text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-91808350061251624202017-08-18T07:18:01.049-07:00The New AtlasLand Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-89229242443928311752017-08-18T07:18:00.000-07:002017-08-18T07:18:01.093-07:00Syria: As the War Continues, WMD Lies Linger
August 18, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

Despite the now historical lies exposed in the wake of the devastating US invasion and occupation of Iraq beginning in 2003, the United States has attempted to use similar lies regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) repeatedly as a pretext for similar wars including in neighboring Syria.

The Syrian government - perhaps in an effort to head off another round of accusations, threats, and direct military aggression carried out by the US - is leveling accusations against the United States itself and terrorist organizations it has funded, armed, and backed for the past 6 years of using chemical weapons - primarily to create a pretext for wider war.

Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad stated at a press conference that the April 2017 Khan Shaykhun, Idlib chemical attack was staged by US-backed militants, including members of the so-called "White Helmets," a US and European funded front posing as humanitarian workers but who serve as auxiliaries for listed terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and its various Syrian affiliates.

As the Syrian military retakes territory from foreign-backed militants, munition warehouses and stockpiles, including those used for the production and deployment of chemical weapons for staged attacks, are being systematically uncovered. In them, chemical weapons - both lethal and nonlethal - provided by the United States and its allies are being discovered.

Mekdad would also point out that the use of chemical weapons by foreign-backed militants did not serve any sort of tactical purpose, but was instead being used as a form of blackmail.

While Western-dominated "international" institutions will likely not accept any evidence provided by the Syrian government - the Syrian government's narrative emerges as a far more logical explanation for the last 6 years of conflict and accusations made regarding chemical weapon use.

Chemical Weapons are Political, Not Tactical

Despite claims by the Western media made in an attempt to enhance US lies regarding WMDs, chemical weapons are particularly ineffective on the battlefield - with conventional weapons being many times more effective.

This was revealed in detail by a study produced by the United States itself, conducted by the US Marine Corps regarding the devastating Iran-Iraq War fought between 1980-1988 which saw the extensive use of chemical weapons.

The document titled, "Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War" under "Appendix B: Chemical Weapons," provided a comprehensive look at the all-out chemical warfare that took place during the 8 year conflict. Several engagements are studied in detail, revealing large amounts of chemical agents deployed mainly to create areas of denial.

The effectiveness and lethality of chemical weapons is summarized in the document as follows (emphasis added):

Chemical weapons require quite particular weather and geographic conditions for optimum effectiveness. Given the relative nonpersistence of all agents employed during this war, including mustard, there was only a brief window of employment opportunity both daily and seasonally, when the agents could be used. Even though the Iraqis employed mustard agent in the rainy season and also in the marshes, its effectiveness was significantly reduced under those conditions. As the Iraqis learned to their chagrin, mustard is not a good agent to employ in the mountains, unless you own the high ground and your enemy is in the valleys.

We are uncertain as to the relative effectiveness of nerve agents since those which were employed are by nature much less persistent than mustard. In order to gain killing concentrations of these agents, predawn attacks are best, conducted in areas where the morning breezes are likely to blow away from friendly positions.

Chemical weapons have a low kill ratio. Just as in WWl, during which the ratio of deaths to injured from chemicals was 2-3 percent, that figure appears to be borne out again in this war although reliable data on casualties are very difficult to obtain. We deem it remarkable that the death rate should hold at such a low level even with the introduction of nerve agents. If those rates are correct, as they well may be, this further reinforces the position that we must not think of chemical weapons as "a poor man's nuclear weapon." While such weapons have great psychological potential, they are not killers or destroyers on a scale with nuclear or biological weapons.
According the US military's own conclusions, the use of chemical weapons only enhance conventional warfare, but are not suitable for wiping out large swaths of enemy troops. Conventional weapons are deemed far more suitable for waging modern war.

The effectiveness of chemical weapons is such that the Syrian government could never justify their use, balancing their limited benefits against the knowledge the US was specifically seeking to use their use as a pretext for direct military intervention.

Thus, neither the Syrian government nor the foreign-backed militants it is fighting would benefit from their use in turning the tide of any specific battle, but should the US use chemical weapon deployments as a pretext, could intervene directly against the Syrian government, delivering victory to foreign-backed militants.

In essence, the only beneficiary of chemical weapon use by any side in Syria would be special interests in the US seeking regime change in Damascus.

Not only are outright lies regarding WMDs a known tactic repeatedly abused by the United States government worldwide, it has been caught repeatedly using this tactic in Syria. The number of ambiguous, unsubstantiated, or proven-false accusations made by the United States as it seeks a pretext for wider and more direct military intervention have multiplied over time as US-backed militants are pushed off the battlefield.

US Provocations, Lies, and Chemical Weapons

Suspicious circumstances and familiar propaganda and diplomatic tactics were used by the US to rush the world to war - first in 2013 when an alleged chemical attack was carried out at the edge of Damascus. The attack followed multiple claims in 2012 by the US that the Syrian government was preparing such an attack, followed by threats of direct military intervention if the Syrian government did so.

This came at a time when it became apparent that quick regime change in Syria similar to that carried out by the US in Libya in 2011 was not possible and that only through direct military intervention would the US be able to topple the Syrian government.

In response, Syria relinquished its chemical weapons under a Russian-brokered deal, confirmed by UN inspectors. Despite this, chemical weapons continued turning up on the battlefield - followed by repeated attempts by the US to expand direct military intervention within Syrian borders each and every time.

No logical explanation has ever been provided by the United States - either by its politicians or its policymakers - as to why the Syrian government would repeatedly use ineffective chemical weapons in battles it was already winning with far more effective conventional weapons - and risk US military intervention.

Conversely, many of these attacks are carried out in areas held by terrorist organizations with direct access to the borders of their foreign sponsors. The more recent April 2017 alleged attack in Khan Shaykhun took place within the Idlib Governorate, directly on the border with NATO-member Turkey who has armed, supplied, and provided direct military support for Al Qaeda and its affiliates since the conflict began in 2011.

Consider the Source
Idlib has been controlled by Al Qaeda for years with even the New York Times and LA Times finally admitting as much.

The New York Times in a piece titled, "In a Syria Refuge, Extremists Exert Greater Control," would admit:

"Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11," Brett H. McGurk, the United States envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, said last month. "Idlib now is a huge problem."
The LA Times in a piece titled, "Humanitarian groups fear aid is being diverted to terrorist group after militant takeover of Syrian province," would reveal that torrents of supplies provided by the US, Europe, and their regional allies are still being poured into a city quite literally occupied by Al Qaeda, stating (emphasis added):

The recent takeover of the Syrian province of Idlib by an extremist organization has created a dilemma for the United States and other countries that send humanitarian aid to civilians and military aid to various rebel factions fighting the Syrian government.

It has become impossible to provide assistance without inadvertently supporting Al Nusra Front, a former affiliate of Al Qaeda that has been deemed a terrorist group by the U.S. government.

In reality, Al Qaeda's domination of a region allegedly held by "rebels" provided billions in supplies, weapons, vehicles, training, and even direct military support by the West could only happen if Al Qaeda itself was receiving even more in state sponsorship - or were the recipients of this aid all along.

Both the New York Times and the LA Times in their articles, lace it with language meant to disarm readers from truly understanding the full scope of what the US has done in Syria. Claiming that the Al Nusra Front is a "former affiliate of Al Qaeda," for instance, is supposed to create in the minds of readers the notion that they are no longer Al Qaeda, or terrorists when they are in fact very much still both.

The LA Times would even go as far as suggesting Al Qaeda's Al Nusra Front would provide Western-backed organizations with "independence and neutrality."

The LA Times also claims:

But cutting off the aid could spur a humanitarian disaster among the estimated 2 million civilians who live in Idlib and derail efforts to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Efforts to "topple Syrian President Bashar Assad," however, can only be done with an armed opposition - and as both the New York Times and LA Times admit, the only armed militants left in Syria are Al Qaeda.

What both newspapers are actually saying is that Al Qaeda has been cornered in Idlib where the US and its allies are still flooding with support, and that support quite literally for Al Qaeda will continue in an effort to topple the Syrian government.

This means that the process of fabricating chemical weapon attacks and using it as a pretext to directly intervene - on behalf of Al Qaeda - will continue as well, either to topple the government outright, or create a safe-haven protected by the US military for Al Qaeda in Idlib.

It is in this context then, that "humanitarian organizations" in Al Qaeda-held Idlib are claiming they are being targeted by chemical weapons allegedly deployed by the Syrian government.

The Syrian government and its allies have all but won the conflict and they have done so using conventional military weapons. They are also attempting in every way to expose these lingering and repetitive lies regarding WMDs wielded by the US, by inviting UN inspection teams to further explore newly liberated Syrian territory and further confirm that the Syrian government did indeed give up its chemical weapons as it agreed to in 2013.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine"New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-45793643254948820702017-08-16T10:15:00.000-07:002017-08-16T10:15:37.749-07:00US Regime Change: Who are Thailand's "Activists"
Foreign agents hiding behind rights advocacy are not "activists."

August 17, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

AFP recently published an article regarding Thailand's ongoing political conflict, portraying a so-called "student activist" the recent victim of what it calls, "increased ferocity under Thailand's military rulers."

The article titled, "Thai student leader pleads guilty to lese majeste," claims:

A prominent student leader on Tuesday pleaded guilty to defaming Thailand's royal family by sharing a news story about the kingdom's new monarch on Facebook, his lawyer said.
Jatupat "Pai Dao Din" Boonpatararaksa, 25, is the latest anti-junta activist to be hit with the country's draconian lese majeste law which bans any criticism of the monarchy.
However, the article categorically fails to mention that Jatupat Boonpatararaksa is member of a foreign-backed opposition front aimed at carrying out destructive regime change just as US-European interests have done everywhere from South America and Eastern Europe, to North Africa and the Middle East.

AFP also fails to report that Boonpatararaksa is part of an opposition that has regularly resorted to intimidation, violence, murder and terrorism, with members of the movement most recently carrying out a string of bombings in Bangkok, including one that targeted a hospital.

Boonpatararaksa in particular receives direct aid and assistance from the US, Canadian and various European embassies in Thailand. His family members, since his imprisonment, have received visits from embassy staff, including Second Secretary at the Canadian Embassy in Bangkok, Shawn Friele.

Friele has also lent direct support to other members of this foreign-backed opposition including the US State Department-funded Thai Lawyers for Human Rights. His support included a thank you published on social media implicating foreign support provided by at least five other Western governments.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights is just one of many foreign-funded fronts posing as "nongovernmental organisations" created and funded by the US State Department to execute US foreign policy objectives within the borders of a sovereign foreign nation.

Upon closer examination of Thailand's "draconian lese majeste law," it is clear that only members of this foreign-backed opposition movement are being targeted. Their convictions under the law are by far more lenient than more appropriate convictions for sedition, treason and providing material support for terrorism, convictions or even accusations of which in the West have resulted in extrajudicial executions, indefinite detention without trial and institutionalised torture.

AFP and other US and European media outlets intentionally omit these facts from their reports, creating the same sort of resentment among public perception toward Thailand and its institutions as it has fostered around the globe ahead of other regime change attempts.

While AFP and others attempt to create the perception that people like Boonpatararaksa are independent activists fighting for humanitarian causes, they are in fact foreign agents facilitating destabilisation on behalf of special interests on Wall Street and in Washington and within the capitals of their European allies.

While AFP attempts to defend Boonpatararaksa as a mere activist, it should be noted that simply allegations of similar behaviour levelled against Russia regarding America's internal political processes have prompted sanctions, diplomatic expulsions, arrests and even threats of war.

Thailand's jailing of one foreign-backed agitator falls far short of America's reaction to alleged Russian interference despite the fact that US interference in Thailand is not only obvious, it is documented, even flaunted on the US National Endowment for Democracy's (NED) own website.

America's reaction to alleged Russian interference indicates that Washington views foreign interference as intolerable, yet it has mobilised its media resources to denounce nations like Thailand who are confronting and convicting agents of foreign interests engaged in precisely what is clear cut foreign interference. The only real question now is how sustainable American and European hypocrisy is and if their double standards will enable or hinder attempts at destabilising and overthrowing Thailand's current political order.

As to why the US seeks regime change in Thailand and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, long-stated US foreign policy identifies a rising China as a direct threat to what American policymakers call US "primacy" over Asia. Overthrowing independent political orders all across Southeast Asia and replacing them with complicit client states allows Washington to create a united front with which to encircle and contain Chinese influence, both in the region and globally.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-82523685034683478912017-08-13T06:44:00.001-07:002017-08-13T06:44:17.142-07:00Continuity of Agenda: Trump's "Fire and Fury" Brewed Under Bush, Obama
August 13, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

The United States has issued a provocative threat to North Korea of "fire and fury." Following it up, the Guardian would report in its article, "Trump on North Korea: maybe 'fire and fury' wasn't tough enough threat," further threats being made:

Donald Trump has issued another provocative warning to North Korea, suggesting that his threat to unleash "fire and fury" on the country was not "tough enough".

The US president told reporters that North Korea "better get their act together or they're going to be in trouble like few nations ever have been in trouble in this world".
The Guardian never explores precisely what "trouble" was being referred to or the other "few nations" the US was hinting at.

However, the threats come amidst a barrage of familiar talking points, fearmongering, and fabrications that have proceeded all of America's military aggression worldwide - most notably Iraq in which "intelligence" was intentionally fabricated to bait Americans and the world into a devastating war with that cost over 1 million lives, trillions of dollars, and the effects of which are still being felt both in Iraq and throughout the Middle East today.

The Conflict with Korea Didn't Start Under Trump

The Guardian and others across the Western media fail to place these most recent threats by the US against North Korea into a larger context regarding US-Korean relations, which stretch back to post-World War II and the Korean War which - officially - is only observing a sometimes fragile armistice yet to be fully resolved.

The South Korean government, as noted by The Week's article, "It's time for the U.S. military to leave South Korea," takes full advantage of America's military presence, using its resources to influence Asia regionally instead of tending to its own defense against threats - real or imagined - from its northern neighbor.

More likely, this arrangement is preferred by the US who uses the client regime occupying Seoul as a vector and proxy for US influence and policy throughout Asia, much in the same way it manipulates and interferes in the Middle East through proxies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, and Turkey.

In order to justify and perpetuate America's presence not only on the Korean Peninsula, but in Asia itself, the US and its South Korean partners have repeatedly and intentionally encircled and provoked North Korea - not only in terms of rhetoric and in the form of military drills - but through active attempts to infiltrate and overthrow the government.

Ongoing Attempts at Destabilization and Regime Change

The US State Department through fronts posing as charities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have attempted to flood North Korea with media aimed at undermining political stability in the country.

Under a program called "Flashdrives for Freedom," the government and corporate-funded Human Rights Foundation along with Forum280 - a front headed by former members of the US State Department - smuggled 20,000 USB drives into North Korea.

As noted by the Guardian in its article, "Flashdrives for freedom? 20,000 USBs to be smuggled into North Korea," it was not the first program of its kind undertaken by the US government through various fronts.

While mere allegations of nations like Russia or China attempting to influence the political landscape in the US have been labeled as clear and present threats to US national security, the US openly carries out similar operations, worldwide, including against North Korea.

When these nations react, the US cites it as an unprovoked act of aggression - further fueling its subversive actives abroad. As subversion expands to crippling economic sanctions, the resulting humanitarian crisis is likewise blamed on the targeted nation, opening up new "pretexts" for US intervention abroad.

Activities targeting North Korea have been ongoing for years - predating the Trump administration.

US aspirations to undermine and overthrow North Korea's political order can be cited in a 2009 policy paper published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a US-based policy think tank representing the collective interests of some of the most powerful corporate-financier interests on Earth.

The 2009 paper titled, "Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea," would explore the possibility of invading and occupying North Korea if sufficient chaos could be created amid the nation's military and civilian leadership. It would go as far as proposing a 460,000-strong troop deployment and an ambitious socioeconomic and political program to integrate North Korea with the US-dominated client regime in neighboring South Korea.

It is a program that represents a windfall of opportunities not only for South Korean firms, but for Wall Street - who funds the CFR's policymaking activities - as well. It would represent an opportunity to transform North Korea into another strong Asian economy, but one in which trade barriers between Koreans and US firms would be deterred by an immense and permanent US military occupation - not unlike attempts the US made in the wake of the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq under the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).

For US President Donald Trump, his rhetoric is not the result of an independent conclusion he and his cabinet have drawn regarding legitimate national security threats to the United States, but instead a continuation of long-established objectives preceding his administration and determined by unelected special interests pursuing regime change in North Korea for decades.

Continuity of Agenda

It is clear that since post-World War II, the United States has sought to reestablish its presence and influence throughout Asia, and even expand it.

The Vietnam War fought between the 1950's and 1970's was not only an attempt to maintain Western hegemony over Indochina, but admittedly an attempt to ultimately encircle and contain China. Within the so-called "Pentagon Papers" released in 1969, it was revealed that the conflict was one part of a greater strategy aimed at containing and controlling China.

Three important quotes from these papers reveal this strategy. It states first that:

…the February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.
It also claims:

China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30′s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.
Finally, it outlines the immense regional theater the US was engaged in against China at the time by stating:

...there are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR "contains" China on the north and northwest): (a) the Japan-Korea front; (b) the India-Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.
The Pentagon Papers in fact provide for us today the context with which to properly view current tensions in Asia Pacific.

The US is still currently and deeply engaged in each and every front described in the Pentagon Papers.

It has military forces occupying Afghanistan, bordering China to the west, is occupying and provoking conflict to China's east along the Japan-Korea front, and is deeply involved in attempts to overthrow and replace political orders across Southeast Asia to create a united front against Beijing.

In Southeast Asia alone, US efforts are most notable in Myanmar where US proxy Aung San Suu Kyi has already assumed power, in Thailand where the US is involved in attempts to overthrow and replace the nation's entire political order with a client regime, and in the Philippines where US-Saudi sponsored terrorists are creating a security crisis exploited by the US to expand its military footprint across the island nation.

