Immoral plans rely on complicity for mutual benefit which inherently implies a willingness to be silent. Or cooperation by and for the greater good of the corporations, military industrial complex, banks, global construction companies etc., In yesterday’s post, Double Standards and Lies: Splitting Syria for Greater Kurdistan, I stated:
“Actually the plan is to destroy 4 countries for Greater Kurdistan aka Israel 2.0. Donald Trump is playing right along with this plan- Israel just can’t wait for it to all fall in place. I’ll talk that up tomorrow.”
So here we are, tomorrow has become today, so let’s talk.Trump has a strategy for destroying ISIS — and it's workingSure, if by destroying ISIS one means.....destroying nation states - creating new one out of the blood & ashes of the destroyed state-expanding human misery, exponentially, via the increased human, drug and organ trafficking operations, massive ethnic cleansing and people displacement- destruction of families and societies- destruction of the environment etc., Because that is what “destroying ISIS” is really all about for the US and Israel.
The White House may not yet have formally agreed on an anti-Islamic State strategy, but their incremental choices are adding up to a coherent approach that departs from the Obama approach in four important ways.
floor framing on foundation- with more to comeI don’t see Trumps approach being a departure from the Obama’s. Rather, what I see is an expansion of the approach. Obama built the foundation for fighting ISIS and now the Donald is building the structure atop that foundation. It’s not a change it’s building, up. To yet another Trump Tower- Construction being Trump’s business.The 4 ways
First, they are prioritizing speed. President Obama’s strategy envisioned a years long campaign to defeat ISIS. While that approach had the advantage of affixing responsibility for outcomes on the countries of the region and incentivized them to develop the governing capacity essential to stabilizing the territory once regained, it paid the very steep price of humanitarian disaster for Iraqis and Syrians in ISIS’s control, escalating pressure on surrounding governments taking in refugees and buffeted by violence, decimation of moderate opposition within Syria, further radicalization within Western societies, and disaffection for our efforts by publics in the region. As Tillerson said, “Our end goal in this phase is the regional elimination of ISIS through military force.” The choices President Trump has made are dramatically picking up the pace of operations. So much so that some have begun to worry we will be the victims of battlefield success, winning before we have stabilization alliances and forces in place.
Second, they are committing the U.S. to a long-term involvement
Yup, there’s that occupation I mentioned yesterday!
By contrast, Mattis and Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford both said flat out in congressional testimony that unlike the Obama administration’s accelerated withdrawal from the region, after ISIS fight concludes, the U.S. would leave troops in Iraq for a long period of time. Signaling our commitment to outcomes rather than imposing arbitrary timelines is a significant change in approach, one providing desperately needed assurance to those who share our objectives.
Those who share ‘our objectives’ That would be Israel and the PKK
Third, they are clear about the priority being assisting the countries we want to win the wars now underway. They have unambiguously chosen a side in the fight. And while that will create qualms among many about the domestic and warfighting choices of those countries, strategy is impossible without setting priorities. Stable states working with us to stamp out terrorism is this administration’s priority for the Middle East. As Tillerson said at the coalition meeting, “When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. We must continue to keep our focus on the most urgent matter at hand.”
Yes, the US has unambiguously chose a side. They chose terrorists in the PKK. The chose Israel. They have chosen to work against Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey and Iran- which takes us to the fourth important way
Fourth, they are laying the foundation for an anti-Iran coalition once ISIS problem has been solved. The pivot to pushing back on Iran may come as an unwelcome surprise to the NATO allies and others gathered around Tillerson in Washington last week, but it is a shrewd positioning. And another way to describe shrewd positioning is good strategy.
Obama was already working on destabilizing Iran. I've covered that in a number of older posts.Trumps going to continue building on Obama’s foundation.Destroying ISIS = Pushing back on Iran?Brookings Institute:6 elements to push back on Iran
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017, Martin Indyk testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on "U.S. strategy toward Iran."
1-Rigorous enforcement of the Iran nuclear deal. 2-Support for the Iraqi governmentof Haider al-Abadi - Sounds nice, but, it isn’t “Providing an effective counter-balance to Iran’s influence in Baghdad” What does that mean?3-Promotion of a political resolution of the civil war in Yemen.- What would that include?A political resolution would only be offered after gain battlefield advantage“Gains on the battlefield should impact the dynamics at the negotiating table. In that regard, a successful effort to take control of the Red Sea port of Hodeida could impact the Houthi calculus and lead to greater seriousness and reasonableness on their part in the negotiations”4- Reduce Iran’s influence in Syria. 5- Concert the capabilities of our regional allies in a regional security framework that can sustain a long-term, burden-sharing effort6-Lay the foundations for negotiations with Iran about its ambitions and behavior in the region. Countering Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions is a deadly serious business. In pursuing this objective, we should be careful about making threats unless we are prepared to back them up, and we should be wary of declaring objectives that we have neither the will nor interest to achieve
Destroying ISIS means laying an anti Iran foundation plus pushing back on Iran?I opened this post by explaining exactly what it means to "destroy ISIS"
Sure, if by destroying ISIS one means.....destroying nation states - creating news one out of the blood and ashes of the destroyed state-expanding human misery, exponentially, via the increased human, drug and organ trafficking operations, massive ethnic cleansing and people displacement- destruction of families and societies- destruction of the environment etc.,
And I don't think I was mistaken!!!OH and one last thing! Assad ‘hindrance to moving forward’
NEW YORK: US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, said on Wednesday that Syria’s President Bashar Assad is a “big hindrance in trying to move forward” to find an end to the country’s six-year conflict.“I’m not going to go back into should Assad be in or out, been there, done that, right, in terms of what the US has done,” she told the Council of Foreign Relations. “But I will tell you that he is a big hindrance in trying to move forward, Iran is a big hindrance in trying to move forward.”