Adonis Diaries

Archive for December 15th, 2015

Divide and Conquer: Colonial strategy, Not different in Syria and Iraq

The October bombing of a Russian airliner above Sinai, followed quickly by the November Paris attacks, created a broad international consensus that the Islamic State (ISIS) is on the march and must be stopped.

The United States had acknowledged as much—at least rhetorically—over a year ago.

In September 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that the United States would seek to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the group, but cautioned that the campaign would be long and difficult. Indeed. (Until Syria is totally destroyed and ruined)

Unwilling to commit ground forces to topple the jihadist state, Washington settled on a gradual approach that involved a very limited application of force.

In fact, the pace of the U.S. strikes on ISIS was so slow that the attacks amounted to a strategy of containment. The limitations of such containment became all too clear in October and November.

The strategy had given ISIS time to consolidate its control, train terrorists, and embed operatives in Western countries. From the ruins of this failed strategy, the United States must craft something new and bold.

Karim A. Badra  shared this link. December 5 , 2015


The United States’ initial response to ISIS was shaped by its bitter experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama believed that his election gave him a clear mandate to extract the United States from the Middle East and, more generally, to reduce Washington’s reliance on force in foreign policy.

Notwithstanding his tepid participation in the intervention in Libya, the president has remained committed to retrenchment (watching from afar how its allied are performing the destruction of Syria and Iraq, oil fields, pipelines, infrastructure, bridges…)

Containment of the violence worked for a while, even as refugees put enormous strain on Syria’s neighboring states.  (How so? At what time violence was contained?

But after ISIS entered the picture, the strategy was no longer viable. American hopes of staying away from Middle Eastern conflicts faded; the plight of the Kurds and the genocide of the Yezidis led to a gradual increase in U.S. involvement in Iraq.

And then ISIS’ beheading of American journalists forced a reluctant president to expand the U.S. bombing campaign to Syria.

Migrants in Macedonia, November 27, 2015.

Washington’s main problem is that despite its commitment to defeating ISIS, such an outcome requires ground forces, which the United States has refused to provide. (Iraq and Syria have said that they do have these ground troops. What is the excuse again?)

Instead, Obama wants to limit the direct application of U.S. power, and empower allies to assume a greater share of the burden. In some locations, this strategy worked well. The United States found the Kurdish forces in Iraq and Syria to be reliable and highly capable allies.

They courageously blocked ISIS’ advance toward Erbil, (wrong. It was the Iranian. stop all these disinformation) the capital of the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq, rolled back ISIS forces from Kobani in Syria, and recently recaptured Sinjar in Iraq, thus cutting ISIS’ main supply line between its strongholds of Mosul and Raqqa.

But there is a limit to the usefulness of the Kurdish fighters. Operationally, they perform better in the highlands, but tend to be less effective the farther they get from their home turf.  (Why do they have tanks and armoured vehicles and Toyota designed and made for these warfare?)

In addition, they are already stretched thin, manning frontlines extending for hundreds of miles. (It is Turkey thinning their front lines and attacking them from the north)

The bigger problem is that the Sunni Arabs who live in ISIS-controlled territory do not welcome Kurdish forces as liberators. Even those who object to ISIS are likely to fear Kurdish expansionism and may join hands with ISIS to resist their advance.

Indeed, Kurdish victories in the Arab territories have already been met with accusations that the Kurds are trying to expand their control at the expense of the locals. Meanwhile, sectarian tensions would make relying on Shia forces in Iraq to capture ISIS land even more problematic.

The solution, former U.S. Secretary of States Hillary Clinton; former U.S. Ambassador in Iraq James Jeffrey; Hassan Hassan, the co-author of a bestselling book about ISIS, and many others have argued, must therefore be an indigenous Sunni force, similar to the Awakening Councils with which the United States partnered during the “surge” to beat the Islamic State of Iraq (before the group resurged to become ISIS). (What is this solution again? From these personalities who boast of creating these terror movements?)

This is an attractive yet untenable solution. In 2006, the United States had over 100,000 forces in Iraq that provided the Awakening Councils with direct assistance. ( The current Awakening Councils are no longer just the Sunni tribes, but every sect and tribe that have awakened to the strategy of the US for destabilizing their countries)

But today the United States has very little political clout in Iraq and not much muscle there either—only 3000 forces, most of whom are in training roles. Moreover, the Shia-dominated regime in Iraq is not going to relinquish control to allow an American–Sunni partnership. It has insisted that any assistance to the Sunnis must be channeled through Baghdad.