Collectively, the US has attempted to manipulate Southeast Asia - first through the South China Sea crisis it has manufactured and attempted to perpetrate - and second through the importation of militants from Syria aimed at threatening and coercing the region as a whole in a similar manner to how the Philippines is being threatened and coerced now.

The Western media attempts to frame the current crisis the US is creating with North Korea as a battle of egos between US President Donald Trump and North Korean President Kim Jong-un. In reality, the crisis has been brewing for decades - driven not by US presidents but by unelected special interests sponsoring policy think-tanks which in turn generate policy for legislators and talking points for the media.

Understanding this allows observers and activists on all sides to see past politicians and expose the very interests driving the policy they peddle to the public.

Exposing these interests allows people to make more conscientious decisions about how to confront them, including how to divert their money away from these large corporate-financier enterprises and toward local alternatives, taking the power and influence used by Wall Street and Washington to drive Americans to destructive and costly war abroad, and reinvesting it into stronger and more resilient communities back home.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine"New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-82762370499603076702017-08-11T03:47:00.000-07:002017-08-11T03:47:04.065-07:00Facing Defeat in Syria, ISIS Inexplicably Expands Globally
August 11, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

Throughout human history, when a military force and its economic center has been defeated, it contracts, then collapses. For the first time in human history, the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS), has managed to reverse this fundamental aspect of reality - but not without help.

Facing defeat in Syria as government forces backed by its Russian and Iranian allies close in on the terrorist organization, stripping it of territory it seized, it has managed to spread far beyond Syria's borders, establishing itself in Libya, Afghanistan, and even as far as Southeast Asia where it has seized an entire city in the Philippines' south, and carried out attacks and conducting activities everywhere from Indonesia and Malaysia to allegedly Thailand's deep south.

It should be remembered, according to Western governments and their media, the territory ISIS holds in Syria is allegedly providing it with the summation of its financial resources and thus the source of its fighting capacity. According to official statements, the US and its European allies allege that ISIS fuels its fighting capacity with "taxes" and extortion as well as black market oil sales - all of which are derived from territory it holds in Syria.

The Washington Post in a 2015 article titled, "How the Islamic State makes its money," would note:

Weapons, vehicles, employee salaries, propaganda videos, international travel — all of these things cost money. The recent terrorism attacks in Paris, which the Islamic State has claimed as its own work, suggest the terrorist organization hasn't been hurting for funding. David Cohen, the Treasury Department's Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, described the Islamic State last October as "probably the best-funded terrorist organization we have confronted" — deep pockets that have allowed the group to carry out deadly campaigns in Iraq, Syria and other countries.
To explain where ISIS actually makes its money, the Washington Post claims:

Unlike many terrorist groups, which finance themselves mainly through wealthy donors, the Islamic State has used its control over a territory that is roughly the size of the U.K. and home to millions of people to develop diversified revenue channels that make it more resilient to U.S. offensives.
The Washington Post would also claim:

 Its main methods of generating money appear to be the sale of oil and antiquities, as well as taxation and extortion. And the group's financial resources have grown quickly as it has captured more territory and resources: According to estimates by the Rand Corporation, the Islamic State's total revenue rose from a little less than $1 million per month in late 2008 and early 2009 to perhaps $1 million to $3 million per day in 2014.
With this territory quickly shrinking and the intensity of fighting against what remains of ISIS in Syria and Iraq expanding, it is seemingly inexplicable as to how ISIS is expanding globally, instead of contracting and collapsing.

The Washington Post's already implausible thesis regarding ISIS finances - based on official statements from the US Treasury Department and US corporate-funded policy think tanks like Rand - appears to be the only thing contracting and collapsing.

ISIS Enjoys Global Reach Many Nation-States Lack

Regarding just how expansive ISIS' global activities are, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson himself would claim in an August 1, 2017 statement that:

I think our next steps on the global war to defeat ISIS are to recognize ISIS is a global issue. We already see elements of ISIS in the Philippines, as you're aware, gaining a foothold. Some of these fighters have gone to the Philippines from Syria and Iraq. We are in conversations with the Philippine Government, with Indonesia, with Malaysia, with Singapore, with Australia, as partners to recognize this threat, try to get ahead of this threat, and help them with training – training their own law enforcement capabilities, sharing of intelligence, and provide them wherewithal to anticipate what may be coming their direction.
Tillerson made these remarks after noting ISIS' shrinking holdings in both Syria and Iraq. He claimed in regards to Iraq:

More than 70 percent of Iraqi territory that was once held by ISIS has been liberated and recovered. ISIS has been unable to retake any territory that it has been – that has been liberated, and almost 2 million Iraqis have returned home. And this is really the measure of success, I think, is when conditions are such that people feel like they can return to their homes.
Regarding Syria, Tillerson would claim:

Similarly, over in Syria, we're assisting with the liberation of Raqqa, which is moving at a faster pace than we originally anticipated.
The steps outlined by Tillerson to combat ISIS sidestep strategic fundamentals like identifying, isolating, and eliminating the economic and financial source of the organization's fighting capacity, and instead focus on an indefinite justification for global US military operations - particularly across Southeast Asia at a time when the region is incrementally uprooting American influence and replacing it with Eurasian alliances, networks, as well as military and economic blocs.

For ISIS - fueled by resources found only within the boundaries of its meager and shrinking territorial holdings in Syria and Iraq - to be simultaneously fighting the national armies of Syria and Iraq, backed by Iran, Russia, Lebanon's Hezbollah, and allegedly a US-led coalition including dozens of countries, all while expanding its reach worldwide, including full-scale military operations in Southeast Asia, begs belief.

ISIS doing all of this with multi-billion dollar multinational state sponsorship, not only makes much more sense, it is the only explanation.

ISIS is State Sponsored

Until recently, ISIS territory butted directly against the borders of NATO-member Turkey. In fact, looking at any map of the Syrian-Iraqi conflict with ISIS revealed what appeared to be logistical trails leading directly out of Turkey and to a lesser extent, Jordan.

A 2014 report from Germany's public broadcaster Deutsche Welle, revealed a torrent of supplies, men, and weapons flowing daily over the Turkish-Syrian border, headed directly toward ISIS territory, directly under the nose and with the complicity of Turkish officials.

The report titled, "'IS' supply channels through Turkey," would note:

Every day, trucks laden with food, clothing, and other supplies cross the border from Turkey to Syria. It is unclear who is picking up the goods. The haulers believe most of the cargo is going to the "Islamic State" militia. Oil, weapons, and soldiers are also being smuggled over the border, and Kurdish volunteers are now patrolling the area in a bid to stem the supplies.
So obvious was the logistical support for ISIS flowing from Turkey, that ISIS flags were clearly visible from the Turkish border throughout DW's footage.

It was only until Russia's military intervention in Syria upon Damascus' request, that these logistical routes were targeted and significant pressure could be placed on ISIS inside Syria, rolling back its fighting capacity.

There is also the fact that ISIS and Al Qaeda along with their various affiliates and allies have swept alleged "moderate rebels" from the battlefield. These are alleged "rebel groups" that have supposedly received hundreds of billions of dollars of support from the US and its allies in the form of weapons, vehicles, training, logistical support, and even covert military support.

ISIS and Al Qaeda's ability to sweep these forces from the battlefield indicates a fighting capacity driven by even greater financial support. But if ISIS has greater financial support than multi-billion dollar multinational state sponsorship, where is it getting it?

This question, coupled with the obvious fact that ISIS is indeed fueling its fighting capacity from well beyond the borders of territory it occupies, indicates that the US and its allies, including NATO-member Turkey, never were backing "moderate rebels," and for the entire duration of the Syrian conflict - and even beforehand - were arming and supporting extremists, including Al Qaeda and those affiliates that would later form ISIS itself.

ISIS enjoys a global reach few nation-states could achieve because it is financially, politically, and militarily backed by nations with the resources to obtain that global reach. This includes the US itself, NATO, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) which in turn includes nations like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar.

ISIS is America's Foot in the Door in Southeast Asia

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's comments regarding ISIS' spread into Southeast Asia implied long-term US involvement in the region, including closer involvement with regional police and even military forces. In the Philippines, where US-Philippine relations were spiraling downward, the sudden appearance of ISIS there and the organization's ability to seize an entire city led directly to justification for not only a continued US military presence in the country, but its expansion.

Other nations across Southeast Asia - including Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand - have been incrementally pushing US influence out of the region in favor of stronger and more stable ties with each other and with neighboring China.

Thailand for instance, has begun replacing aging US military hardware with weapon systems from Russia, China, and Europe. Thailand has also begun joint military exercises with China, ending America's post-Vietnam War monopoly. Thailand and Indonesia have also begun striking a series of economic and infrastructure deals with China, including immense expansions of their respective national railways.

As each nation has taken steps to move the US out of Asia, the US has increased pressure on each respective nation. It has done this through US-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and US-backed opposition movements. It also appears to be doing this through the introduction and expansion of ISIS activity in the region.

It should be remembered that it was the US itself that created Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan to fight the Soviets in the 1980s.

It was also the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), in a leaked 2012 memo, that noted the US and its allies sought the creation of a "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State) in eastern Syria precisely where the Islamic State currently resides. The purpose of creating this terrorist organization was to "isolate the Syrian regime." Thus, it is all but admitted that ISIS is a tool of US geopolitical manipulation. If it created and used ISIS in Syria to "isolate the Syrian regime," why would it hesitate to likewise use it in Southeast Asia to reverse its waning fortunes?

The 2012 report (.pdf) states (emphasis added):

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

Tillerson's comments regarding ISIS are in essence, a veiled threat - a threat of long-term chaos sown by ISIS that will continue without expansive capitulation to US interests, including an expanding US military footprint in the region, conveniently in a region the US has long designated as essential toward the geopolitical, military, and economic encirclement and isolation of a rising China.

However, such a ploy cannot unfold if the nations of Southeast Asia both expose this reality, and align themselves with nations truly invested in the defeat of ISIS, including Russia and China - the ultimate targets of America's geopolitical ambitions and the final destination for America's global terrorist proxies.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".

Land Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-38413030263035815762017-08-07T12:15:00.004-07:002017-08-07T12:15:26.629-07:00US Meddles Abroad, Accuses Others of Meddling at Home
August 8, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

The latest round of sanctions levelled by the United States government against Russia are predicated on allegations that Moscow interfered in the 2016 US presidential elections. Alleged interference includes leaking e-mails obtained from the US Democrat Party.

However, compared to the open interference the US conducts around the world in the internal political affairs of nations, leaked e-mails is particularly benign.

Across Southeast Asia, entire political parties, including Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, Anwar Ibrahim's Bersih street front and Thailand's Pheu Thai Party and accompanying street movement, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) have attempted and at times succeeded at clawing their way into power primarily because of extensive financial and political support from the United States and various European allies.

In addition to support in the shape of propping up entire political parties, the US funds and directs myriad fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). In Thailand, these include media platform Prachatai, the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT), Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), the New Democracy Movement and Thai Netizen.

Many of these organisations have invested in elaborate efforts to conceal their foreign financial support indicating knowledge among these organisations that they are involved in impropriety.

Many pose as impartial rights advocates, but use their rights advocacy as a facade behind which they pursue politically-motivated agendas. In addition to assisting US-backed political parties into power, they also promote Washington's regional aspirations including confrontation with and the encirclement of China and the creation of US-funded and directed organisations that run parallel to and eventually supplant local civil society organisations and institutions.

US Allegations vs Documented US Interference

US sanctions against Russia are still based entirely on allegations yet to be confirmed with anything resembling evidence.

Conversely, US interference abroad is openly documented. Across Asia alone, the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) openly lists organisations and political activities the US is attempting to influence and control in each respective country.

Image: Shawn Friele, Second Secretary (Political) at Canadian Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, walks with US-funded Thai agitator Sirikan "June" Charoensiri of TLHR, in Thailand amid Thailand's internal political affairs. Friele regularly visits with other agitators and family members involved in a variety of US funded interference across the country.

In addition to funding, the US and Western allies openly assist many of these organisations in their work on the ground via embassies. The above mentioned TLHR, created with the explicit assistance of the US Embassy in Bangkok the day after the 2014 coup which ousted the US-backed administration, was recently assisted by Canadian embassy staff who openly thanked the US ambassador to Thailand, Glyn Davies for his support in aiding the front.

TLHR regularly offers legal defence exclusively for agitators and subversives attempting to undermine the current political order in Thailand and pave the way for foreign-backed opposition to seize power. While TLHR and fellow recipients of US money and directives claim to advocate human rights impartially, they regularly excuse, ignore or defend abuses carried out by US-backed parties and organisations.

These double standards expose US activity abroad as clear cut political interference, based on US interests, not principles, and conducted openly and expansively, and in a manner the US has accused and condemned Russia of pursuing in regards to America's own internal politics.

How then is it possible for the US to condemn others of interfering within its own political affairs, but find it acceptable to interfere on a global scale? This monumental, self-evident and growing hypocrisy is a contributing factor to America's waning influence globally. Its inconsistency between what it finds unacceptable for others to do in America versus what it itself is doing worldwide undermines its political legitimacy just as much as double standards exercised by recipients of US money undermine their credibility in each and every country they operate in.

Furthermore, the US levelling sanctions against Russia opens the door for those targeted by US interference to put in place measures to limit or entirely eliminate fronts operating with US money and for US interests.

Unlike US sanctions against Russia, sanctions enacted by nations targeted by the US via the NED and other networks can easily cite documented evidence provided by the US itself regarding political interference. And with the US attempting to label those deemed sympathetic to Russia as subversives, it would not be a far stretch for nations to label those openly receiving money from the US as subversives.

America's double standards had a place and time when they were viable. As the world increasingly becomes multipolar, such hypocrisy becomes a liability, not a representation of impunity and strength. In many ways already, this hypocrisy is costing the US legitimacy worldwide and opening the doors for targets of its ambitions to push back using precisely the same tools the US has used for decades. The latest row Washington has deepened with Moscow opens those doors wider still.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-12000025247456561612017-08-04T21:20:00.004-07:002017-08-04T21:20:59.048-07:00Russian Sanctions Latest Betrayal of Post-Cold War Agreements

August 5, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

While the US claims recent sanctions targeting Russia are based on alleged Russian interference in last year's US elections, a careful examination of US policy post-Cold War reveals a systematic campaign aimed at undermining Moscow, encircling Russia and attempting to overturn the current, prevailing political order there in favor of one dominated by US interests.

At each step, various excuses are concocted, mainly to mesh with current political narratives embedded within public perception at any given time. Currently, playing left and right-leaning Americans against one another regarding the 2016 election and still-unproven allegations that Russia played a hand at tipping the election in President Donald Trump's favor helps sell this most recent move made toward undermining Russia.

Under US President Barrack Obama, accusations that Russia instigated violence in Ukraine after a NATO-backed coup overthrew the elected government in Kiev served as justification for various rounds of sanctions targeting Moscow.

Betrayal 1: NATO Expansion

The expansion of NATO itself is a violation of commitments made to Russia post-Cold War. While publications from policy think-tanks like the Brookings Institution attempt to claim otherwise, it is clear that Russia was opposed to NATO's continued eastward expansion post-Cold War, and was willing to cooperate with the US and Europe on a variety of issues as long as NATO didn't do so.

Brookings, in a piece penned by Steven Pifer titled, "Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No"," claims that promises made to Russia about limiting NATO expansion were made only in regards to Germany after reunification.

The piece claims:

The agreement on not deploying foreign troops on the territory of the former GDR [German Democratic Republic] was incorporated in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which was signed on September 12, 1990 by the foreign ministers of the two Germanys, the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France. Article 5 had three provisions:

1. Until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not integrated into NATO would be deployed in that territory.

2. There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.

3. Once Soviet forces had withdrawn, German forces assigned to NATO could be deployed in the former GDR, but foreign forces and nuclear weapons systems would not be deployed there.
Pifer claims that, "it is clear that the secretary general's comments referred to NATO forces in eastern Germany, not a broader commitment not to enlarge the Alliance."

Pifer's conclusion is repeated on NATO's website itself under the title, "NATO enlargement and Russia: myths and realities," but fundamentally and very intentionally omits a very important point: if it was so important to Russia that additional NATO forces were not deployed in Germany and that no foreign forces could be deployed to the former GDR, why would Russia find it acceptable for other former territories to host foreign troops as part of NATO expansion? The answer is obvious. Russia would not find it acceptable.

That the US and NATO agreed on this arrangement regarding Germany illustrates that US and European policymakers understood wider NATO expansion would also be perceived as a provocation.

Since the reunification of Germany however, many more nations would be infiltrated by NATO-backed opposition fronts, their pro-Russian governments overthrown and subsequently made NATO members. This includes Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia and Montenegro. Nations like Georgia and more recently, Ukraine, have had their governments overturned and are on a path toward NATO membership.

Knowing that NATO's expansion, including directly along Russia's borders, would be perceived as a provocation, but undertaking this expansion anyway indicates that policymakers driving NATO are disinterested in peace and stability and instead seek confrontation and conflict. In the Balkans and more recently in Ukraine, such conflict has exacted a terrible toll on both Europe and Russia not to mention those caught up directly in the fighting.

It was ironic that the likely passing of new sanctions against Russia was announced by US Vice President Mike Pence while giving a speech in Georgia, a nation that has received extensive US-backing in a bid to place yet another NATO member directly on Russia's borders.

Betrayal 2: Backpedaling on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

In 1972, according to the US State Department, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was signed, outlining limitations to anti-ballistic missile systems. The State Department notes:

In the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems the United States and the Soviet Union agree that each may have only two ABM deployment areas,1 so restricted and so located that they cannot provide a nationwide ABM defense or become the basis for developing one. Each country thus leaves unchallenged the penetration capability of the others retaliatory missile forces.
The purpose of the treaty was to prevent the US or Russia from developing missile defense systems that would negate their opponent's retaliatory strikes, thus eliminating the viability of a nuclear first strike. The treaty was a pillar used to balance power during the Cold War and prevent direct war between the United States and the Soviet Union.

