According to this Zero Hedge piece, Putin is starting to step up his support for his ally, Assad.
Ostensibly, the Russians are there to fight ISIS. This is a good thing, and necessary, given the West's tepid, mostly verbal resistance to ISIS.
One gets the feeling that Obama's (i.e., Jarrett's) strategy all along has been to overthrow the stable order in the Middle East and give control to the Muslim radicals like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State.
Prior administrations preferred stability and the status quo. Bush was rhetorically crucified for overthrowing Saddam and, to a lesser extent, the Taliban in Afghanistan to destabilize the area around Iran. I still tend to think, initially, the intent was to foment revolution in Iran. Twelve or thirteen years ago, I figured we were planning an invasion of Iran, at least via Spec Ops and/or drones, maybe take out some mullahs. Because of Iran's relationship with Russia, a full-on invasion might have been a problem.
What is being implied in the article is that ISIS grew out of the western support for the anti-Assad rebels, a group that may have been getting arms through their brother militants in Libya. Now, a most interesting situation develops:
The Ukraine mess was probably a huge mistake on the part of the Obama regime and the NATO countries. Destabilizing the Middle East is no better an idea for Obama than it was for Bush.
If only I could believe in conspiracy theory rather than the innate stupidity and hubris of the ruling class, crap like this would be so much easier to explain. What I can believe is that there is a lot of maneuvering behind the scenes, that nothing it what it appears to be, that it is all a great, bloody stupid game.
Ostensibly, the Russians are there to fight ISIS. This is a good thing, and necessary, given the West's tepid, mostly verbal resistance to ISIS.
One gets the feeling that Obama's (i.e., Jarrett's) strategy all along has been to overthrow the stable order in the Middle East and give control to the Muslim radicals like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State.
Prior administrations preferred stability and the status quo. Bush was rhetorically crucified for overthrowing Saddam and, to a lesser extent, the Taliban in Afghanistan to destabilize the area around Iran. I still tend to think, initially, the intent was to foment revolution in Iran. Twelve or thirteen years ago, I figured we were planning an invasion of Iran, at least via Spec Ops and/or drones, maybe take out some mullahs. Because of Iran's relationship with Russia, a full-on invasion might have been a problem.
What is being implied in the article is that ISIS grew out of the western support for the anti-Assad rebels, a group that may have been getting arms through their brother militants in Libya. Now, a most interesting situation develops:
... not only has Putin not turned his back on Assad, or Syria, but the Russian reinforcements are well on their way. Reinforcements for what? Why to fight the evil Islamic jihadists from ISIS of course, the same artificially created group of bogeyman that the US, Turkey, and Saudis are all all fighting. In fact, this may be the first world war in which everyone is "fighting" an opponent that everyone knows is a proxy for something else.
The Ukraine mess was probably a huge mistake on the part of the Obama regime and the NATO countries. Destabilizing the Middle East is no better an idea for Obama than it was for Bush.
If only I could believe in conspiracy theory rather than the innate stupidity and hubris of the ruling class, crap like this would be so much easier to explain. What I can believe is that there is a lot of maneuvering behind the scenes, that nothing it what it appears to be, that it is all a great, bloody stupid game.
No comments:
Post a Comment