits of policy at the top and stick the middle and bottom of the pyramid with all of the costs.

There is likely a similar dynamic at work within, e.g., Saudi Arabia. Only the elites benefit from being part of the American sphere of influence -- their elites' jihadism is likely to antagonize the American people into seeking revenge against the entire country, where the bottom rungs of the ladder would serve as cannon fodder against an invasion by Uncle Sam.

The social mood is currently more nationalist in Syria, Russia, and Iran, although these moods rise and fall in long-term cycles.

The US looked to join this trend with the election of Trump -- getting along with Russia, airstrikes in Syria could start WWIII, cut deal with Iran rather than continue getting stabbed in back by Saudis, etc. In general, don't put the middle and lower layers of society at risk, or picking up the tab, just so the protected elites get to masturbate furiously over expanding America's sphere of influence.

That has been put on hold, but only because Trump has not cleared out the anti-American personnel in the branches of government that touch on the military and foreign policy. That interest group can push back more forcefully against its region of the swamp getting drained, since they are the instruments of the legitimate monopoly on violence that is the basis for the President's authority.

Over the eight years of the Trump administration, he and the relatively less neocon individuals will come to fill out more and more of the military Deep State with personnel committed to a realistic, up-to-date assessment of where the major threats lie, and where the major alliances ought to be made.

Achieving that requires us to speak in general terms about our enemies -- jihadism, Islamic terrorism, etc., and not just "ISIS" or "al-Qaeda". Otherwise the general public will keep thinking there's nothing so wrong with aligning ourselves with the Saudis, "Syrian rebels" like al-Nusra, and whatever the hell they change their brand to next week.

The key country to spread the word about is Saudi Arabia, not only for their central role, but because a good share of the American people already know that they're bad, that's where bin Laden came from, and that's who attacked us on 9/11, for which we still have not gotten revenge. Antipathy toward Saudi Arabia is also completely bipartisan (just as is support for them among the globalists).

Since the Saudis are on the opposite side from Russia, breaking ourselves free from them will also allow us to pursue crucial detente with the other nuclear superpower during a climate that is pre-WWI.


  1. Since the Saudis are on the opposite side from Russia, breaking ourselves free from them will also allow us to pursue crucial detente with the other nuclear superpower during a climate that is pre-WWI.

    It's like you are just playing a video game.

    This has nothing to do with reality. This isn't World of Warcraft or Call of Duty.

    As I stated before US policy is driven not by some ultimate realistic superplan.

    It's driven by several basic concerns:

    1 - contracts and careers within the military industrial complex.

    2 - Jewish ethnic interests, "is it good for the Jews?"

    3 - Wall street profits

    Without Russia, Iran, North Korea as "threats" how does the US justify weapons deals? Or support for NATO or careers in state, Atlantic alliance etc etc?

    We are talking about trillions of dollars and the careers of sociopathic personality types.

    Who do the Jews/Israelis fear? Sunni jihadis? No!

    The threat is Nasser type leaders of strong Arab states and Iranians and their clients.

    Of course Saudi Wahhabi and the Turks and Mexican invasion of the US are the main problems - from a certain perspective but NOT from the perspective of the US MIC, Wall street or Jewish/Israeli interests and THAT'S what matters.

  2. The MIC can make money no matter where the products are sent -- whether it's against Saudis or Syrians, who cares?

    They would probably profit *more* from a Saudi war because Americans will be naturally more angry at Saudis for 9/11 and other attacks, and demand more intervention than a place they've never heard of that never attacked us, Syria.

    Wall Street profits, same thing. What it does not like is instability, and especially 9/11 type events. That comes from aligning with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, when we could align with Iran instead, who does not threaten us with the same degree of risk.

    It's not Israel who is #1 in the Mid-East -- otherwise they would have Greater Israel, or trends in that direction.

    Instead, they are losing territory to the Iranian side, after Hezbollah drove them out of Southern Lebanon, and next from Golan Heights.

    Saudi has its original territory, plus wave after wave of Salafi converts and conquerors, who up until Russian intervention had expanded out of Saudi Arabia proper and into the Iraqi/Syrian end of the Arabian Desert ("Syrian" Desert).