The State Department also notes:

On December 13, 2001, the United States indicated its intent to withdraw from the Treaty, and its withdrawal became effective 6 months later.
Since then, the US has pursued the construction of a multi-layered missile defense system encircling Russia with weapon installations positioned in several of the above mentioned NATO members included in NATO's post-Cold War expansion.

The process of withdrawing from the treaty and subsequently building an anti-ballistic missile network vis-a-vis Russia has now transcended the presidencies of George Bush Jr., Obama and now Trump with the current president presiding over the sale of Patriot missile systems to Poland, according to Newsweek.

Withdrawing from the anti-ballistic missile treaty and placing missiles along Russia's borders represents precisely the scenario Soviet policymakers feared when cutting a deal with NATO regarding Germany's reunification. It is unlikely Russia since the Cold War failed to imagine how NATO's expansion up to its borders would lead to greater confrontation and instability, even the prospect of war.

During the Cold War, despite the rhetoric and numerous close-calls, the US and the Soviet Union created an geopolitical architecture that defined deterrents which dissuaded either nation from escalating to full-scale war. Today, that architecture has been left in ruins, not because of Russian aggression, but because of serial American betrayals.

Building Upon Betrayal

With post-Cold War promises betrayed and NATO troops sitting on Russia's borders, considerable resources have been invested in convincing the global public that Russia, not NATO is to blame for current tensions. Each provocation committed by the United States and its allies are carried out with explicit intentions to leverage whatever Moscow's response may be to further escalate tensions.

Sanctions are the least costly and least risky move the US can make both politically and in terms of adding pressure to Russia's political order. The goal is to eliminate Russia as a competitor in terms of industry, finance and geopolitics. To do this, the US seeks to pressure Russia into accepting a subordinate position within America's self-proclaimed "international order," or to overthrow and replace Russia's political order altogether.

It is an agenda that benefits un-elected special interests on Wall Street, in Washington, as well as in London and Brussels and goes far in explaining why this singular agenda of encircling and isolating Russia has continued to unfold post-Cold War regardless of who occupies the White House and what the political mood is among the public regarding Russia.

Sanctions under Trump further prove that this singular agenda continues to move forward and that those investing hope in US presidencies to stop it have invested poorly.

For Russia, continuing to build an alternative to America's "international order," as well as encouraging alternatives both within Russia and abroad to those special interests that define and drive that order, is key to preventing tensions from further escalating.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".

Land Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-85755669490715016842017-07-30T08:55:00.003-07:002017-07-30T08:55:51.935-07:00 Al Qaeda "Mysteriously" Metastasizing in Northwest Syria
July 30, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

The Washington Post in an article titled, "Al-Qaida in Syria snuffs out competition in northwest," clumsily reveals what many following the Syrian conflict have known all along - that the so-called uprising never existed, and that the US and its allies are directly arming, aiding, and abetting Al Qaeda in Syria.

The article admits:

Syrian rebels and activists are warning that an al-Qaida-linked jihadi group is on the verge of snuffing out what remains of the country's uprising in northwestern Syria, after the extremists seized control of the opposition-held regional capital, Idlib, last weekend.
However, the so-called "uprising" has been allegedly supported since 2011 by the US, Europe, and the West's collective allies across the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in weapons, training, logistics, and even vehicles, and now even direct military support.

This significant support has been reported on numerous times by Western papers, including the Washington Post itself. If such support was truly being given to a secular, pro-democratic opposition inside of Syria, who then has supplied "Al Qaeda-linked jihadi groups" with enough support to meet or exceed it on the battlefield? The answer is, there was never a secular, pro-democratic opposition in Syria.

The Washington Post fails to inform readers that Al Qaeda's consolidation in the northwest of Syria is a logistical necessity, with the West unable to sustain token opposition groups any further if Damascus and its allies are to be prevented from exercising further control over its own territory before the conflict draws to a relative close.

The Washington Post - in a way - already admits this in its article. It states (emphasis added):

The Nusra Front is one of the many names for the al-Qaida-affiliate that now heads the mighty Hay'at Tahrir al Sham militant alliance — Arabic for Levant Liberation Committee — that seized the city of Idlib, as well as two border crossings with Turkey to feed its coffers. It is also known as HTS.
The Washington Post acknowledges that an Al Qaeda affiliate is sustaining its fighting capacity in Syria through supply lines leading out of Turkey - a NATO member since 1952. It is also a Western ally, with multiple Western nations still supplying the state with weapons, including 86 million British pounds sold to Ankara by the UK. Turkey, alongside Saudi Arabia, represent two state-sponsors of terror contradicting Western narratives revolving around a "War on Terror" allegedly being fought. In fact, it appears that instead of fighting terror, the West is propping up the largest nations on Earth driving it.

Worse than the West fueling terrorism by proxy, the Washington Post also obliquely mentions that militant groups in Syria supported directly by the US CIA are coordinating with the very Al Qaeda-affiliates it claims is "snuffing out" the opposition.

It claims:

Other factions, including many once financed and armed in part by the CIA, kept to the sidelines. They are hoping to win a share of the revenues from the lucrative Bab al-Hawa border crossing, said a Turkey-based opposition activist who liaises with Syrian rebels and their state sponsors. He asked for anonymity so as not to jeopardize his position.
In other words, Al Qaeda-controlled border crossings are being jointly used and exploited by groups "once" financed and armed by the CIA. More likely, this was the case before the conflict even began, with the US simply using Al Qaeda in Syria, just as it had in Afghanistan in the 1980's, as the global mercenary army of choice to go and do where and what US troops cannot.

The Washington Post's article appears to be a final attempt to salvage long-exposed disinformation, misinforming the public about the true nature of both the Syrian crisis and the alleged "opposition" fighting it on the West's behalf. The article concludes, claiming that US programs to arm militants in Syria are drawing to a close, and that the US is "leaving Syria in Russia's hands."

In reality, the US will only leave Syria once its options have been fully confounded and exhausted by Syria and its allies. While it may not be able to continue funding terrorists in Syria's northwest, it still maintains a military presence with US troops and proxies in the nation's east. It openly plans to occupy these regions - and from them - incrementally expand them until eventually Syria is either dissolved as a unified state, or regime change can eventually be achieved.

Al Qaeda's "emergence" in northwest Syria, and its dominance of "opposition" groups admittedly funded to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, can only be explained if those hundreds of billions of dollars were actually being fed into Al Qaeda's hands. Admitting that Al Qaeda now infests Syria's northwest allows the "opposition" to use any and all tactics required to keep or even claw back territory from forces loyal to Damascus, with papers like the Washington Post tasked now with obfuscating and ignoring the reality that Al Qaeda does this with logistical routes leading directly into NATO territory, and arms and supplies acquired with NATO complicity.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-1959989652874158452017-07-26T23:08:00.002-07:002017-07-26T23:08:25.333-07:00NATO's New Libya Still Burning
July 27, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

In 2011, US and European policy think tanks, which both create and promote policy serving the collective interests of the corporations that sponsor them, promoted NATO military intervention in Libya. Under the guise of a humanitarian intervention, what unfolded was the long-planned overthrow of the Libyan government, then headed by Muammar Ghaddafi.

Unable or unwilling to commit significant ground troops, the majority of the fighting was carried out by militant groups with NATO air and covert ground support. Many of these militant groups would be later revealed as comprised of extremists, including Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

In essence, NATO overthrew a unifying government in Libya, placed entire regions of the fractured nation under the control of terrorist organizations and opposing militant groups, and allowed the nation to slid into chaos ever since.

The consequences of overthrowing the Libyan government in 2011 were well known long before the intervention even took place. Libya's role as a destination for refugees and migrants fleeing socioeconomic turmoil across Africa was long-established. After NATO's intervention, Libya has now become a springboard for those fleeing from across Africa, across the Mediterranean Sea, and into Europe.

The issue of pirates, smuggling, organized crime and many other ills the Libyan government had kept under control, have also predictably spiraled out of control.

Now, those same policy think tanks that promoted the Libyan intervention, lament over the catastrophe that has continued to unfold ever since.

Foreign Affairs, published by one of the most prominent of these policy think tanks, the Council on Foreign Affairs (CFR), has published a series of articles by various authors, illustrating a sort of "buyers remorse" regarding the now devastated North African state. Part historical revision, part spin and part shifting of blame, articles like, "Europe's Libya Problem: How to Stem the Flow of Migrants," go into great detail about the problems now facing Libya and its neighbors.

The article laments:

Nearly 11,000 migrants arrived on Italian shores in just the last five days of June, following nearly 80,000 in the first half of 2017. Over 2,000 have perished at sea since the start of this year. The vast majority came from sub-Saharan Africa and embarked from the Libyan coast.
It then notes how Europe has been attempting to deal with the ongoing migrant crisis, claiming:

The European Union (EU) has been searching for a way to stem the flow of migrants and handle the tens of thousands who arrive in Italy on a daily basis. The EU's current policy approach aims to shut off the route through the central Mediterranean and strengthen Libyan coastal patrol and enforcement capacities at sea. But it is unlikely to be effective or humane, given the sheer volume of migrants and the number of groups that profit from trafficking them, not to mention the weakness of the Libyan navy and other official security structures.
The final sentence, noting the "weakness of the Libyan navy," is particularly ironic, since it was NATO that attacked and sent many of the Libyan navy's vessels to the bottom of Libya's harbors.

The article concludes, offering no practical means of stemming the crisis besides waiting for the next Ghaddafi to unite Libya's currently warring factions, eliminate or confine Western-sponsored terrorist organizations mainly based in the east, particularly in Benghazi, and rebuilding the nation's economy to once again offer incentives for refugees and migrants to live and work in Libya rather than travelling onward toward Europe.

Nowhere in Foreign Affairs' article is it mentions that the only reason Libya is now in chaos is not despite NATO military intervention, but because of it.

Unifying Libya will be difficult. Another Foreign Affairs article, titled, "Filling the Vacuum in Libya: The Need for a Political, Not Military Solution," admits just how fractured the nation is:

The GNA [Government of National Accord] barely controls the capital, Tripoli, through militias that are only nominally under its authority. Although the GNA recently succeeded in pushing a rump government—containing remnants of the Islamist-dominated parliament that was elected in 2012—out of the capital, it was long in coming, and these rival factions continue to prove a threat to Tripoli.

Meanwhile, in the eastern part of the country, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, a former military officer under Qaddafi, and his Libyan National Army (LNA)—a coalition largely made up of eastern, anti-Islamist militias—are aligned with the House of Representatives, which refuses to recognize the GNA.
Foreign Affairs notes the rising political as well as military prominence of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, a "strongman" who appears to have the most potential of creating anything resembling a unified Libya. However, that will leave Libya once again in the same position it found itself before the 2011 intervention, with a strongman running the nation, and likely to drift further and further away from US and European interests until yet another proxy war is engineered, promoted by think tanks like the CFR and fought.

Again, despite Foreign Affairs' apparently in-depth analysis, it failed to isolate the true source of Libya's upheaval and instability, NATO. It was the 2011 intervention that upended stability not only in Libya, but created a chain reaction of violence and chaos that was felt as far west as Nigeria, Mali and Niger. This violence prompted, or more accurately, served as a pretext for the reintroduction of French troops in several of its "former" colonies. It has also served as a pretext for US Africa Command's (AFRICOM) continued expansion.

Ultimately, Libya is a showcase of the chaos and regression that NATO intervention brings, and serves as the greatest case for isolating, containing and by all means, opposing and obstructing further use of NATO military forces anywhere beyond NATO's own borders. The enduring chaos that is currently consuming nations like Libya also serve as a warning of what awaits nations like Syria and beyond should they fail in dissuading the West from further intervention within their borders.

It has been 6 years since NATO divided and destroyed Libya and the nation still remains fractured and fighting. The notion that NATO and its Western membership hold the solution to problems the West itself intentionally created should not be entertained, and, if international organizations, courts and laws had any meaning, NATO would be barred from any further role regarding Libya, beyond paying reparations for what it has done.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-72338196263162600122017-07-17T18:22:00.000-07:002017-07-17T18:22:03.131-07:00As ASEAN Shifts East, ISIS Follows
July 18, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

As protracted warfare continues in southern Philippines between government forces and militants linked to the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS), fears that the US is leveraging the terrorist group far beyond Syria and Iraq where it was created are rising. Nations opposing or obstructing US interests beyond America's borders now find themselves likely targets of this covert form of armed coercion.

The United States is increasingly at odds with nations and political orders across Southeast Asia it had once counted among its closest allies in the region. Included is Thailand, a nation of nearly 70 million people, who as of 2014, ousted a US-backed client regime in a bloodless military coup.

Since then, Bangkok has definitively shifted further away from Washington's influence, toward Beijing, Moscow, and virtually any other nation-state that can provide Thailand with alternatives to Washington's monopoly on geopolitical, economic, and military influence.

Much of Thailand's military inventory - for decades consisting of US hardware - is now being replaced by a combination of Russian, Chinese, European, and even domestically developed weapon systems. These include orders of Chinese main battle tanks, Russian helicopters, Swedish warplanes, and both armored personnel carries and rocket artillery systems developed by local industry.

More recently, Thailand sealed a significant arms deal with China for the purchase of the Kingdom's first modern submarines. In total, three submarines will be bought, enhancing Thailand's naval capabilities across the region - and more specifically - drawing the navies of Thailand and China closer together in both technical and strategic cooperation.

Following Thailand, is a number of other nations including the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and even to certain degrees, Myanmar and Vietnam.

As Thailand and other members of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) pivot East, the US has predictably increased pressure on these states through the use of US-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as well as opposition parties created, backed, and directed by Washington.

In nations like Myanmar where the ruling party is already a long-supported US client regime, pressure is placed upon it through the exploitation of human rights advocacy when it is perceived by Washington to be tilting too far in Beijing's favor.

As these methods of coercion become increasingly futile, the US has also pursued more direct means of coercion - terrorism.

US-Linked Terrorism in Southeast Asia

In 2015, when Thailand refused to heed US demands to allow Chinese citizens wanted for terrorism to travel onward to Turkey where they would inevitably join US-backed efforts to overthrow the government of neighboring Syria, terrorists detonated a bomb in the center of Bangkok leaving 20 dead and many more maimed. Even Western analysts concluded the likely culprits were members the Turkish Grey Wolves front, created by NATO and cultivated as a means of asymmetrical warfare by the United States itself for decades.

Also increasing across ASEAN is the presence of the so-called "Islamic State" or ISIS.

As Indonesia continues its own pivot East, it has been targeted by terrorists allegedly from ISIS. An attack in Jakarta in 2016 followed the nation's decision to favor Chinese firms in the construction of additional national railway systems.

More recently, Malaysian security forces disrupted an alleged ISIS terror cell operating on both sides of the Thai-Malaysian border.

In the Philippines, ISIS violence has transcended mere terrorist attacks and has manifested itself as protracted warfare over the fate of Marawi City in the nation's south.

And while US and European media sources openly admit the expanding presence of ISIS in Asia - they categorically fail to point out the otherwise illogical nature of how they explain this expansion.

ISIS is State Sponsored Terror, But Which States?

ISIS is - according to Western narratives - inexplicably able to maintain its fighting capacity in Syria and Iraq against a coalition consisting of Syrian and Iraqi government forces, backed by Iran, Russia, and auxiliary forces drawn from Lebanon-based front, Hezbollah. ISIS is also inexplicably able to project its militancy internationally - carrying out attacks worldwide, and building increasingly capable militant cells across Southeast Asia.

According to Western narratives, ISIS is doing this with funding drawn from hostage ransoms, black market oil, and meager revenue from "taxation" of its quickly shrinking territorial holdings in Syria and Iraq.

In reality, however, ISIS would not exist without constant and significant multinational state sponsorship. To answer which nations are providing ISIS sponsorship, one needs only to read the United States' own intelligence reports.

The United State's own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in a 2012 report that revealed ongoing plans by an American led axis to create what it at the time called a "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State).

In the DIA's leaked 2012 report (.pdf) it stated (emphasis added):

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were that sought the creation of a "Salafist" (Islamic) principality" (State), the DIA report explains (emphasis added):

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.
Leaked e-mails from presidential candidate and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also revealed senior US political leaders assigning blame for the state sponsorship of ISIS on America's closest Middle Eastern allies, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The e-mail, leaked to the public through Wikileaks, stated:

...we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to [ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
If ISIS is being used as a proxy by the US and its allies to coerce - even overthrow - the government of Syria and wage proxy war on Russia, Iran, and their regional allies, it stands to reason that ISIS' sudden presence in Southeast Asia as nations there increasingly pivot away from Washington is no mere "coincidence."

ISIS finds itself in Southeast Asia because America's "pivot" to Asia has unfolded as a stumble, even a retreat. Despite bold declarations of primacy over Asia, the US has found itself in an increasingly bitter struggle with not only Beijing, but a number of nations seeking to rebalance power across Asia Pacific in favor of the nations actually residing in Asia Pacific.

Waning American Influence Brings Waxing American Subversion

Just like a waning American influence in the Middle East has triggered regional attempts by Washington to destabilize, divide, and destroy what it cannot influence and exploit, a similar campaign is underway in Asia Pacific. US meddling extends from the Korean Peninsula, to the South China Sea, across Southeast Asia, and even beyond to the mountains of Afghanistan and the western-most borders of China. The common denominator is conflict - either threatened or incrementally unfolding - either between states the US attempts to pit against one another, or internally between indigenous political institutions and those sponsored by and for Washington.

Understanding and exposing Washington's use of terrorism as a means of geopolitical coercion and expediency is the first step in removing this abhorrent tool from Washington's bag of geopolitical tricks. If each and every time ISIS or an associated terrorist organization carries out an attack, it only further implicates Washington and its counterproductive role in the region, it will only make America's retreat from Asia Pacific that much faster and absolute.