A more significant obstacle is that the Sunnis’ experience of the previous decade has taught them that American promises cannot be trusted.  (Unless they fit their strategy of degrading nations, like Yemen, Somalia, Libya…)

Washington’s promises for a more inclusive Iraq and the incorporation of the Awakening Councils’ members into Iraqi security forces were so blatantly ignored by the Iraqi government that the Sunnis’ distrust is fully justified. The assassination of numerous former Awakening members by the resurging ISIS in the years leading to the group’s 2014 blitzkrieg made the dangers of repeating the Awakening experience all too clear.

And even if Washington genuinely wanted to reward the Sunnis for their cooperation, it could not guarantee the fulfillment of its promises—particularly while remaining committed to preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria.

The situation is not much different in Syria. Sunni Arabs view Assad’s Alawite regime to be at least as threatening as ISIS, and watch Kurdish gains in previously Sunni-majority areas with apprehension. (That was before 2014, when all the Syrian and Iraqi social fabric got to feeling the reality of the US strategy)

Yet the United States continues to resist pressures to escalate its involvement in stopping Assad’s killing machine. U.S. insistence that the weapons it provides the rebels be directed only at ISIS is unacceptable to most Sunni fighters and has resulted in the resounding failure of the Pentagon’s “train and equip” program.

The few individuals that enrolled in the program and were sent back to Syria upon its completion were attacked by Jabhat al-Nusra. Some were killed; others were forced to relinquish their weapons. (Regurgitating what the US institutions feed the press)


The United States must accept that its current strategy is not working, despite Obama’s insistence, even after the Paris attacks that “We have the right strategy and we’re going to see it through.” ( like teaming up with the Russian vigorous intervention against All terror movements?)

The ISIS threat is too urgent to simply wait for the proto-state to collapse from within.  (Daesh has already transferred 800 of its fighters in Syria to the city of Sert in Libya, and as many in Yemen)

Slow progress in Iraq and Syria only increases the threat of terrorism abroad. Washington must also recognize that ever-greater burden sharing cannot substitute for deeper U.S. involvement. (Like what? Hiring the mercenaries of Prince and Canopy ground troops who were massacred in Bab Mandeb?)

Although members of the international community can be expected to strengthen their ability to thwart terrorist threats through more robust internal security and better international cooperation, the key to dealing with the threat is to quickly and effectively face ISIS in its strongholds in the Middle East. A new U.S. strategy must therefore focus on direct military intervention, while also creating conditions that will push Sunnis to support it and allow the United States to rapidly scale back its role. (Is that the bogus solution? Spending money that should be diverted to the 20% poor US citizens?)

U.S. willingness to contribute ground forces will encourage other Western states, primarily France, to contribute forces of their own. France’s willingness to considerably increase its involvement is important, but its added value is limited as long as it is restricted to airstrikes. On the ground however, American, French and other Western forces, with their superior skills and armament, could quickly overwhelm ISIS forces.

Working with indigenous Sunni forces will also be necessary because they possess greater knowledge of the enemy than their Western counterparts. Sunni troops will be even more important once ISIS forces are defeated and the emphasis shifts to peacekeeping operations. (Yes, as if you refuse to recognize their utter failure in Yemen, as part of the Saudi coalition?)

The only way to elicit indigenous support is by offering the Sunnis greater stakes in the outcome. That means proposing an independent Sunni state that would link Sunni-dominated territories on both sides of the border. Washington’s attachment to the artificial Sykes–Picots borders demarcated by France and Britain a century ago no longer makes sense. Few people truly believe that Syria and Iraq could each be put back together after so much blood has been spilled.

A better alternative would be to separate the warring sides. Although the sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias was not inevitable—it was, to some extent, the result of manipulation by self-interested elites—it is now a reality.

Offering Sunnis their own state could be the commitment they need to rise up against ISIS. (They already have their own State in Mosul. Cleansed of all other religious sect, and totally supported by Turkey and the USA, as the US strategy was exactly planned)

And although it would not be welcomed by all actors—primarily the Iraqi government in Baghdad—they could be persuaded that it is a better alternative than a never-ending war, and an ISIS threat that would continue to destabilize the region. The proposal has other advantages:

First, a Sunni state also means a state for Syria’s minorities—primarily the Alawites—alongside it, thus assuring their survival, while also allowing greater flexibility in addressing the sticking point of Assad’s future. (These plans were already tried during the French mandate in 1924-43 and the Syrians smashed it with their national reality)

Second, it would prompt greater involvement from Sunni states. The sectarian polarization throughout the Middle East makes it very difficult for the Sunni states to be seen as collaborating with Iran, the Shia regime in Iraq, and the Alawites in Syria. Those fears play into ISIS’ narrative that it is the only true defender of Sunnis and increase its threat to these regimes.