    Saudi's invasion and war against Yemen, also an expansion, funded and armed by US. Where is Israel's expansionist war like in Yemen?

    There is a widespread campus movement against Israel -- BDS. Where is this movement against Saudis?

    Al-Jazeera spreads Gulf propaganda all over the West, consumed as neutral by naive cosmopolitans. Where is propaganda from Israel proper? (I know, they don't need it, with NY Times and the rest of the media.)

    Who can blow up the World Trade Center, fly a plane into the Pentagon, and potentially the White House, murdering thousands of Americans, and get off 100% scot free? So far, only Saudis. Israelis may be bad friends, but they haven't launched a 9/11 by latter-day zealots.

    Obviously Israel's interests are represented in the coalition, but first and foremost is the Saudis and other Sunni extremists and monarchies.

  3. McCain's paymasters are more Saudi than Israeli, who are 2nd:


    McCain's plans would only give Israel a Balkanized buffer between themselves and Iran, without adding to their territory or sphere of influence.

    All those Sunni extremist groups who McCain wants in control of that buffer zone would be clients of the Saudis, so they would benefit more geopolitically than Israel would.

  4. you mentioned mpc awhile ago. i have major problems with them. but i'm inclined to agree with this assessment. looks like backdoor deals to replace assad (political solution like tillerson said)... and china either attacking north korea or standing back as the us takes it out.


  5. The secret deal angle looks doubtful now that we know the de-confliction channel was never restored, despite some initial reports that it was.

    When Tillerson visited Moscow, Lavrov said that it remained suspended, and that it would only be restored on the condition that the US will limit strikes to ISIS, al-Qaeda, *and other associated groups* meaning the jihadists that the US has been supporting all along (al-Nusra et al.).

    Obviously the US is not about to stop supporting its jihadists not named ISIS or al-Qaeda, so that de-confliction channel remains closed.

    As a result, the US side has been carrying out far fewer strikes since they hit the Assad airbase -- they don't want to run into the Russians.

    A secret backroom deal would have prevented this impasse.

  6. The basic premise behind the "secret deal" view is wrong -- that Trump actually gives a shit what the media, Democrats, and bitter Hillary voters think about his moves toward detente with Russia.

    They have been pounding on him with that for months, and he keeps mocking them for just trying to conjure up a witchcraft explanation for why they lost so pathetically in the election. He was always open for wanting to get along with Russia, and reiterated that right up through the early part of his taking office.

    In Trump's mind, there's no reason to make a backroom deal with Putin over Syria -- make it out in the open, and if that sets the media, Dems, and Hill shills into a conniption fit, so much the better. They were not necessary to our winning -- just the opposite -- and their approval and permission are not needed for us to Make America Great Again.

    Do we see him making backroom deals on domestic policy? Like maybe about the TPP, letting it seemingly go in the Establishment direction, unsettling his base? No -- killed it right away. Did he make a backroom deal about the countries on the Muslim ban? No -- he tried to keep them out with two separate orders, not welcoming them in. Taking bids for the wall? Same story.

    If Trump cared what his enemies thought of him, he would have gone through the esoteric backroom deal approach for all of the major policies that they have tried to crucify him for, not just the detente with Russia (one of the least remarked on things during the election, compared to the Wall, Muslim ban, etc.).

    Trump is a busy man with a plan, no time for theatrics that look like they're going in the opposite direction of what he'd promised for years.

  7. The backroom deal view also ignores the immediate context -- public disavowal of regime change from Sec State, UN Ambassador, and Press Sec, in addition to Trump's long-held views.

    If there was a backroom deal to fake out the haters, why make these very transparent moves across all major public figures? Hardly faking out the audience there.

    Conclusion: Trump had his team begin to publicly implement his detente policy vis-a-vis Russia and Syria, and that triggered the Deep State plus its jihadist allies in the M.E. into launching their counter-plan. Bogus charges of Assad gassing, then carrying out an attack that had clearly been planned for months.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."