What will be left for Washington is a quickly closing window of opportunity to reestablish its ties with Asian states on equitable terms respecting national sovereignty and ending the concept of "American primacy" anywhere but within America's own borders.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-90048171911047441292017-07-14T09:02:00.000-07:002017-07-14T09:02:26.900-07:00Trump's ASEAN Policy Isn't "Confused," It's a Continuation of Decades of Coercion
July 14, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

In an effort to reinforce public perception that policy changes when a new administration assumes the White House, US and European analysts have made several attempts to push forward narratives describing US President Donald Trump's foreign policy as "confused" or "unclear" in contrast to his predecessor, President Barrack Obama.

However, upon closer examination, from the Middle East to Asia Pacific, US foreign policy has continued, virtually uninterrupted, for decades.

Thailand-based newspaper, The Nation, in an article titled, "Asean under pressure due to uncertain US policy, China's ambitions: researchers," would illustrate this by claiming:

Asean will be under tremendous pressure as the United States under Donald Trump's administration tries to be more engaged without a clear strategy while China competes for the grouping's favour, experts at the Hawaii-based East-West Center said.

While it was still hard to see what the Trump administration wanted to do regarding the relationship with Asean, it was expected that the US would continue to see Asean as a useful partner, said Denny Roy, senior research fellow at the research and education institute.
The article also cites former US diplomat Raymond Burghardt reporting:

Burghardt, former US ambassador to Vietnam and deputy envoy to the Philippines, said Vietnam needed to take a crucial role in leading Asean to deal with China regarding the South China Sea as the Philippines seemed to be taking a softer stance to please Beijng.
However, the article reveals that:

Of the 10 members, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam claim sovereignty over islands, rocks, shoals and reefs in the contentious sea. Indonesia is not a claimant but has some conflicts over fisheries.

The US, which is not a claimant in the area, has championed freedom of navigation as well as urged Asean to speak with one voice in dealing with China.
Thus, nations allegedly involved in claims in the South China Sea are not actually seeking confrontation with Beijing, while other ASEAN members have categorically abstained from becoming involved altogether. The United States, which has no claims whatsoever in the South China Sea, serves as chief antagonist, pressuring states to seek and expand confrontation with Beijing.

It is a process that heightened drastically amid the Obama administration's "pivot to Asia," including a high-profile court case fought by American lawyers on behalf of the Philippines. Despite a predictably successful verdict being delivered, the Philippine government itself refused to use the ruling as leverage against Beijing and decided instead to open bilateral talks, excluding Washington.

A Pattern of Coercion

In response, the US has increased pressure on the Philippines both openly and covertly.

Overtly, the US has cancelled weapon shipments to Philippine police forces supposedly on humanitarian grounds regarding the government's current "war on drugs" and allegations of sweeping extrajudicial killings. However justified withholding weapons on such grounds may be, US policy presents a paradox when considering record arms deals being simultaneously made with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two nations notorious for their human rights abuses and two nations currently engaged in brutality both within their borders and beyond them specifically enabled by torrents of US weaponry.

Covertly, terrorism and now even armed combat allegedly linked to the Islamic State has coincidentally made its way to Southeast Asia, targeting not only the Philippines, but also Indonesia and Malaysia for their continued, incremental shift eastward toward Beijing. While US and European media sources insist that terrorist organisations like the Islamic State carry out their atrocities independent of state sponsorship, US intelligence reports and leaked e-mails from among American politicians have revealed otherwise.

Thus, if the "Islamic State" appears amid a geopolitical tug-of-war, as described by academics and former diplomats cited in The Nation's article, and the Islamic State's rise was intentionally fuelled by the United States and is sponsored by America's closest Middle Eastern allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it stands to reason to at least suspect Islamic State activity in Southeast Asia as part of a much wider and well-documented pattern of geopolitical coercion.

Likewise, in 2015 when Thai officials refused American demands to allow suspected terrorists to travel from China onward to Turkey, using Thailand as a transit point, and instead extradited the suspects back to China, terrorism conveniently struck months later, killing twenty in the centre of Bangkok. Ongoing terrorism in Thailand's deep south has sought out by Washington as a vector of drawing Thailand in closer militarily and politically. When closer cooperation is refused by Bangkok, terrorism predictably spikes.

Even Vietnam, despite hopeful predictions by US analysts and former diplomats, is attempting to play a more balanced game between Beijing and Washington, likely painting itself a target for political subversion, economic sabotage and even covert terrorism sponsored by the United States.

But this current pattern of coercion does not simply span the Obama administration and continue under the Trump administration. It is a process of US involvement in Asia Pacific that dates back to when it quite literally occupied the Philippines as a colonial power. Even the Vietnam War, according to America's own intelligence agencies, was fought to contain China, not combat "communism" or defend "democracy."

Thus, "Trump's" ASEAN policy isn't "confused" or "unclear," it is a very clear continuation of a pattern of coercion seeking to maintain what US policymakers and politicians themselves have claimed is American "primacy" across Asia.

Primacy declared by a nation that does not even reside in Asia offers clues as to why ASEAN as a bloc, and its members individually have resisted attempts by Washington to use them as a unified front amid America's geopolitical game with China.

What the US may claim are "gains" and "closer ties" across Asia will result either from concessions made by individual states to stave off more overt and destructive forms of coercion by Washington, or from successful attempts by Washington to overthrow governments opposed to its objectives in Asia Pacific, and resulting client states steering national policy parallel to Washington's.

Admitting this would reveal America as a force of destabilisation, exploitation and inhumanity, usurping entire nations of their right to self-determination. Therefore, it is much more politically convenient for analysts and diplomats to claim American policy is "confused" or "unclear" while this singular agenda continues under the Trump administration.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-62121305666101447502017-07-13T19:40:00.000-07:002017-07-13T19:40:00.938-07:00Saudi Arabia: What's Really Behind Trump's Hypocrisy?
July 14, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

US President Donald Trump's support came in no small part from those Americans who believe terrorism, and more specifically, "Islamic" terrorism pose an existential threat to the United States and the wider Western World.

It is curious then that President Trump's first trip abroad was to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the sociocultural source code of the very extremism infecting both the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) as well as the wider, global extremism it inspires and fuels everywhere from Southeast Asia, western China and even in the streets of North America and Europe.

Far from a geopolitical gaff, US associations with Saudi Arabia and their mutual link and contribution to (not fighting against) terrorism is increasingly becoming an embarrassing, "open secret."

It was the US Defense Intelligence Agency in a 2012 memo leaked to the public that revealed the creation of terrorist organizations like the Islamic State (referred to in the memo as a "Salafist principality") were encouraged by "the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey."

Leaked emails from former US Secretary of State and 2016 US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would include direct references to Saudi Arabia and Qatar in regards to their complicity in arming the Islamic State. More specifically, both nations were accused of, "providing clandestine financial and logistic support" to the Islamic State.

While the US postures to the world as engaged in a global war on terrorism, it is clear that those nations in the Middle East cooperating closest with Washington are in fact those also perpetuating this seemingly endless war. Why?

It turns out that perpetual war is a lucrative affair in both terms of acquiring wealth and power. It is this equation of wealth and power that takes precedence, even at the expense of narrative continuity and political legitimacy.

Dollars, Oil and Arms

Was President Trump's visit to Riyadh to deliver a stern warning regarding its extensive history of state sponsorship of terror? On the contrary. It was to seal an unprecedented weapons deal with Saudi Arabia amounting to an immediate $110 billion, and $350 billion over the next 10 years, according to the New York Times.

The New York Times also revealed the participants in the massive arms deal to include Lockheed Martin.

It was no surprise then that US policy think tanks like the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) encouraged members to submit op-eds praising President Trump's trip to prominent US and European media sources including The Hill.

The Hill's op-ed, "Trump gets it right in Saudi Arabia," for example, was penned by Anthony Cordesman, a CSIS member. His op-ed would conclude by passionately arguing:

This speech is the right beginning — in remarkably well crafted terms — and it deserves bipartisan and expert respect.
It is no surprise considering the sponsors who keep the lights on at CSIS and Mr. Cordesman in a job. The think tank's most prominent corporate donors include Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and, most telling of all, Lockheed Martin. It is also sponsored by Saudi Aramco, the central nexus of the US-Saudi petrodollar network propping up what many think tanks call the US-led "international order."

Governments that donate to CSIS include the United States and Saudi Arabia itself. Together, corporate and government donations account for over 60% (34% and 27% respectively) of CSIS' overall funding, according to its 2016 annual report.

Of course, a man's "opinion" of President Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia, including a multi-billion dollar arms deal favoring Lockheed Martin, will be positive, when the organization he works for is funded directly by both Lockheed Martin and the government of Saudi Arabia.

It is an example of how the media in the United States actually works and how special interests, not the "truth," shape narratives and drive agendas in complete contradiction to reality and the best interests of the vast majority on the planet.

Threatening America's "international order" are competitors that exist independent of or even opposed to Washington and its corporate partners both on Wall Street and in Riyadh.

This is why US President Trump praised Saudi Arabia, a nation that serves as a virtual model for the Islamic State, and condemned Iran whose forces have fought for 6 years against both the Islamic State and Al Qaeda affiliates who have flooded into Syria and Iraq.

Clearly, based on the fact that the US' closest ally in the Middle East is also one of the worst human rights offenders on the planet and the premier sponsor of global terrorism, ideological and humanitarian concerns are strictly a rhetorical facade.

It was never about ideology, humanitarianism or truly fighting "terrorism." It is not a matter of "good and evil." It is as simple dollars and cents, Saudi riyals, oil and arms and maintaining hegemony across a region and upon a planet to prevent this wealth and influence from being usurped either by a competitor of equal footing or a general trend toward multipolar geopolitical decentralization.

The media is awash in politically-oriented rhetoric attempting to divide and distract the public along strictly political lines. The common denominator among all of this propaganda is the fact that all of the narratives, no matter how apparently contradictory, conveniently allow the singular agenda of amassing dollars, oil and arms in pursuit of global hegemony to move forward.

As this very simple reality is understood and acted upon by more people than pay into this prevailing political facade that perpetuates it, multipolar geopolitical decentralization will continue to incrementally replace this current US-dominated "international order."

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-2691851532101487522017-07-08T23:55:00.003-07:002017-07-08T23:55:43.597-07:00Terror in Europe - Why Terrorists Are Allowed to Strike
June 9, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

The London Bridge terror attack saw a repeat of a now familiar narrative in which every suspect involved had been long-known to both British security and intelligence agencies.

The London Telegraph in an article titled, "Khuram Butt, Rachid Redouane and Youssef Zaghba named: Everything we know about the London Bridge terrorists," would reveal:

The ringleader of the London Bridge massacre never bothered to hide his violent, extremist views. Khuram Butt was so brazen that he openly posed with the black flag of the so-called Islamic State in Regent's Park in the centre of London for a Channel 4 documentary, entitled The Jihadis Next Door.

Butt and other extremists linked to the banned terror group al-Muhajiroun were even detained by police for an hour over the stunt in 2015 but were released without being arrested.
The al-Muhajiroun terror group is headed by British-based extremist, Anjem Choudary, who for years helped fill the ranks of militant groups fighting governments the US and UK sought to overthrow in Libya, Syria and beyond. Choudary inexplicably escaped the consequences of his open advocacy and material support for known terrorist organizations for years, with the London Guardian in an article titled, "Anjem Choudary: a hate preacher who spread terror in UK and Europe," going as far as speculating he did so because he was actually an informant or operative working for the British government.

The article would also admit that Butt was under investigation by British intelligence up to the day of the attack:

MI5 and counter-terrorism officers began an investigation into Butt, which remained ongoing even as the 27-year-old launched his terror attack on London Bridge. Butt, who was wearing an Arsenal shirt and a fake bomb strapped to his chest, was shot dead by police on Saturday night.
A second suspect, Rachid Redouane, was repeatedly brought to the attention of police who ignored warnings he was an extremist and a member of the so-called "Islamic State."

The Telegraph reports that a third suspect, Youssef Zaghba, was also known to police:

He was reportedly arrested at Bologna airport in March 2016 trying to get to Syria and was also understood to be on an Italian anti-terror watch list.
The fact that these three suspects evaded capture and were able to carry out their attack despite being known and even monitored actively by British security and intelligence agencies lends even further credibility to the notion that they and others like them work for the British government, not against it.

Unable to Reach Syria, West's Dogs of War Bite Local Population

Networks like al-Muhajiroun and the extremists they cultivate help fill the ranks of "moderate rebel" groups the US, UK, other European nations including France, as well as regional allies like Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar are arming, funding and providing direct military support for in Libya, Syria, Yemen and beyond.

This fact goes far in explaining why extremists are allowed - for years - to openly advocate violence and recruit members into what is essentially a terrorist organization operating under the nose of British security and intelligence agencies - if not with their collective and eager complicity.

While these terrorists are labeled "moderate rebels" when fighting abroad, they are only labeled as such by the Western media out of necessity in an attempt to differentiate them from the extremists that are in fact fighting the West's proxy war for it in places like Syria.

Suspects like Youssef Zaghba even attempted to travel to Syria to fight among the ranks of Western-backed militant groups - and failing to do so - participated in armed violence in the UK instead. Had he traveled onward to Syria, it would have been innocent Syrians instead of innocent British civilians terrorized, attacked, maimed and killed.

A Strategy of Terror and Tension

And despite the reality of the US and UK along with other European and Persian Gulf allies openly fueling terrorism at home and abroad, in the wake of tragic events like in London, Manchester, Paris, or Brussels, the very government organizations clearly responsible for presiding over these terrorists and their networks, sometimes for months and even years before an attack, are granted even more power to address a problem of their own intentional creation.

These organizations are able to do so in plain sight of the public specifically because of another conflict they openly orchestrate, pitting the general public against one another along lines of "anti-Islamic" fervor versus social justice advocates.

What both sides of this manufactured and intentionally perpetuated divide fail to realize is that Muslims are dying by the tens of thousands in places like Syria actively fighting against extremism springing not from Islam or the Qu'ran, but from the Pentagon, Westminster, Paris, Brussels, Riyadh, Ankara and Doha. It is not a clash of civilizations, but a manufactured conflict designed to perpetually fill the ranks of mercenaries abroad while exploiting their violence at home to procure more power and wealth through fear, anger and hysteria.

With wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and beyond adding up to trillions for defense contractors and including weapon systems designed to fight them, with the F-35 joint strike fighter alone topping one trillion US dollars and as the West continues to openly act with impunity when and where it pleases despite violating the very international law it claims it is upholding globally, it is clear that, for now, this strategy is working.

If and when the general public understands the truth of why their lives are put in danger and their nation's resources are being squandered abroad instead of at home for building their own futures, this strategy will be less successful. Until then, it appears that simplistic propaganda still works in convincing the public that governments like in London are simply incapable of arresting terrorists who appear regularly on TV, in the media and who openly operate in public with apparent and otherwise inexplicable impunity.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook."
Land Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-26454222028074586992017-07-06T08:00:00.000-07:002017-07-06T08:00:08.009-07:00How the Western Media Revises Reality
July 6, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

The goal of informing an audience is straightforward and employs equally straightforward methods. The goal of manipulating an audience, however, is more complicated. It involves not only manipulating the current facts, but also reaching back and forth through time to revise both distant and recent history.

A recent example drawn from Bloomberg, illustrates how this process is done as the Western media works to target and undermine one of many nations slated for Western-induced political unrest and regime change.

Rewriting Reality Regarding Thailand's Rice Crisis

In 2011, the US-backed political party of Thaksin Shinawatra bought off voters with promises of unprecedented government handouts, including unheard of subsidies promised to the nation's rice farmers. The predictable result was a glut in rice supply, immense corruption as the Shinawatra government attempted to move the rice as prices crashed, and the incremental collapse of Thailand's long-standing, well-established position in global agricultural markets.

And as the Shinawatra government's reckless vote-buying subsidies destroyed the Thai rice market and undermined confidence in Thailand's trade partners regarding rice quality, Thailand's neighbors continued improving their ability to grow rice at competitive prices and with superior quality.

By the time the Shinawatra government was removed from power after failing to brutally suppress street protests and being swept from power by a bloodless military coup, over a million Thai rice farmers had been left with their rice rotting in government warehouses and without the subsidies promised by Shinawatra's political party.

The military-led government that replaced Shinawatra would be tasked with not only paying the farmers their promised subsidies, but to also rebuild Thailand's rice industry. This would include initiatives to help farmers diversify their economic activities with the demand for Thai rice having been significantly reduced between 2011-2014.

Despite this reality, Bloomberg in its recent article decide to start its coverage of the crisis in 2014, blaming the damage to Thailand's rice crisis on the weather rather than economic mismanagement and corruption beginning under Shinawatra in 2011.

The article, "Rice Is Out, Beans Are in as Thailand's Farmers Return to School," claims:

Prapatpon, 48, returned to school last month for a state-funded training program designed to wean farmers off water-intensive rice and teach them how to grow other crops. With lessons spanning everything from accounting to chicken husbandry, the government is trying to reduce a record stockpile of the cereal at a time when farmers are facing the worst drought in two decades.
The article repeatedly blames the current crisis on weather, but does obliquely hint at the true, underlining problem:

For more than a decade, Thai rice farmers were cushioned by subsidies. The support won rural votes for former prime ministers Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck. It also led to a 20 percent jump in rice production and a record 17.8 million-ton stockpile that the current government is struggling to sell.

Cutting output will reverse a global oversupply that's depressed international prices, but coaxing farmers to plant less rice requires careful diplomacy.
Despite this admission that Shinawatra's subsidies wrecked Thailand's rice industry and that the crisis is more related to oversupply than the weather, the article attempts to shift blame to the current government attempting to undo the damage:

Rice farmers have played a central role in Thailand's last decade of political unrest, turning out en mass to support the Shinawatra family, whose allied governments have twice been ousted in coups despite winning every national election since 2001...
...While some farmers are becoming frustrated with their economic situation, there isn't a lot they can do to express their feelings publicly under military rule, said David Streckfuss, a Thailand-based academic and the author of books on Thai law and politics.

Streckfuss, interestingly enough, was one of the many Western propagandists attempting to cover up, excuse, and otherwise lend support to Shinawatra's government as it collapsed in the face of expanding street protests in 2013-2014. Streckfess and others would even go as far as covering up armed violence aimed at protesters, carried out by the Shinawatra government.

It is no surprise now that Streckfess and platforms like Bloomberg are once again attempting to shift blame for the current rice crisis, provide a Western-backed opposition with a clean slate, and open a vector for political unrest against the current Thai government.

Attempts to undermine Thailand's current political order fits into a wider agenda of reasserting US-European hegemony over Asia-Pacific, and more specifically, to surround China with either Western-backed client regimes, or failed states incapable of assisting China's geopolitical and economic ascension. It is an agenda being engineered by corporate-financier funded policy think tanks whose work is almost inseparable and indistinguishable from that of the Western mainstream media.

Do Your Own Fact Checking

Because of the centralized nature of the interests driving this agenda, this is a pattern repeated throughout Western mainstream media reports, revising reality they themselves had documented but are now backtracking on. Other examples of this have been documented in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Yemen. Even with admissions inserted into their own articles, the Western media attempts to mislead readers into believing alternative realities despite the stated facts.

That Bloomberg can introduce doubt in a reader's mind regarding who is responsible for a rice crisis in Thailand, despite admitting to the glut in supply incurred by the Shinawatra government's previous and reckless policies, illustrates just how manipulative rather than informative Western mainstream media actually is. Understanding and recognizing this pattern of deception and "revision," allows the global public to read and discern for themselves the veracity of claims both in the Western media, or in any media for that matter.

Depending on "fact checking" by organizations linked to those being "checked" leads to obvious conflicts of interest and predictable impropriety. Readers arming themselves to do their own fact checking is the only real viable option. Genuine sources of information will implore readers to think and determine the truth for themselves, those preying on and encouraging ignorance will offer to do their audience's thinking for them.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-73187939290835756762017-07-01T11:05:00.000-07:002017-07-01T11:05:02.071-07:00ISIS "Coincidentally" Appears Along China's One Belt, One Road
July 1, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

Two Chinese teachers based in Pakistan's southwest province of Baluchistan were reportedly abducted and murdered by militants from the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS).

CNN, in an article titled, "'Grave concern' over Chinese teachers reportedly killed by ISIS in Pakistan," would attempt to portray the act of terrorism as a random strike aimed at China's expanding economic activity abroad.

In reality, the terror attack was very precise in terms of location and purpose, and fits into a larger pattern of violence and political instability that has plagued Pakistan's Baluchistan province and China's ambitions there for years.

US Using Proxies to Disrupt China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

Baluchistan, and more specifically, the port city of Gwadar, serve as the central nexus of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). It is a complex and expanding system of rail, roads, ports, and other infrastructure projects built jointly with the Pakistani government to facilitate regional economic growth - and an integral component of the much larger One Belt, One Road initiative.

Disrupting China's economic lifelines to the rest of the world is an open objective of US policymakers. A paper published in 2006 by the Strategic Studies Institute titled, "String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising Power across the Asian Littoral." identified Gwadar by name as one of several components of China's "String of Pearls."

The report states explicitly in regards to a possible "hard approach" toward Beijing that:

There are no guarantees that China will respond favorably to any U.S. strategy, and prudence may suggest to "prepare for the worst" and that it is "better to be safe than sorry." Is it perhaps better to take a hard line towards China and contain it while it is still relatively weak? Is now the time to keep China down before she can make a bid for regional hegemony? Foreign policy realists, citing history and political theory, argue that inevitably China will challenge American primacy and that it is a question of "when" and not "if" the U.S.-China relationship will become adversarial or worse.
What better way to contain China's regional ambitions than to mire economic development in places like Baluchistan with armed militancy, or obstruct it altogether with a US-backed independence movement in the province?

US policymakers have noted just that. In a 2012 paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled, "Pakistan: The Resurgence of Baluch Nationalism" (PDF), it would be stated unequivocally that (emphasis added):

If Baluchistan were to become independent, would Pakistan be able to withstand another dismemberment—thirty-four years have passed since the secession of Bangladesh—and what effect would that have on regional stability? Pakistan would lose a major part of its natural resources and would become more dependent on the Middle East for its energy supplies. Although Baluchistan's resources are currently underexploited and benefit only the non-Baluch provinces, especially Punjab, these resources could undoubtedly contribute to the development of an independent Baluchistan.

Baluchistan's independence would also dash Islamabad's hopes for the Gwadar port and other related projects. Any chance that Pakistan would become more attractive to the rest of the world would be lost.
Not only would it be Pakistan's loss regarding the Gwadar port, it would be China's loss as well.

And while the paper attempts to claim the US stands nothing to gain from Baluchistan's independence, the US State Department has spent years and an untold sum of money and resources supporting just such an independence movement. Additionally, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace itself hosted an event by the "Baloch Society of North America," advocating US intervention in the province toward achieving "independence."

The US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and convicted financial criminal George Soros' Open Society via "Global Voices" funds a long list of organizations in Pakistan's Baluchistan province advocating everything from autonomy to outright independence. This includes the Association for Integrated Development Balochistan (AID Balochistan), The Balochistan Point, and the Balochistan Institute for Development.

The US NED-funded Institute for Development Studies & Practices's (IDSP) president regularly uses social media like Twitter to make and support statements calling for Baluchistan's independence and depicting the province as a "colony" of Pakistan. So do virtually all other members of the above mentioned organizations funded by the US government.

The long list of US-funded Baluchistan-based organizations regularly link to op-eds and propaganda depicting violence in the province as one-sided and perpetuated by Pakistani forces alone - echoing the same sort of intentionally skewed public relations campaigns supporters of US-backed violence in Syria have undertaken since 2011.

And just like in Syria, the violence being spun, excused, or glossed over directly meshes with US interests - in this case - impeding Chinese-Pakistani cooperation in Baluchistan and beyond.

Violence in Baluchistan Benefits US Proxy War with Iran Also

That the Islamic State has claimed responsibility for this latest attack, following in the wake of a larger attack on Tehran, Iran, is particularly significant. It was US policymakers who, in a 2009 Brookings Institution policy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran," would mention Baluchistan and Baluchi separatists by name as possible conduits, safe havens, and proxies for conducting armed conflict against Iran.

Creating violence in Baluchistan, Pakistan thus serves to not only mire Chinese ambitions across Asia, it assists Washington's long-standing objective to encircle Iran with hostile state and non-state actors ahead of eventual regime change operations against Tehran.

Previously, the United States has attempted to use a variety of local groups to foment political instability and violence. Now it appears that all of its geopolitical mischief is being lumped under the catch-all, the "Islamic State." In reality, the militants who kidnapped and murdered the two Chinese teachers in Baluchistan, Pakistan, were likely local militants the US has been backing for years, and whose role in destabilizing Pakistan is increasingly understood by local and global audiences.

Assigning blame to the Islamic State appears to be a means of disassociating America from the violence it is intentionally fueling across the region.

The Islamic State "coincidentally" appearing in virtually every geopolitical theater on Earth US interests are impeded or challenged by local and regional interests helps explain why not only the Islamic State exists in the first place, but explains how it has managed to survive and continue to thrive despite multinational efforts by nations like Russia, Syria, and Iran to defeat it.

Through state sponsorship, the Islamic State's source of logistical, political, and military power ultimately lies in Washington, London, Brussels, Ankara, Riyadh, and Doha - where Russian-Syrian-Iranian military and political power cannot reach.

For those wondering where the Islamic State will strike next, one needs only to look at a world map and identify where else US interests are being impeded by an increasingly multipolar world unwilling to yield to Wall Street and Washington's corporate-financier monopolies. As illustrated in this recent and abhorrent attack in Baluchistan, Pakistan, important points along China's One Belt, One Road project would be important places to look out for.

By targeting teachers, such terrorism seeks to incite fear across the very workers who are part of implementing this ambitious regional economic plan. It is a motive that resides far above the crude ideological motivations generally assigned to the Islamic State, and instead resembles well thought-out - if not sinister - geostrategic planning.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-61001398293064178632017-06-24T06:40:00.000-07:002017-06-24T06:40:44.709-07:00Thai-Russian Cooperation Seeks Thai Alternatives to Facebook, Google

June 24, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

Russian and Thai telecom interests have begun preliminary discussions toward creating local alternatives to social network and Internet search giants Facebook and Google in Thailand. The move, if successful, would represent another step toward breaking Facebook and Google's monopoly over international information space and set further precedent for nation-states to take responsibility for their own respective information space.

Thailand's The Nation would report in an article titled, "Russia keen to offer network, search services," that:

Russia's Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications has proposed offering social network and search engine services in Thailand based on Russian platforms.

Takorn Tantasith, the secretary-general of the National Broadcasting and Telecom-comunications Commission, said this week that the Russian ministry proposed that both countries seek ways to set up a holding firm in Thailand to provide the services here, with the partners to share revenue from these services.

The Russian ministry floated the idea to the NBTC on Tuesday when it and the NBTC signed an agreement in Moscow to collaborate on telecom services and cybersecurity.
The article notes that Russia already has two successful local alternatives to Facebook and Google, Vkontakte (VK) and Yandex respectively.

A Matter of National Security

The move by Russia and Thailand follow similar moves made by Vietnam to likewise secure its own information space amid increased US meddling vectored through US-based tech giants like Facebook and Google.

Both tech giants have a long and sordid history of collusion with the US State Department, the danger of which is best illustrated in both companies' role in triggering and fuelling the so-called Arab Spring.

Articles from the New York Times, Guardian, and the Independent would expose the tech giants' respective roles in training proxies, manipulating public perception and even weaponising seemingly benign tools like Google Maps and online applications to panic governments in nations targeted for regime change to fold.

The political upheaval triggered by the Arab Spring led to multiple US-backed armed conflicts in Libya, Yemen and Syria, all of which have since expanded and continue on to this day at the cost of tens of thousands of lives.

The ability for the US to reach into a nation's information space and so completely dominate it has raised serious concerns internationally. Nations like Russia and China have established their own search engines and social media sites, pushing Google and Facebook out of their markets and mitigating their ability to reach into and manipulate Russian and Chinese information space.

Other nations lacking such alternatives find their entire population dependent on US-based companies who determine how their respective information space is used. Russia, by helping nations like Thailand develop their own local alternatives, further diminishes the size, reach and depth of influence wielded by US tech firms against its own interests.

Benefactors of US Monopoly Decry Move

Familiar voices across Thailand's US-funded "opposition" immediately belittled and decried the announcement of joint Russian-Thai alternatives to Facebook and Google, allegedly based on fears that the Thai government would use its control over a Thai social media network and search engine to silence their work.

Ironically, it is only because of America's monopoly over social media and search services in Thailand that the US-funded opposition in Thailand has such a prominent voice.

In reality, Thai social media and search services will not create a controlled narrative, it will simply shift it from one dominated and controlled by US interests, to one dominated and controlled by Thai interests.

Also particularly ironic is the fact that US-funded opposition in Thailand portray their activities as "pro-democratic," yet are denouncing the decentralisation of social media and Internet search monopolies that represent precisely the opposite of democracy.

Neither Facebook nor Google represent Thai interests, yet completely dominate how Thai people interact within Thailand's information space. While Thai-based alternatives do not guarantee a fair representation of the Thai public's best interests, the debate will finally be Thailand's to have and on Thailand's own terms.

That so-called "pro-democracy" advocates decry the end of US control over Thailand's information space appears to be more about the self-preservation of a US-sponsored opposition than any genuine concern rooted in "democratic" values.

Economic Benefits

Facebook and Google (listed as Alphabet) are both Fortune 500 corporations listed within the top 100, revealing the massive financial potential for other companies who create and maintain social media networks and search engine services. For nations like Thailand who elect to create their own alternatives, money that would ordinarily leave the nation to reside in Facebook and Google's coffers will now remain in Thailand.

The need to create and maintain the necessary human resources in Thailand to run Facebook and Google alternatives in terms of computer science, artificial intelligence, coding and other important, modern skill sets will translate into a more robust digital economy for the Southeast Asian state. A growing list of local alternatives to US-based tech monopolies will mean more opportunities for Thais in Thailand within the IT sector.

Talent already recruited locally for foreign tech operations in Thailand would have the option to contribute to or create their own domestic alternatives and enjoy all the benefits associated with doing so.

The widening pool of talent the government will be required to create to make this both possible and sustainable will translate into further economic and national security benefits in the future. As IT takes further precedence economically, nations possessing large pools of talent related to IT stand the greatest chance to benefit.

And as fields like artificial intelligence continue to expand and take on greater importance economically and in terms of national security, having firms like a Thai Facebook or Google alternative will provide a front line in defending against threats and seizing upon new opportunities.

Russian-Thai cooperation in this regard presents genuine benefits and opportunities to both nations, offering a stark comparison to the one-sided detrimental dealings the United States has offered Bangkok in recent years.

The ongoing political crisis within Thailand fuelled by US funding and growing regional terrorism resulting from US and Persian Gulf sponsorship of terrorism globally only adds further impetus for Bangkok to pull up the roots of US tech monopolies dominating Thailand's information space and further reduce Washington and Wall Street's ability to manipulate and coerce the nation politically, economically and socially.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-6388743531606204242017-06-19T23:45:00.003-07:002017-06-19T23:45:26.274-07:00US Downs Syrian Warplane Over Syria Amid War on ISIS
June 20, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

Operating without any form of invitation from Damascus, or any resolution under international law, a US F-18 Super Hornet downed a Syrian Su-22 fighter-bomber over eastern Syria as it engaged targets in territory occupied by the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS).

It was the latest in a series of direct military strikes carried out by the US against Syrian government forces as they attempt to retake positions from terrorist organizations operating in their territory.

The move was categorically condemned by the Syrian government and its allies, including Russia.

The Washington Post would report in its article, "Russia threatens to treat U.S. coalition aircraft as targets over Syria," that:

On Monday, the Russian Defense Ministry said its warplanes had been operating in the area of the encounter between the U.S. and Syrian jets. It said the coalition had not used the deconflicting hotline to warn the Russian jet.

"Multiple military actions of U.S. aviation under the guise of fighting terrorism against the legal military of a state that is a member of the United Nations are a flagrant violation of international law and constitute de facto military aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic," the ministry said.
The Washington Post also made mention of, "the possibility that the U.S. could be forced to deviate further from its stated policy in Syria, which only involves targeting Islamic State militants," betraying 6 years of reporting even by the Washington Post itself admitting America's role in Syria as primarily focused on regime change, not fighting terrorists - as the Russian Defense Ministry alluded to.

Regime Change, Continuity of Agenda

The Washington Post and other Western media outlets are also contradicting a now infamous US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo (PDF) from 2012 which stated:

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).
The DIA memo also explains exactly who the "supporting powers" are (and who would oppose a Salafist principality):

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.
With the United States now responsible for multiple strikes against the Syrian military as Syrian forces battle ISIS militants and attempt to retake eastern territory, it is clear that the US is willing to risk wider war in pursuit of the 2012 agenda of using ISIS to "isolate the Syrian regime."

By hindering Syrian forces attempting to move east toward Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor, and beyond, the US hopes to continue stationing both its own forces, and armed proxies creating a de facto state within a state separate and opposed to the government in Damascus.

From this carved out territory - having long-since failed the outright overthrow of the Syrian government - the US plans to incrementally expand westward from ISIS-held territory - while Turkish forces and their proxies move south, and another contingent of US forces from Jordan attempt to move north-northeast - in an attempt to eventually consume the Syrian state.

US policymakers from the corporate-financier funded think tank, the Brookings Institution, have repeatedly published papers over the years detailing this plan. In a 2016 paper aptly titled, "Deconstructing Syria: A Confederal Approach," it's stated clearly that;

...the United States and partners would seek to help local allies expand de facto safe havens and bring governance to them. It would not declare safe havens formally in the beginning, but could offer warnings to Assad not to bomb certain areas and neighborhoods lest his air force face reprisal action later. Over time, ISIS and related groups would have to be defeated. Assad or his close associates could be tolerated within a sector consisting mostly of Alawites and Christians. (Perhaps Assad could even nominally remain president for a time, if truly necessary, as long as he did not deploy security forces in those parts of Sunni-dominant Syria granted autonomy.)
The Brookings paper also clearly contradicts both the Washington Post and the US military spokespeople it is citing, making it clear that the US aims to remove the Syrian government from power, and are not merely "targeting Islamic State militants." The report clearly states:

When appropriate, the safe zones would also be used to accelerate recruiting and training of additional opposition fighters who could live in, and help protect, their communities while going through basic training.

It is clear that this plan, verbatim, began in earnest under the administration of US President Barack Obama and is being aggressively expanded under US President Donald Trump.

It is also clear that Syria and its allies are challenging it to the point where the US finds it necessary to use overt military force to establish its "de facto safe havens" before expanding them and launching a larger scale regime change campaign from them.

Deterring US Aggression

For Syria and its allies, finding an appropriate deterrence to impede or even role back this effort by the US and its proxies is essential. Also a possible necessity is correctly calculating a line the US will be unable to cross and presenting US forces illegally operating in Syria with this line.

With Russia withdrawing - at least temporarily - from a memorandum of understanding regarding US and Russian air operations over Syria, plausible deniability regarding the potential and accidental targeting and downing of US warplanes illegally operating over Syrian territory becomes a distinct possibility. Because of the precedent set by the US itself regarding rogue geopolitical behavior and unwarranted military aggression worldwide, the US will find itself with few sympathizers globally should it begin suffering losses in Syria following its own increasingly reckless behavior.

Ultimately, however, strategic planners in Damascus, Moscow, and Tehran must determine how much territory Syria can afford to lose during this process of US-driven Balkanization, how sustainable it will be for the US and its proxies to hold this territory - let alone expand it - and if it will be possible to let time work against US designs in the region and take the territory back at a later time with less risk and cost involved.

In the meantime, the US should be expected to carry out more strikes on Syrian forces and their allies as it attempts to establish de facto "safe havens" admittedly aimed at regime change - with fighting ISIS merely a pretext for US involvement in Syrian territory. A lack of a robust response from Damascus and its allies is more likely owed to a longer-term strategy of dealing with US aggression in an attempt to avoid granting the US and its regional collaborators a wider pretext for a more direct application of military force against the Syrian government.

However, the US itself - while crafting narratives to enable its Syrian policy - claims that regime change at this point would only empower extremist groups in Syria including the Islamic State - thus it would be most beneficial to Syria and its allies for alternative media sources to remind the public of this fact and what both current and wider US aggression against Damascus would mean in terms of enabling, not ending the Islamic State's reign of terror both in the region, and around the globe.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-83864326671479476942017-06-19T10:06:00.002-07:002017-06-19T10:06:33.171-07:00Syria: Washington's Boots and Missile Systems on the Ground to Defend ISIS and Associated Proxies
June 20, 2017 Andrew Korybko - Global Village Space

The US' deployment of the HIMARS missile system to eastern Syria is designed to deter the Syrian Arab Army's Dash for Deir az-Zor.

Many people were caught off guard when the Russian Defense Ministry announced earlier this week that "The US has redeployed two High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems from Jordan to a US special operations forces base near the Syrian town of Al-Tanf", and that "the range of HIMARS cannot allow for providing support for US-controlled Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) operating against Daesh in Raqqa". This led to the logical conclusion that the HIMARS could be used by the US to strike Syrian Arab Army (SAA) forces, just as the Pentagon's developed a habit of doing several times already since April.

To put this all into context, the SAA just broke through some of Daesh's occupied territory to reach the Iraqi border, thereby cutting off the US' special forces and allied "rebel" forces in Al-Tanf from linking up with the majority-Kurdish "Syrian Democratic Forces" (SDF) laying siege to Raqqa right now and committing ethnic cleansing there. Moreover, this development prevents the US-backed forces from driving through the desert to Deir az-Zor, the last major Daesh-occupied city in eastern Syria and the location of a small encircled SAA contingent. The "Dash for Deir az-Zor" is becoming the new "Race for Raqqa" now that the latter is all but over, as the former will decide whether or not the entirety of eastern Syria falls under pro-American proxy control or not.

The SAA needs to liberate Deir az-Zor in order to keep the SDF and southern Al-Tanf "rebels" from connecting their occupied territories and enlarging the self-declared "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" to include all of the Iraqi borders. If they fail in this task, then Syria will effectively be divided along East-West lines, and the former half could in principle connect to the corresponding demographic regions of neighboring Iraq to give rise to the unipolar transnational sub-states of "Kurdistan" and "Sunnistan", or in other words, two "geopolitical 'Israels'". Should they succeed, however, then the SAA will not only diminish the prospects for a pro-Saudi "Sunnistan" along the Syrian-Iraqi Borderlands, but it would also give Damascus a fair chance at recovering some territory north of the Euphrates and reversing the SDF-YPG's "federalization" momentum.

For that reason, the US deployed the HIMARS in southeastern Syria in order to deter the SAA from going any further in the Dash for Deir az-Zor, though that doesn't mean that Damascus won't give it a shot anyhow. There's a high chance, just as Russia warned, that the US will use this missile system against the SAA, but there's an equal probability that Moscow wouldn't interfere in that case.

What will Russia's stance be?

Moscow has been abundantly clear that it is strictly abiding by its anti-terrorist military mandate, and it's already proven as much on multiple occasions by standing down whenever its "Israeli" partner bombed the SAA and Damascus' allies. Moreover, Russia also never militarily responded to the US' bombing of the SAA on the three times that it's happened in just as many months.

In fact, First Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council's Committee on International Affairs Vladimir Jabarov declared right after the first incident that "Russia has no intentions to use its Aerospace Forces against US missiles if Washington decides to carry out new strikes in Syria as it could lead to a large-scale war", thereby confirming that there's close to no chance that Russia would come to Syria's aid if the US unleashed HIMARS against Deir az-Zor-destined SAA forces. Despite this unfavorable state of affairs, Damascus more than likely won't be discouraged, and could still very well make a dash for the desert town regardless of the HIMARS hindrance. Even in the event that its soldiers are martyred, Syria might be calculating that their sacrifices would be worth it if there's even a slight possibility that they can help delay the country's post-war "decentralization" and de-facto internal partition.

About this eventuality, all indicators point to it basically being a fait accompli at this moment due to Russia's reluctance to stop this scenario from unfolding. Actually, Russia is even going along with it to an extent, though not due to it having an interest in this happening, because it both doesn't have the political will to commit the military forces necessary to stop it and also likely understands the process as being irreversible. This is why Moscow has chosen to take a "middle ground" between Damascus' unitary vision and its Kurdish adversaries' "federalist" one by proposing a system of "decentralization" in the Russian-written "draft constitution" for Syria. Furthermore, there are grounds to believe that Russia's "de-escalation zones" will ultimately – whether wittingly or inadvertently – lead to the creation of "decentralization units" all throughout the country, especially in the Kurdish- and "rebel"-occupied quarters.

Taking into account what is implied by Russia's actions (or lack thereof) about its preferred "political settlement" to the War on Syria, there are concrete reasons to argue that Moscow might have already accepted the de-facto establishment of the two transnational sub-state entities of "Kurdistan" and "Sunnistan" in exchange for Washington implicitly agreeing not to interfere with Russia's two military bases in the western part of the country or its Damascus-granted rights to rebuild all of Syria's energy infrastructure (which would by extent also include the facilities in the pro-American occupied areas). Whether or not this sort of understanding/agreement is in place, or even if the US would fully respect it if it was, is a matter of speculation and can't be independently confirmed at this time, but an analytical reading of the situation indicates that this might very well be the case.

With this in mind, the SAA might only enjoy the direct support of the Russian Aerospace Forces so long as it's fighting to liberate occupied territory from Daesh terrorists, not from the pro-American SDF-YPG and southeastern "rebel" forces that Moscow itself recognizes as part of the "political opposition". Russia's attitude seems to be that whatever the US does to the SAA with its newly deployed HIMARS is a strictly bilateral affair between those two conflict participants, and that Moscow would – as it's continually displayed a propensity for doing – turn the other way for all practical intents and purposes and only issue political statements of support for its on-the-ground ally.

Therefore, the outcome of the Dash for Deir az-Zor will depend on the speed with which the SAA can reach their destination, the tactical maneuvers that the SDF-YPG take to beat them there from the northern direction, and the degree to which the US will be successful in using HIMARS to tip the balance in its favor from the southern front. The odds are overwhelming, but it still can't be ruled out that the SAA will ultimately prevail against this pincer strategy, liberate the desert city, and drive a stake in the heart of the US' attempts to set up two "geopolitical 'Israels'" in the heart of the Mideast, though the prospects of this optimistic scenario playing out are admittedly low.

Andrew Korybko is a political analyst, journalist and a regular contributor to several online journals, as well as a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Studies and Predictions at the People's Friendship University of Russia. He specializes in Russian affairs and geopolitics, specifically the US strategy in Eurasia. The views expressed in this article are author's own. It does not reflect Global Village Space Editorial policy.

Land Destroyerhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-16367832345937020612017-06-16T03:20:00.003-07:002017-06-19T10:02:05.032-07:00US Election Meddling: Smoke and Mirrors
June 16, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

For a magician, the greater the illusion attempted, the more showmanship that's required to distract audiences from that fact that it is indeed just an illusion. For US politics, something very similar applies, particularly regarding the latest, ongoing narrative surrounding alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.

Having concluded over half a year ago, had there been actual evidence of state-sponsored election interference by Russia, it would have surfaced and the necessity for a lengthy and dramatic public spectacle would not only be absent, it would obstruct real measures needed to protect America's political process from future foreign influence.

However, actual evidence has not surfaced.

Instead, complex conspiracy theories buttressed by the most tenuous documentation have been spun and promoted in the midst of public hearings, political rearrangements in the White House and other theatrics designed to keep the public engaged and convinced of the notion that Russia's government actually attempted to manipulate the results of America's presidential election.

However, the entire spectacle and the narrative driving it, is based entirely on the assumption that Russia's government believes the office of US President is of significant importance enough so as to risk meddling in it in the first place. It also means that Russia believed the office of US President was so important to influence, that the substantial political fallout and consequences if caught were worth the risk.

In reality, as US President Donald Trump has thoroughly demonstrated, the White House holds little to no sway regarding US foreign policy.

While President Trump promised during his campaign leading up to the 2016 election cooperation with Russia, a withdrawal from undermining and overthrowing the government in Damascus, Syria and a reversal of decades of US support for the government of Saudi Arabia, he now finds himself presiding over an administration continuing to build up military forces on Russia's borders in Eastern Europe, is currently and repeatedly killing Syrian soldiers in Syria and has sealed a record arms deal with Saudi Arabia amounting to over 110 billion US dollars.

It is clear that the foreign policy executed by US President George Bush, continued by President Barack Obama and set to continue under US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, is instead being faithfully executed by President Trump.

Any and all efforts to skew the electoral process either through leaked e-mails or through hacking electronic voting machines would have carried a political risk that far outweighed what is clearly a negligible outcome.

Cui Bono?

For US foreign and domestic policy, however, the grand illusion of Russia meddling in America's political process helps in at least three fundamental ways.

First, it provides a distraction for the American public. While President Trump continues the policies of previous administrations in the service of the unelected special interests that actually determine and benefit from US foreign policy, the "US election meddling" narrative provides a diversion that prevents President Trump's backtracking and hypocrisy from taking precedence in public debates.

Second, creating hysteria over the possibility that a foreign nation might have interfered with America's political process helps reinforce the illusion that America's political process is legitimate and meaningful in the first place. It buttresses the notion that America's destiny is determined by the electorate and the representatives it puts in office, not the multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations and financial institutions that lobby America's legislative bodies and place their representatives within each presidential cabinet regardless of who the American public vote into office.

And third, accusing Russia of interfering in America's political process helps perpetuate the adversarial nature of US-Russian relations, justifying the continued existence and expansion of NATO and all of the conflicts it both fuels and feeds off of. In addition to geopolitical objectives, this process reaps billions in defense contracts and opens up new potential markets for US corporations and financial institutions.

Ultimately, the co-opting or elimination of Russian competitors across a multitude of industries globally would give existing US monopolies and even tighter grip on the planet, its resources and its people.

For Russia who already faces an all but openly declared policy of encirclement, containment and undermining by the US, including crippling economic sanctions and an array of politically subversive (not to mention ironic) activities sponsored openly by the US through fronts like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), excuses like alleged Russian meddling in America's presidential election only gives Washington continued apparent justification for its incremental efforts toward taking apart Russia as a reemerging world power.

Accusations of foreign meddling amid the domestic political affairs of a sovereign nation are serious. However, evidence is required not only to level accusations against a nation for doing so, but are essential before undertaking subsequent measures against the accused nation. While the United States openly manipulates the political processes of nations worldwide through organizations like NED which literally creates and directs opposition parties globally, it has failed to produce convincing evidence or even assign a rational motive regarding its accusations against Russia.

Were Russia determined to challenge American hegemony worldwide, it would not do it by interfering in an already rigged and irrelevant US election, but by creating alternatives to the industrial, military, financial and institutional monopolies the US uses globally to achieve, maintain and expand hegemony. Russia is already doing this, which is why the US seeks justification for confronting Moscow, revealing the true culprits and motive behind the "US election meddling" narrative.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-28870968095857234602017-06-10T04:39:00.003-07:002017-06-10T04:39:50.853-07:00Tehran Was Always America's and Thus the Islamic State's Final Destination
June 10, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

Several were left dead and many more injured after coordinated terror attacks on Iran's capital of Tehran. Shootings and bombings targeted Iran's parliament and the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini.

According to Reuters, the so-called "Islamic State" claimed responsibility for the attack, which unfolded just days after another terror attack unfolded in London. The Islamic State also reportedly took responsibility for the violence in London, despite evidence emerging that the three suspects involved were long-known to British security and intelligence agencies and were simply allowed to plot and carry out their attacks.

It is much less likely that Tehran's government coddled terrorists -as it has been engaged for years in fighting terrorism both on its borders and in Syria amid a vicious six-year war fueled by US, European, and Persian Gulf weapons, cash, and fighters.

Armed Violence Targeting Tehran Was the Stated Goal of US Policymakers

The recent terrorist attacks in Tehran are the literal manifestation of US foreign policy. The creation of a proxy force with which to fight Iran and establishing a safe haven for it beyond Iran's borders have been long-stated US policy. The current chaos consuming Syria and Iraq - and to a lesser extent in southeast Turkey - is a direct result of the US attempting to secure a base of operations to launch a proxy war directly against Iran.

In the 2009 Brookings Institution document titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran," the use of then US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) as a proxy for instigating a full-fledged armed insurgency not unlike that which is currently unfolding in Syria was discussed in detail.

The report explicitly stated:

The United states could also attempt to promote external Iranian opposition groups, providing them with the support to turn themselves into full-fledged insurgencies and even helping them militarily defeat the forces of the clerical regime. The United states could work with groups like the Iraq-based National council of resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn's regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed.
Brookings policymakers admitted throughout the report that MEK was responsible for killing both American and Iranian military personnel, politicians, and civilians in what was clear-cut terrorism. Despite this, and admissions that MEK remained indisputably a terrorist organization, recommendations were made to de-list it from the US State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organization registry so that more overt support could be provided to the group for armed regime change.

Based on such recommendations and intensive lobbying, the US State Department would eventually de-list MEK in 2012 and the group would receive significant backing from the US openly. This included support from many members of current US President Donald Trump's campaign team - including Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and John Bolton.

However, despite these efforts, MEK was not capable then or now of accomplishing the lofty goal of instigating full-fledged insurrection against Tehran, necessitating the use of other armed groups. The 2009 Brookings paper made mention of other candidates under a section titled, "Potential Ethnic Proxies," identifying Arab and Kurdish groups as well as possible candidates for a US proxy war against Tehran.

Under a section titled, "Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven," Brookings notes:

Of equal importance (and potential difficulty) will be finding a neighboring country willing to serve as the conduit for U.S. aid to the insurgent group, as well as to provide a safe haven where the group can train, plan, organize, heal, and resupply.
For the US proxy war on Syria, Turkey and Jordan fulfill this role. For Iran, it is clear that US efforts would have to focus on establishing conduits and safe havens from Pakistan's southwest Balochistan province and from Kurdish-dominated regions in northern Iraq, eastern Syria, and southeastern Turkey - precisely where current upheaval is being fueled by US intervention both overtly and covertly.

Brookings noted in 2009 that:

It would be difficult to find or build an insurgency with a high likelihood of success. The existing candidates are weak and divided, and the Iranian regime is very strong relative to the potential internal and external challengers.
A group not mentioned by Brookings in 2009, but that exists in the very region the US seeks to create a conduit and safe haven for a proxy war with Iran, is the Islamic State. Despite claims that it is an independent terrorist organization propelled by black market oil sales, ransoms, and local taxes, its fighting capacity, logistical networks, and operational reach demonstrates vast state sponsorship.

The Ultimate Proxy, the Perfect Conduit and Safe Haven

The Islamic State reaching into Iran, southern Russia, and even as far as western China was not only possible, it was inevitable and the logical progression of US policy as stated by Brookings in 2009 and verifiably executed since then.

The Islamic State represents the perfect "proxy," occupying the ideal conduit and safe haven for executing America's proxy war against Iran and beyond. Surrounding the Islamic State's holdings are US military bases, including those illegally constructed in eastern Syria. Were the US to wage war against Iran in the near future, it is likely these assets would all "coincidentally" coordinate against Tehran just as they are now being "coincidentally" coordinated against Damascus.

The use of terrorism, extremists, and proxies in executing US foreign policy, and the use of extremists observing the Islamic State and Al Qaeda's brand of indoctrination was demonstrated definitively during the 1980's when the US with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - used Al Qaeda to expel Soviet forces from Afghanistan. This example is in fact mentioned explicitly by Brookings policymakers as a template for creating a new proxy war - this time against Iran.

For the US, there is no better stand-in for Al Qaeda than its successor the Islamic State. US policymakers have demonstrated a desire to use known terrorist organizations to wage proxy war against targeted nation-states, has previously done so in Afghanistan, and has clearly organized the geopolitical game board on all sides of Iran to facilitate its agenda laid out in 2009. With terrorists now killing people in Tehran, it is simply verification that this agenda is advancing onward.

Iran's involvement in the Syrian conflict illustrates that Tehran is well aware of this conspiracy and is actively defending against it both within and beyond its borders. Russia is likewise an ultimate target of the proxy war in Syria and is likewise involved in resolving it in favor of stopping it there before it goes further.

China's small but expanding role in the conflict is linked directly to the inevitability of this instability spreading to its western Xianjiang province.

While terrorism in Europe, including the recent London attack, is held up as proof that the West is "also" being targeted by the Islamic State, evidence suggests otherwise. The attacks are more likely an exercise in producing plausible deniability.

In reality, the Islamic State - like Al Qaeda before it - depends on vast, multinational state sponsorship - state sponsorship the US, Europe, and its regional allies in the Persian Gulf are providing. It is also sponsorship they can - at anytime of their choosing - expose and end. They simply choose not to in pursuit of regional and global hegemony.

The 2009 Brookings paper is a signed and dated confession of the West's proclivity toward using terrorism as a geopolitical tool. While Western headlines insist that nations like Iran, Russia, and China jeopardize global stability, it is clear that they themselves do so in pursuit of global hegemony.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-81406549201752490902017-06-05T23:42:00.002-07:002017-06-05T23:42:20.763-07:00The West's War on Free Speech
June 6, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

With a name like the "National Democratic Institute" (NDI) one might expect the US State Department-funded, corporate-financier chaired front to be the premier proponent of freedom and democracy worldwide. And although it poses as such, it does precisely the opposite. It uses principles like free speech, democracy, press freedom, and human rights as a facade behind which it carries out a politically motivated agenda on behalf of the special interests that fund and direct its activities.

In a recent Tweet, NDI linked to a New York Times article titled, "In Europe's Election Season, Tech Vies to Fight Fake News." It claimed in the Tweet that the article featured:

A look at some of the projects aiming to use automated algorithms to identify and combat fake news.
The article itself though, reveals nothing short of a global effort by US tech-giants Google and Facebook, in collaboration with the Western media, to censor any and all media that fails to align with Western-dominated narratives.

The article itself claims:

The French electorate heads to the polls in the second round of presidential elections on May 7, followed by votes in Britain and Germany in the coming months. Computer scientists, tech giants and start-ups are using sophisticated algorithms and reams of online data to quickly — and automatically — spot fake news faster than traditional fact-checking groups can.

The goal, experts say, is to expand these digital tools across Europe, so the region can counter the fake news that caused so much confusion and anger during the United States presidential election in November, when outright false reports routinely spread like wildfire on Facebook and Twitter.
The article then explains that once "fake news" is spotted, it is expunged from the Internet. It reports that:

After criticism of its role in spreading false reports during the United States elections, Facebook introduced a fact-checking tool ahead of the Dutch elections in March and the first round of the French presidential election on April 23. It also removed 30,000 accounts in France that had shared fake news, a small fraction of the approximately 33 million Facebook users in the country.
Were foreign government-linked tech companies purging tens of thousands of accounts ahead of elections in say, Thailand or Russia, it is very likely organizations like NDI and media platforms like the New York Times would cry foul, depicting it as censorship.

In determining what is and isn't "fake news," the New York Times offers some clues (emphasis added):

Using a database of verified articles and their artificial intelligence expertise, rival groups — a combination of college teams, independent programmers and groups from existing tech companies — already have been able to accurately predict the veracity of certain claims almost 90 percent of the time, Mr. Pomerleau said. He hopes that figure will rise to the mid-90s before his challenge ends in June.
In other words, "fake news" is determined by comparing it directly to narratives presented by establishment media platforms like the New York Times, the BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and others who have notorious track records of serial deception, false reporting, and even war propagandizing.

Nowhere does the New York Times explain how these "verified articles" have been determined to be factually accurate, and instead, it appears that all these algorithms are doing is ensuring all media falls in line with Western narratives.

If media in question coincides with Western-dominated media platforms, it is given a pass - if not, it is slated for expunging as described elsewhere in the New York Times' piece.

Thus, the National Democratic Institute, who claims on its website to "support and strengthen democratic institutions worldwide through citizen participation, openness and accountability in government," finds itself promoting what is essentially a worldwide agenda of malicious censorship, manipulating the perception of the globe's citizenry, not supporting or strengthening it's participation in any sort of honest political process.

To answer the question as to what the NDI is referring to when it claims other nations are "censoring" free speech and press freedoms, it involves defending local fronts funded by the NDI and its parent organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) who merely repeat Western propaganda in local languages and with local spins. When foreign nations attempt to deal with these instances of "fake news," US fronts like NDI and NED depict it as censorship.

While the West poses as the premier champion of free speech, citizen participation, openness, and accountability, the New York Times article reveals an unfolding plan to utterly crush any narrative that deviates from Western media talking points, thus controlling citizen perception, not encouraging "participation," and ensuring that the West alone determines what is "opened" and held "accountable."

No worse scenario can be referenced in human history or even among human fiction than plans to determine for the world through automatic algorithms and artificial intelligence almost in real time what is heard and read and what isn't. It is even beyond the scope and scale of George Orwell's cautionary dystopian "1984" novel.

In a truly free society, an educated citizenry is capable of deciding for itself what is "fake news" and what isn't. Because of the rise of alternatives to the West's monopoly over global information, many people are doing just that - determining that Western narratives are in fact deceptions. At no other point in modern history has the Western media faced as many alternatives, and as much skepticism on this scale, as well as an ebbing of trust domestically and abroad. It is no surprise then, to find the West resorting to outright censorship, even if it cushions mention of it with terms like "fake news."

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-31621314569972282732017-05-31T19:57:00.000-07:002017-05-31T19:57:43.580-07:00Islamic State in Asia: Saudi-Funding and Naive Policymakers Endanger Region
June 1, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

Recently, terrorist attacks have unfolded across Indonesia, a militant network disrupted along the Thai-Malaysian border and full-scale military operations including aerial bombing deployed as Philippine troops fought to take back Marawi City on the southern island of Mindanao, all linked or affiliated with the Islamic State.

A dangerously deceptive narrative is being crafted by US and European media organisations, the same sort of narrative that was used to conceal the true source of the Islamic State's fighting capacity across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region beginning as early as 2011.

The New York Times, for example, in an article titled, "In Indonesia and Philippines, Militants Find a Common Bond: ISIS," claims:

An eruption of violence in the southern Philippines and suicide bombings in Indonesia this week highlight the growing threat posed by militant backers of the Islamic State in Southeast Asia.

While the timing of the Jakarta bombings and the fighting on the southern Philippine island of Mindanao appears to be coincidental, experts on terrorism have been warning for months that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, has provided a new basis for cooperation among extremists in the region.
However, back in reality, the Islamic State is no different than any other military force. Its members require food, water and shelter daily. They require weapons and ammunition. They require uniforms. They need transportation, which in turn requires fuel, maintenance personnel and spare parts. And most important of all, the Islamic State requires a steady stream of recruits made possible only through organised education and indoctrination.

For the scale the Islamic State is doing this on, stretching across MENA and now reaching into Southeast Asia, confounding the response of not just individual nation-states but entire blocs of nations attempting to confront this growing threat, it is abundantly clear the Islamic State is not fulfilling these prerequisites on its own.

Its doing this all through state sponsorship, a reality rarely mentioned by the New York Times, Agence France-Presse, Associated Press, CNN, the BBC and others. Those acquiring their worldview through these media organisations are setting themselves up and those depending on their analysis for tragic failure.

Education and Indoctrination: Who is Feeding the Fire?

The ranks of the Islamic State in Southeast Asia are being filled by a regional network of extremist indoctrination conducted in institutions posing as Islamic boarding schools known as madrasas. Those institutions indoctrinating local populations with notions of extremism and inspiring them to take up violence and terrorism share a common denominator; Saudi funding.

Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Technology and National Security Policy at the National Defense University, Yousaf Butt, in a Huffington Post article titled, "How Saudi Wahhabism Is the Fountainhead of Islamist Terrorism," would put Saudi funding of such extremist networks into perspective, stating:

It would be troublesome but perhaps acceptable for the House of Saud to promote the intolerant and extremist Wahhabi creed just domestically. But, unfortunately, for decades the Saudis have also lavishly financed its propagation abroad. Exact numbers are not known, but it is thought that more than $100 billion have been spent on exporting fanatical Wahhabism to various much poorer Muslim nations worldwide over the past three decades. It might well be twice that number. By comparison, the Soviets spent about $7 billion spreading communism worldwide in the 70 years from 1921 and 1991.
The article also lays out the cause and effect between Saudi funding and the predictable terrorism, violence and instability that follows. Yousaf Butt concludes by aptly stating:

The House of Saud works against the best interests of the West and the Muslim world. Muslim communities worldwide certainly need to eradicate fanatical Wahhabism from their midst, but this will be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish if the West continues its support of the House of Saud. The monarchy must be modernized and modified — or simply uprooted and replaced. The House of Saud needs a thorough house cleaning.

The United States under the administration of President Donald Trump just sealed a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, following tens of billions of dollars of weapon deals under the previous administration of President Barack Obama, and in turn following a pattern of decades of military, political and economic support for the Persian Gulf state. Western support for the House of Saud appears to be fully intact and in no danger of changing any time soon.

The direct connection between terrorism ranging from Al Qaeda to the Islamic State and Saudi-funded indoctrination is clear. Yet US and European media organisations attempt to muddle the issue with unwarranted ambiguity.

New York Times articles like, "Saudis and Extremism: 'Both the Arsonists and the Firefighters'," go as far as stating:

Over the next four decades, in non-Muslim-majority countries alone, Saudi Arabia would build 1,359 mosques, 210 Islamic centers, 202 colleges and 2,000 schools. Saudi money helped finance 16 American mosques; four in Canada; and others in London, Madrid, Brussels and Geneva, according to a report in an official Saudi weekly, Ain al-Yaqeen. The total spending, including supplying or training imams and teachers, was "many billions" of Saudi riyals (at a rate of about four to a dollar), the report said.

And continues by stating:

That is the disputed question, of course: how the world would be different without decades of Saudi-funded shaping of Islam. Though there is a widespread belief that Saudi influence has contributed to the growth of terrorism, it is rare to find a direct case of cause and effect. For example, in Brussels, the Grand Mosque was built with Saudi money and staffed with Saudi imams. In 2012, according to Saudi diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, one Saudi preacher was removed after Belgian complaints that he was a "true Salafi" who did not accept other schools of Islam. And Brussels' immigrant neighborhoods, notably Molenbeek, have long been the home of storefront mosques teaching hard-line Salafi views.

After the terrorist attacks in Paris in November and in Brussels in March were tied to an Islamic State cell in Belgium, the Saudi history was the subject of several news media reports. Yet it was difficult to find any direct link between the bombers and the Saudi legacy in the Belgian capital.
Yet commonsense, when applied, takes into consideration the substantial intelligence networks and police states that exist across the European Union's various members and the fact that in the aftermath of most recent terrorist attacks it is revealed that security services across Europe often had foreknowledge of suspects, their criminal backgrounds and activities as well as their ties to extremism both within their own communities in Europe and abroad upon battlefields in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya.

It is well within the means of US and European intelligence and security agencies to establish a direct link between terrorism and Saudi funding. What is lacking is the political will to do so.

A Global Expeditionary Force That Goes Where Western Troops Cannot

It is clear that despite the New York Times attempting to make a connection between Saudi-funded indoctrination at mosques and madrasas and terrorism as ambiguous as possible, Saudi funding is the primary factor driving extremism and filling the ranks of terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Coupled with covert, indirect and direct military support when these extremists reach various battlefields around the world, Saudi-funded extremism represents what is essentially a mercenary expeditionary force, auxiliaries used in pursuit of modern day empire.

As witnessed in Libya and Syria, the purpose behind the United States and Europe supporting Saudi Arabia and turning an intentional blind-eye to its global network of extremist indoctrination and the terrorist organisations these networks feed into, is targeting and overthrowing governments the United States and Europe are incapable of overthrowing directly with military force.

Saudi-funded indoctrination filling the ranks of this virtual global mercenary force, can be used as a tool for regime change. Saudi-funded extremists were instrumental in overthrowing the Libyan government in 2011, and have led the fight to oust the Syrian government.

Saudi-funded indoctrination can also be a useful tool of geopolitical coercion, opening up opportunities for the US to sell a greater military presence in any given country targeted by Saudi-funded extremism.

In fact, the New York Times' recent article, "In Indonesia and Philippines, Militants Find a Common Bond: ISIS," hints as just such a motive in the Philippines, claiming:

Since the early 2000s, the United States has stationed military advisers in the southern Philippines to aid in the fight against Abu Sayyaf and other Islamic extremists.

Richard Javad Heydarian, a political science professor at De La Salle University in Manila, said that Mr. Duterte was under mounting pressure to address the crisis in his home island, Mindanao, and that he may need further assistance from Washington.
During a period when the Philippines finds itself pivoting away from the United States and toward Beijing and other regional allies, needing "further assistance from Washington" is a circumstance too convenient to be coincidental.

Considering how the US has used Saudi-funded extremism it has enabled elsewhere, there is need for concern not only in the Philippines, but across all of Asia regarding the Islamic State's "sudden interest" in the region.

Asian Policymakers Only As Good As Their Sources

As obvious as the truth behind the Islamic State's presence and perpetuation in Asia seems to be, many policymakers, politicians and people in the media across Asia appear to be mesmerised by US and European headlines and intentionally misleading analysis.

Eagerly republishing and repeating these headlines and analysis, policy and media circles find themselves mired in a deepening swamp of delusion. Within this swamp of delusion they are exposing Asia to the same threat the MENA region is now facing.

For a variety of reasons, extremism was allowed to take root and spread in nations like Libya and Syria, where political deals and cooperation with the US and Europe led toward greater violence and destabilisation, not toward resolving the issue of extremism, terrorism and national or regional security.

Likewise in Asia, should the root of extremism and terrorism not be addressed, namely Saudi-funding and America's and Europe's aiding and abetting of the House of Saud, this threat will continue to be cultivated and leveraged by its creators at the cost of its Asian hosts.

While it may not be politically popular to openly expose, condemn and otherwise confront US-Saudi sponsored terrorism in fear of being ostracised from US-European media and policy circles, Asian policymakers, politicians and media should consider the fate of their MENA counterparts and the state of Libya and Syria now versus pre-2011 when there was still a chance to head off a regional humanitarian catastrophe.

The inability of Asian policymakers to clearly single out and deal with Saudi-funded, US-backed terrorism in the region allows political demagogues to play entire ethnic and religious groups off against one another, further compounding factors that fuel instability and even war. Coupled with socioeconomic factors, foreign interests seeking vectors into Asia to coerce, control or even overthrow regional governments have a wide variety of options to pick from.

Eliminating these options and closing the door to outside interference means that the Asian public must be fully and properly informed, and all forms of foreign funding and support, whether it be "schools" or nongovernmental organisations, should be called into question. It is clear that part of this process should include national and regional calls and mechanisms to end Saudi funding to organisations posing as charities, educational institutions and other fronts propagating divisive extremism.

Considering the fate of the MENA region, Asia may have only one chance to get this right. Those policymakers who prove themselves incapable of objective, truthful analysis and who find themselves simply helping along foreign interference should no longer be deferred to as policymakers, and perhaps take up a more appropriate title; lobbyists.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".

Land Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-60617891975711450852017-05-28T02:46:00.001-07:002017-05-28T02:46:52.090-07:00ISIS Touches Down in the Philippines
May 24, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

Mayhem broke out across the southern Philippine city of Marawi where militants besieged it and hoisted flags of the so-called "Islamic State." Located on the southern island of Mindanao, the city is only slightly removed from Al Qaeda affiliate Abu Sayaff's primary area of operation on nearby Jolo and Basilan islands.

The UK Independent in an article titled, "Isis-linked militants take priest and churchgoers hostage in Philippines," would report:

President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law in the south because of the militants' siege on the city on Tuesday and abandoned a trip to Russia to deal with the crisis.

Mr Duterte vowed to place southern Mindanao island, where Marawi is situated, and its 22 million residents under military rule for up to a year if necessary.
The article would also report:

Troops are battling to contain dozens of militants from the Maute group, which pledged allegiance to Isis in 2015, after they escaped a botched security raid on a hideout and overran streets, bridges and buildings.

Two soldiers and a police officer are among those killed and at least 12 people have been wounded in the violence, seeing Maute fighters set fire to a school, a church and a prison.
The security crisis represents a seemingly inexplicable expansion of the Islamic State in Asia - even as the US and its allies claim the organization is being rolled back across the Middle East and its revenue streams are contracting in the wake of defeat.

US-Saudi Sponsored Terrorism Seeks to Coerce Asia

Both the Maute group and Abu Sayaff are extensions of Al Qaeda's global terror network, propped up by state sponsorship from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and fed recruits via a global network of likewise Saudi and Qatari funded "madrasas." In turn, Saudi Arabia and Qatar's state sponsorship of global terrorism for decades has been actively enabled by material and political support provided by the United States.

This arrangement provides for Washington both a global mercenary force with which to wage proxy war when conventional and direct military force cannot be used, and a pretext for direct US military intervention when proxy warfare fails to achieve Washington's objectives.

This formula has been used in Afghanistan in the 1980s to successfully expel the Soviet Union, in 2011 to overthrow the Libyan government, and is currently being used in Syria where both proxy war and direct US military intervention is being applied.

Maute and Abu Sayaff activity fits into this global pattern perfectly.

The Philippines is one of many Southeast Asian states that has incrementally shifted from traditional alliances and dependency on the United States to regional neighbors including China, as well as Eurasian states including Russia.

The Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte, cancelling his meeting with Russia is a microcosm of the very sort of results Maute and Abu Sayaff are tasked with achieving in the Philippines. Attempts by the US to justify the presence of its troops in the Philippines as part of a wider strategy of encircling China with US military installations across Asia would also greatly benefit from the Islamic State "suddenly spreading" across the island nation.

Likewise, violence in Malaysia and Thailand are directly linked to this wider US-Saudi alliance, with violence erupting at each and every crucial juncture as the US is incrementally pushed out of the region. Indonesia has likewise suffered violence at the hands of the Islamic State, and even Myanmar is being threatened by Saudi-funded terrorism seeking to leverage and expand the ongoing Rohingya humanitarian crisis.

That US-Saudi sponsorship drives this terrorism, not the meager revenue streams of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, goes far in explaining why the terrorist organization is capable of such bold attacks in Southeast Asia even as Russia and Iranian backed Syrian troops extinguish it in the Middle East.

US-Saudi Links to Abu Sayaff and other Terrorists in the Philippines

A US diplomatic cable leaked by Wikileaks dated 2005 would state:

Philippine officials noted their continuing concern about Saudi-origin terrorist financing coming into the Philippines under the cover of donations to mosques, orphanages, and madrassahs. Although three Saudi nationals suspected of being couriers had been detained on separate occasions, Saudi Ambassador Wali had intervened in each case to secure their release.

Yousaf Butt of the Washington-based US National Defense University would reveal in a Huffington Post article titled, "How Saudi Wahhabism Is the Fountainhead of Islamist Terrorism," that:

It would be troublesome but perhaps acceptable for the House of Saud to promote the intolerant and extremist Wahhabi creed just domestically. But, unfortunately, for decades the Saudis have also lavishly financed its propagation abroad. Exact numbers are not known, but it is thought that more than $100 billion have been spent on exporting fanatical Wahhabism to various much poorer Muslim nations worldwide over the past three decades. It might well be twice that number. By comparison, the Soviets spent about $7 billion spreading communism worldwide in the 70 years from 1921 and 1991.
The leaked cable and reports by Western analysts when taken together, reveal that Saudi-funded madrasas in the Philippines are directly fueling terrorism there.

The answer to why is simple.

For the same purposes the US used Saudi-funded terrorism in Afghanistan in the 1980s and in Libya and Syria beginning in 2011 - the US is using Saudi-funded terrorism to coerce the government of the Philippines amid Washington's faltering "pivot to Asia" which began under US President Barack Obama and now continues under President Trump.

Countering US-Saudi Sponsored Terrorism

With US President Trump announcing a US-Saudi alliance against terrorism - the US has managed to strategically misdirect public attention away from global terrorism's very epicenter and protect America's premier intermediaries in fueling that terrorism around the world.

The Philippines would be unwise to turn to this "alliance" for help in fighting terrorism both the US and Saudi Arabia are directly and intentionally fueling.

Instead - for Southeast Asia - joint counter-terrorism efforts together and with China and Russia would ensure a coordinated and effective means of confronting this threat on multiple levels.

By exposing the US-Saudi role in regional terrorism - each and every act of terrorism and militancy would be linked directly to and subsequently taint the US and Saudi Arabia in the hearts and minds of Southeast Asia's population.

This paves the way for a process of exposing and dismantling US-Saudi funded fronts - including Saudi-sponsored madrasas and US-funded NGOs - both of which feed into regional extremism and political subversion. As this unfolds, each respective nation would be required to invest in genuine local institutions to fill sociopolitical and economic space previously occupied by these foreign funded fronts.

Until then, Asia should expect the US and its Saudi partners to continue leveraging terrorism against the region. If unchecked, Asia should likewise expect the same progress-arresting instability that has mired the Middle East and North Africa for decades.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-7448624086383055462017-05-24T01:59:00.004-07:002017-05-24T01:59:53.563-07:00Independent Journalists Reveal America's Sinister War in Syria
May 24, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

Syria is not experiencing a "civil war." It is being targeted by both proxy and direct military force organized by the United States and its allies for the explicit purpose of dividing and destroying yet another Middle Eastern nation.

Worse than that, the United States is employing tactics to transform Syria's heterogeneous multi-ethnic and religious communities into segregated ghettos, and using this as a means of dividing and conquering the nation and even the region.

The US is also widely employing the abhorrent tactics of socioeconomic, psychological, and armed terrorism to break the Syrian people completely and absolutely.

Unlike in Libya and Iraq, however, US plans in Syria have been confounded. And because of this, ample time has elapsed for independent journalists to travel to, record, and report what is actually transpiring versus the intentional, malicious, and continuous lies told by the West's mainstream media.

One of these journalists is Patrick Henningsen of 21st Century Wire, whose recent trip to Syria had him cross paths and interview others frequently visiting and sharing their experiences and findings from the besieged nation.

The picture painted is one that cannot be ignored.

For those who have already decided to believe the Western media based on "activist accounts," the accounts provided during a recent audio interview published by 21st Century Wire is at least as equally compelling. However, for those who truly desire to discover the truth, critical thought and additional research will reveal the latter to be telling a truth consistently and intentionally obfuscated by the Western media.

Imperialism's Fingerprints: Weaponized Ethnic-Segregation

In an interview with British journalist Tom Duggan, the process of terrorists from internationally designated terror organizations like Jabhat Al Nusra and the so-called "Islamic State" targeting communities along sectarian lines is described. While the Western media has confirmed the sectarian nature of the ongoing conflict, what Duggan and Henningsen's accounts reveal is that Syria was multi-ethnic, with communities enjoying integration and diversity based first on being Syrian, then based on their respective religious and ethnic identities, long before the conflict began.

Intermarriage and sociopolitical exchanges were common before the conflict, and only since 2011 has ethnic and religious tensions begun to expose fault lines within communities based solely on fear created and perpetuated by foreign-backed terrorist organizations like Al Nusra and the Islamic State.

Pointed out was the fact that both US foreign policy regarding Syria and Al Nusra and the Islamic State's goals, both aim to see a Syria divided along sectarian lines.

While Al Nusra and the Islamic State attempt to cut Syria's sectarian-diverse communities up literally with bullets and blades, the US has repeatedly presented multiple maps over several years of Syria divided into sectarian-based micro-states - effectively eliminating Syria as a functioning and unified nation-state. While the US omits the "secret ingredient" to make its fictional maps a reality, it is demonstrably clear that terrorist organizations are the ones on the ground attempting to draw these new maps.

Libya - besieged, divided, and destroyed by US-led NATO aggression in 2011 - has suffered a similar fate and currently exists as a cautionary example of what may become of Syria should US plans succeed. Libya will no longer contest US special interests geopolitically or otherwise in its current form as a failed, divided, and destroyed state.

The premeditated and systematic nature of this attempted division and destruction of Syria matches verbatim the tactics employed for centuries by the British Empire - and before that - the Roman Empire.

It is a fundamental tactic not of humanitarian-motivated interventionists, but of imperialists. The crass nature of these tactics - simultaneously promoted by the West and designated terrorist organizations - explains why the Western media has attempted to portray Syria as ethnically and religiously divided before the conflict began, rather than as a process of intentional division and destruction unfolding as part of US foreign policy.

Similar tactics have been employed in Iraq as well, with much greater success. And even as far as Thailand in Southeast Asia, the groundwork is being laid for similar tactics to be employed to divide and weaken states targeted by Washington for regime change - highlighting the global nature of America's neo-imperial proclivities.

Daily Terrorism Carried Out By "Rebels," Not Against Them

While the Western media has flooded headlines for years regarding the alleged atrocities carried out by the Syrian government and its allies against so-called "moderate rebels," it has muted coverage of atrocities committed in turn by militants fighting the Syrian government and its people. These accounts are muted, because while they are technically "reported," the obvious nature of these atrocities is often glossed over - sometimes even spun or lionized - rather than presented in a the same straightforward manner accusations against Damascus are.

During Henningsen's interview with Duggan, the destructive and indiscriminate nature of improvised artillery systems used by terrorists in Syria was described. The narrative is one that equals any tale of "barrel bombs" employed by the Syrian government - perhaps even surpassing them - because while the Western media claims the Syrian government is using helicopters to drop ordnance into areas using direct line of sight, improvised artillery used by terrorists called "hell cannons" do not have direct line of sight to their targets.

This means that those using hell cannons have no way of knowing who, or even what they are hitting. They are blindly firing canisters full of deadly shrapnel - according to Western reports - up to a mile away.

The Daily Mail would describe the hell cannon as:

Firing improvised explosives with a range of around a mile, this is the homemade weapon of choice of the Free Syrian Army known as the 'hell cannon'.

The cannon has been widely used during the conflict in besieged cities such as Aleppo and usually fires out highly modified propane gas cylinders.
The hell cannon could only ever be used as an absolutely indiscriminate weapon. With no way to reliably aim it, and no way to know definitively where rounds are landing, the result is predictable mayhem brought upon government forces and innocent civilians alike. With the vast majority of those living down range from the terrorists' hell cannons being civilians, not soldiers, the likelihood of innocent people being maimed or killed by them is much higher.

For average readers of reports like the Daily Mail's, "Syrian rebels strike back with the HELL CANNON: Aleppo fighters build devastating homemade weapon that shoots propane gas cylinders," five minutes of critical thought will lead them to this conclusion.

Those operating among the West's media - trained in journalism and in reporting events - when writing articles like those appearing in the Daily Mail, are thus making the conscious decision to intentionally, maliciously, and continuously lie regarding the methods and means used by terrorists they repeatedly refer to as "moderate rebels." The double standards illustrated by the Daily Mail alone regarding "barrel bombs" versus "hell cannons" indicates concerted and serial attempts to misinform audiences and manipulate public perception.

Similar revelations are revealed during Henningsen's interview with Duggan regarding the terrorists' use of hospitals, schools, and mosques as military centers - knowing full well that any attempt by Damascus and its allies to target them would be politically exploited by their Western sponsors both from behind the podiums of public offices and within press rooms across the West.

Perhaps most ironic of all - is that US operations in Syria allegedly targeting terrorists, when hospitals, schools, and mosques are hit - produce admissions from across the Western media that - indeed - terrorists are using such facilities as military bases - admissions the Western media refused to make during the Syrian government's operations to retake cities like Homs, Hama, and Aleppo.

Keeping an Open Mind
For those attempting to make sense of Syria's ongoing conflict, or any other conflict being reported on by the Western media - the deep and concerted conspiracy that surrounded the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 alone should provide pause for thought before unquestioningly believing narratives produced from these same collection of Western media sources regarding other conflicts.

There are alternative organizations and media platforms operating in Syria, producing videos, audio interviews, and pages of information on a daily basis giving alternative insight into the conflict that people around the world can watch, listen to, and read. While no one is bound to believe Western or alternative narratives - for those genuinely pursing the truth - both need to be considered, researched, and vetted factually, rationally, and within a historical and logical context.

Narratives of a "humanitarian" motivated West seeking to end conflict and bring a brighter future to Syria simply does not add up in any context.

The special interests promoting regime change in Syria have a decades-long track record of deceiving the public, dividing and destroying nations, and leaving a path of destruction cutting across entire regions of the planet. While Western audiences are tempted to believe Western narratives regarding Syria in pursuit of US-backed regime change, nations like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine smolder in the ruination of Western military intervention. By adding up the big picture, it is clear that alternative media sources are providing invaluable insight into global conflict the Western media has systematically and intentionally covered up for years.

Shifting in the minds of the global public the perceived reputation of Western media organizations versus their demonstrated serial deceptions is the first step toward truly ending conflicts like that raging in Syria, and truly bringing peace and a better future to the people trapped within these conflicts.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-88479928696558404392017-05-23T03:31:00.004-07:002017-05-23T03:31:48.348-07:00Thailand: Award Winning Journalist Defends Hospital Bombing
May 23, 2017 The New Atlas

A bomb targeting a Bangkok military hospital and injuring 24 on the third anniversary of the 2014 military coup which deposed the government of Yingluck Shinawatra (sister of fugitive and former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra) was categorically condemned as "inhuman" by institutions both within Thailand and beyond.

Shinawatra's supporters including both the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) and Shinawatra's political party, Pheu Thai Party (PTP) have previously targeted hospitals as well as have deployed heavily armed violence amid their struggle to seize power and topple Thailand's independent institutions.

They are considered the most likely suspects behind Monday's attack.

However abhorrent, shockingly the violent act has been defended and excused. Among those providing such a defence comes from award-winning Thai journalist, Pravit Rojanaphruk.

As a tireless critic of Thailand's military, monarchy, courts and virtually all other aspect of Thai society, he has made a name for himself among US and European circles focused on leveraging human rights toward upending foreign centres of political power and replacing them with Western equivalents.

In this role, Pravit R. has been awarded "outstanding journalist" by the Sathirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation and received grants from the Canada-based International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development, the Reuters Fellowship and the Katherine Fanning Fellowship for Journalism and Democracy.

Pravit R. also is in regular contact with American and European diplomats, politicians and other representatives of interests dedicated to undermining Thailand's current political order.

In a recent statement regarding a bombing others have unconditionally condemned, Pravit R. offered a more conditional response:

The bombing inside military hospital in Bangkok shows that some people will not observe basic principles such as hospitals being conflict-free zone. The same can be said about people calling for regime change through coup instead of elections. Once a society no longer observes basic principles, it becomes lawless.

In other words, Pravit R. proposes that while bombing a hospital is bad, so is conducting a coup. It is an obvious, if oblique way to provide justification for the attack and assign indirect blame to the 2014 coup organisers regardless of who was actually behind the bombing.

Elections Do Not Equal Impunity, Coups Do Not Justify Terrorism

Pravit R.'s reference to "elections" omits the inconvenient reality that elections do not subsequently grant a government impunity from the law. Violations of the law by an elected government are handled by a nation's courts, not its electorate. In the lead up to the 2014 coup, that is precisely what transpired.

The Shinawatra government openly abused both its power and the democratic process in general. Yingluck Shinawatra's brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, openly campaigned for his sister in 2011 in direct violation of the law. He also openly and admittedly ran Yingluck Shinawatra's administration from abroad as a convicted criminal and fugitive and even openly held video conferences with Yingluck Shinawatra's cabinet to instruct and direct them.

Upon being accused, investigated and convicted of abuse of power, the Shinawatra government openly refused to recognise the court's verdict. With the courts being ignored and the police unable or unwilling to enforce the law due to Shinawatra's control over the national police force, the responsibility fell upon the military.

That Pravit R. never mentions this and frames Thailand's political crisis as a simple case of usurping democratic governance, it should come as no surprise that he is also obliquely defending terrorism, even if it targets hospitals.

It should be remembered that the Shinawatra government includes members of parliament who quite literally led a raid on a hospital in 2010, necessitating its temporary evacuation. That too was an act of terrorism targeting an institution deemed protected even amid war. Pravit R.'s insistence that a government composed of such MPs has a legitimate right to contest elections let alone take power in the wake of them betrays the ideological facade he and those like him have constructed to defend and promote Shinawatra, his political networks and the foreign interests sponsoring and benefiting from them.

It is safe to say that the awards and fellowships presented to Pravit R. were either grossly misplaced, or are intentionally designed to lend legitimacy to those who have none at all. In either case, Pravit R.'s attempt to excuse and deflect blame for terrorism targeting a hospital speaks volumes about Thailand's so-called "pro-democracy" opposition and goes far in explaining why the 2014 military coup was necessary in the first place.

The New Atlas is a media platform providing geopolitical analysis and op-eds. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Land Destroyerhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9180835006125162420.post-24740795431354524432017-05-22T04:28:00.004-07:002017-05-22T04:28:47.182-07:00US Strike on Syrian Forces: The Scramble for Post-Islamic State Syria
May 22, 2017 New Eastern Outlook

The recent strike on a Syrian military convoy within Syrian territory by US military forces represents another incremental escalation by Washington within the region, and another example of American unilateral military aggression worldwide.

The tactical scope of the attack was relatively limited, but strategically, the stakes particularly along Syria's territorial boundaries have been raised significantly.

Regarding the attack, US geopolitical analysts appear unanimous regarding the rhyme and reason behind it.

Foreign Policy magazine in a recent article claimed that the strike "showed American commanders are willing to use force to maintain de facto safe zones in the country's east." The article also attempts to claim these "safe zones" are being used to stand up forces to fight the Islamic State.

In reality, the Islamic State was a creation of the US and its regional allies and meant specifically to "isolate the Syrian regime," according to a 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency report.

Considering this, the Islamic State's presence in Syria and narratives depicting US efforts as being aimed at fighting the terrorist front are simply being used as rhetorical cover for the more obvious and original purpose of US intervention, regime change in Damascus.

By attacking Syrian forces and asserting US control over Syrian territory, Washington is attempting to permanently "isolate" Damascus even further.

The Atlantic was even more specific in its analysis.

It's article, "The Scramble for Post-ISIS Syria Has Officially Begun," states clearly:

[The strikes] sent a message that the area around the base—al-Tanf in southeastern Syria, near the borders with Iraq and Jordan—was an "American sphere of influence and area of operations."
The article also claimed:

Just as Assad and Iran look to be winning the ground war in Syria, the U.S. and its Syrian opposition partners in the south have intensified their own anti-ISIS activities, exerting more and more of an influence and presence in the south.

Of course, if "Assad and Iran" are poised to win the ground war in Syria, that includes the defeat of the Islamic State, which in theory would mean Washington should be augmenting Damascus and Tehran's efforts, not impeding them with military strikes that not only tactically setback forces fighting the Islamic State and other extremist groups, but also raises the risk of a wider regional war between Washington, Damascus, Tehran and even Moscow that would create more extremism, not less.

US is Using the Islamic State as a Pretext for Regime Change

In reality, however, Washington is not interested in defeating the Islamic State, but rather using the terrorist front's existence in Syria as a pretext for the incremental expansion of both its military presence in Syria and its use of military force directly against the government in Damascus where indirect methods (including the use of the Islamic State itself) have failed to topple it.

Still, both Foreign Policy and The Atlantic, along with many others within US foreign policy circles admit that these activities will only be useful in establishing "safe zones" along Syria's peripheries, not expedient regime change.

However, US policymakers have long planned to use such "safe zones" as starting points for a much more patient and long-term "deconstruction" of the Syrian nation-state. In fact, explicit plans to do so are included in a 2015 Brookings Institution report literally titled, "Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country."

Plans to "gradually expand" territory seized from Syria by US forces and its allies go back even further, to 2012, before the Islamic State even rose to prominence. Reports like Brooking Institution's March 2012 "Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change," reveal that US intentions are not to fight terror or an "Islamic State" that didn't even exist at the time, but simply to achieve "regime change."

The aforementioned articles from Foreign Policy and The Atlantic attempt to frame US operations in Syria as "anti-terrorist" in nature, only alluding to obvious attempts by the US to carve out and permanently hold Syrian territory before the conflict concludes.

The Atlantic even references Iranian claims of a "US plot' to establish a buffer zone in southern Syria 'to protect terrorists.'"

If, as the US admits, the Syrian government is engaged in combat operations against the Islamic State and other US designated terrorist organizations, then for what other purpose could these "safe zones" be used but to harbor terrorists who would otherwise be liquidated upon the conflict's conclusion in favor of the government in Damascus?

Acknowledging that nothing of the sort in regards to "moderate rebels" actually exists in Syria, what options would the US have regarding desired regime change upon the Islamic State and other extremist groups' liquidation? Thus, Iranian claims represent the most sober and realistic analysis included in The Atlantic's article.

The truth is fully revealed and reaffirmed with each and every US strike upon Syrian forces, that terrorism as it was in Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan, was likewise brought to Syria by the US for the explicit purpose of fighting a proxy war against Damascus and failing that, serving as a pretext for an enduring US military presence within the country and for direct US military aggression against the government in Damascus itself.

With the US currently sealing an unprecedented armament deal with Riyadh, noted by both US intelligence agencies and prominent US political leaders as one of the premier state sponsors of terrorism (including of both Al Qaeda affiliates and the Islamic State itself in Syria) in the world, claims that its military presence in Syria is aimed at "defeating the Islamic State" begs belief.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Land Destroyerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com