(This propaganda of sectarian infighting is already drowning and sinking and make no sense any more in the region. Even Saudi monarchy has admitted it and seeking a peace treaty in Yemen and anywhere it can negotiate a cease fire)

If, however, fighting against ISIS could be decoupled from the Sunni–Shia sectarian conflict, Sunni states might be persuaded to send ground forces to help dislodge ISIS from Raqqa and Mosul, which could replace Western troops after the initial battles and help local Sunnis build their new state.

Participating actors would still need to work out contentious details, such as boundaries, population transfer, division of natural resources, and rights of the minorities who remain in each of the states that would replace Syria and Iraq.

But the proposed solution provides a blueprint that could at last move the region and the West beyond the logjam that has prolonged the wars in both countries, increased the threat of terrorism worldwide, contributed to a refugee crisis, and intensified the rivalry between the United States and Russia. For the sake of international order and the interests of the United States, it is time for Washington to assume responsibility and realize Obama’s promise to destroy ISIS.

Note 1: This piece of disinformation is already outdated and the Russian/China (deep pocket) vigorous strategy has shredded all these infamous plans 
Read: Why the US, France and Britain are destroying Syria? Since Russia stepped up to the plate, suddenly western countries can’t wait to bomb ISIS.

Note 2: They know: Obama, Holland, Cameron, Merkel, Erdogan, the Saudi monarch, Netanyahu…
They all know that Bashar Assad will politically survive them all.
And it is killing them.
And Putin is making sure that all these leaders who created, funded, armed and supported terror movement will Not have any chance to gloat.
As the dust settle on a landscape of ruin, desolation, degraded social fabric, Putin and Syrians will have to start from scratch, head high, heart of lions, and not lacking skilled and hard manual workers.

Note 3: It is definitely sinking in Turkey Erdogan that his flatulent dream of the ancient empire is receding quickly by the day as the Syrian disaster is lengthening.
Turkey is being degrade economically, politically, militarily, morally and strategically (No investment on gas and oil pipelines crossing the country)
The last shot of occupying lands in Nineveh (Iraq) in order to reach a negotiated settlement with the Kurds in Irbil is putting the heat on the USA as well and will not generate any serious negotiation.
Iran is not about to let Turkey directly control Provinces in northern Iraq.
Turkey will come to negotiate a satisfactory peace settlement with the Kurds in Turkey and respect the autonomy of the Kurds in northern Syria.


Why the objective of US, France and Britain is to completely destroy Syria?

Since Russia stepped up to the plate, suddenly western countries can’t wait to bomb ISIS.

Are they now there to get the job done? Or are they there to stop Russia increasing its influence, and to make sure it doesn’t succeed where they failed?

The world is falling over itself to bomb Syria.

The Plan for a New American Century – a document which was created by neoconservative warmongers in or close to power under George Bush Jr. – listed countries which it wanted the US to attack, namely: North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria.

The site states: “[all were] pinpointed as enemies of the U.S. well before the illegal war in Iraq in 2003, as well as the illegal 2011 war in Libya and the ongoing proxy war in Syria.”

The following statement from Reuters summarizes the situation:

“Most of the world’s powers are now flying combat missions over Iraq and Syria against Islamic State. But any consensus on how to proceed has been thwarted by opposing policies over the 4-year-old civil war in Syria, which has killed 250,000 people, driven 11 million from their homes, left swathes of territory in the hands of jihadist fighters and defied all diplomatic efforts at a solution.”

Sam Gerrans posted this Dec. 5, 2015

While it may seem to the outside observer that this catalogue of mayhem is the result of incompetence, to me – on the contrary – it is evidence of things going to plan.

I have never seen a war the ruling elite clearly wanted to happen not happen.

Here, as in all other cases, there has been a bit of hand-wringing, some crying, some protests, some moving speeches. But like the morality plays of medieval times, after enjoying the sermon dressed as entertainment, life has inevitably carried on as normal with the barons raping and pillaging and everyone else having to put up with that reality.

Destruction of Syria is the plan

This time the plan – at least judging from the outcomes – is to destroy Syria.

Syria has been anathema to the self-appointed arbiters of righteousness: the ‘international community’, that coterie of hypocrites which arrogates to itself the monopoly on meting out death to those who won’t get with the program.

This group dislikes Syria which has had an uncompromising stance towards Israel and an independent financial system, and is using the chance to destroy it to flood Europe with refugees, thus further debasing the makeup of its constituent nations, and simultaneously justifying a lockdown in those countries.

Enter Putin

Everything was going swimmingly until Putin stepped in.

While many in the West who have grown jaundiced at the obvious usurpation of our governments by outside interests ascribe almost saint-like motivations to Putin, I do not. He is a superb strategist. Exactly what he is strategizing for is not clear yet.

What is clear is that his move into Syria threw a spanner in the works of a status quo the US was quite happy with: growing terrorism and mayhem in Syria and spreading nicely to Europe.

