Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Syria is a self-licking ice cream cone, just like Libya

Arm one side, then go to war against them; we cash in on both sides of the deal! Glenn Greenwald explains this exercise in conflict investment:

It was not even a year ago when we were bombarded with messaging that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a Supreme Evil and Grave Threat, and that military action against his regime was both a moral and strategic imperative. The standard cast of “liberal interventionists” –  Tony BlairAnne-Marie SlaughterNicholas Kristof and Samantha Power - issued stirring sermons on the duties of war against Assad. Secretary of State John Kerry actually compared Assad to (guess who?) Hitler, instructing the nation that “this is our Munich moment.” Striking Assad, he argued, “is a matter of national security. It’s a matter of the credibility of the United States of America. It’s a matter of upholding the interests of our allies and friends in the region.”

U.S. military action against the Assad regime was thwarted only by overwhelming American public opinion which opposed it and by a resounding rejection by the UK Parliament of Prime Minister David Cameron’s desire to assume the usual subservient British role in support of American wars.

Now the Obama administration and American political class is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the failed “Bomb Assad!” campaign by starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad – the very same side the U.S. has been arming over the last two years.

It’s as though the U.S. knew for certain all along that it wanted to fight in the war in Syria, and just needed a little time to figure out on which side it would fight. It switched sides virtually on a dime, and the standard Pentagon courtiers of the U.S. media and war-cheering foreign policy elites are dutifully following suit, mindlessly depicting ISIS as an unprecedented combination of military might and well-armed and well-funded savagery (where did they get those arms and funds?). Something very similar happened in Libya: the U.S. spent a decade insisting that a Global War on Terror – complete with full-scale dismantling of basic liberties and political values – was necessary to fight against the Unique Threat of Al Qaeda and “Jihadists”, only to then fight on the same side as them, and arming and empowering them.

Well, let's be reasonable. The prudent conflict investor will maximize his returns on all the options in his portfolio, and if one option is fighting another option, why then so much the better! It's a variation of "divide and conquer" used in this country, in domestic politics. I'm reminded pf Eric Berne's "Let's you and him fight" from Games People Play, although of course that's a category error, since nation states are not persons.

0
No votes yet
Updated: 

Comments

Jay's picture
Submitted by Jay on

Also a potentially self-licking ice cream cone if you are in the oil business and need to scare up the price of oil to make the increasingly expensive Bakken fields a going concern, or an investment banker on the futures market with a heads-up from the White House "doing God's work" riding oil futures up and shorting them down, making money with greater volatility momentum. Why is the White House so furious with Egypt and UAE for bombing Libya? Wasn't in the script for US markets opening. Lots of hinky market manipulation going on, not unlike precious metals and FX markets.

Submitted by lambert on

Indeed, we are maxing out on the hink these days.

The elite really need to stop backstabbing each other....