Assad himself said a few days ago to the BBC (courtesy of Czech Television) that ISIS was growing smaller after Russian bombing intervention whereas moves by other countries served only to strengthen ISIS and increase their recruitment.

He added: “The facts are telling.”

So what do the facts tell?

They tell us that Russia is the only country involved to date which has the removal of ISIS as an actual goal.

Russia is also the only country with a legitimate mandate under international law.

In addition, ISIS was most eloquently outed by author and journalist Gearóid Ó Colmáin on Russia Today as a US creation.

In this scenario, the reason for further western efforts in the region is looking increasingly like an attempt to prevent Russia from routing its assets or achieving the informational coup that would follow.

France and Britain milking the crises

The propaganda war is hotting up, with western press issuing unsubstantiated and emotional surmise as news.

Meanwhile, the French and the British are now, of course, bombing Syria.

At home, the French government not only voted to bomb but enacted ‘emergency’ powers at the same time. And Holland wants to change the constitution to extend these powers.

The Telegraph states:

“The draft “Protection of the Nation” bill […] would extend the right to strip French citizenship from dual nationals convicted of terrorism offences by also including people born in France.

It would also prolong certain powers after a state of emergency was lifted.

No time limit will be inscribed in the constitution under the new proposals. As is currently the case, parliament will decide how long a given state of emergency should last.”

This all looks so like a dictator’s wet dream, it takes an effort of will to believe it has not been planned this way.

And a man no less respected than Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, formerly Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has raised legitimate questions about the official line on the Paris attacks.

He says: “European peoples want to be French, German, Dutch, Italian, Hungarian, Czech, British. They do not want their countries to be a diverse Tower of Babel created by millions of refugees from Washington’s wars.

To remain a nationality unto themselves is what Pegida, Farage, and Le Pen offer the voters.

Realizing its vulnerability, it is entirely possible that the French Establishment made a decision to protect its hold on power with a false flag attack that would allow the Establishment to close France’s borders and, thereby, deprive Marine Le Pen of her main political issue.”

The same event, of course, justifies France’s bombing of Syria.

The British government for its part – despite some theatrical hand-wringing – has got on the bandwagon and opted to join in whatever further criminality the US has planned in Syria.

As though to justify the decision, the Telegraph breathlessly informs us that ISIS (or ISIL as it calls it) is planning to attack the UK “next”.

It says: “There are unconfirmed reports that Isil has decided that the next target of an attack will be Britain.

European security agencies, citing specific intelligence that had been obtained, stated that British Isil operatives in Syria and Iraq were being tasked to return home to launch an attack, CNN reported.”

This is the level of the propaganda now: CNN reports security agencies who say that a terrorist group whose name changes every five minutes might be sending members to Britain to do harm.

But this is unconfirmed.

The real reason for this war

I’m going to simplify things: the Plan for a New American Century – a document which was created by neoconservative warmongers in or close to power under George Bush Jr. – listed countries which it wanted the US to attack, namely: North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria.

The site states: “[all were] pinpointed as enemies of the U.S. well before the illegal war in Iraq in 2003, as well as the illegal 2011 war in Libya and the ongoing proxy war in Syria.”

Retired US General Wesley Clarke went on record in 2007 stating that the fix was in: the U.S. had unilaterally decided to destroy Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Why again?)

This is not some wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. Clarke was a four-star general, and the man who commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War during his term as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000.

The pretense of choice

Any objective assessment of who benefits from attacks upon the countries Clarke mentioned would not include any European country – or even the U.S. for that matter.

But the subtext is clear: if Europeans don’t want to take part, terrorist attacks will be allowed or contrived until they acquiesce.

In short: the ruling elite wants this war.

Our pretend governments voted it through on the nod. And we the people will have to deal with the fallout and put up with random terrorist acts if we wake up and speak out about how this charade is rigged.

At the same time, the people of Syria are subject to bombing raids by the US, France and the UK – none of which have any invitation from the legitimate government of that country – actions which, properly speaking, are acts of war against the country the perpetrators claim to want to help.

My prediction:

1. the clean-up operation Russia initiated and Assad approves of will be made to fail; (but will Not: the Syrians are the bravest of land armies and Putin has the will and the means. And never forget that it is China the deep pocket for Russia steadfastness)

2. terrorism will increase and spread into Europe;

3.mass immigration from Syria and that area to Europe will continue; and

4. acts of terrorism on European soil will magically justify endless war, internal lock-down, wholesale surveillance, detention without trial, and troops on the street.

And this – in the absence of hard evidence based in action to the contrary – I can only see as the actual plan.

Do you remember voting for that?

No, nor do I.

Note: A nation with No civilization wants a revenge on the hotbed of all civilizations.




December 2015

Blog Stats

  • 1,522,397 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 770 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: