Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Tuesday, 16 February 2016

RUSI boss: WAR is GOOD

RUSI boss Michael Clarke writes in the Guardian hoping for more war in Syria; comments are clearly slipping past the overworked Guardian mods from readers not entirely convinced by the pro-pipeline arguments. Clarke writes
Militarily, the Saudi threat issued at Munich has to be made credible. If a ceasefire does not materialise soon, the Russians, Iranians and Assad himself have no incentives to quit while they are ahead. Only the possibility of Arab ground forces, from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE, heavily backed by western logistics and intelligence, air power and technical specialists, could force Assad and his backers to make a strategic choice in favour of cessation. Only the US could make that work for the Saudis and others – and only Britain could bring along other significant European allies.
Clarke is clearly hoping that a ceasefire breaks down, and bugger the pain, devasatation, death and tsunami of migrants caused by the UK and its allies prolonging the war. Comments have slipped past the Guardian mods including
"Until now we were being fed the line that ISIS was the biggest evil since the days of Lucifer himself! Now the poor souls at the the Guardian (and other papers) have to back peddle double time, redeem ISIS's image and pin all their blame one some other sod. Just imagine if you were asked to carry out this thankless task! I wonder when these poor journalists will start quitting enmass?"

"I've heard that Europe and the US wanted to build a pipeline through Syria to avoid having to buy gas from Russia. Assad, being a client of Russia, stood in the West's way. And so we funded the Syrian uprising to kick out Assad and put in some western stooge. It hasn't gone as planned. "

"It is interesting that we have gradually seen al-Qaeda/al-Nusra Front recaterorized from terrorists to not-so-bad and it looks like ISIS is in for the same treatment."

"I never realised The Guardian was such a warmongering newspaper.
Mr Clarke, are you serious??"

"There is absolutely no reason to believe that by retaking Syria, a vengeful Assad back in control of a broken country. It can only be better as things stand now. Syria intends to rebuild its country. The West should go along there is no better options than support Russia's lead in this matter. The US might do and it is not a weakness, that would actually be wise and mature. The loose cannon is Turkey now and a major concern to the region 's stability. And Britain should stay away, as France for they are direct protagonists of the unrest in Syria."


Farkhem Hall said...


President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning.

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria. President Putin (bad, as he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So, a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except Corbyn who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that mad ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (doh!).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

This should clear it all up for you.

Just so you know - I am not taking any questions on this subject!

Oldrightie said...

No questions asked, good. Questioning the bad West is bad. Since only America is wholly good and blameless. Never, not once in history has America bombed a hospital or carried out a Mi Lai massacre. No way can America ever have been or ever will be bad.

That or in the present day they are the "baddest" of them all! Which would make them perfect allies for Erdogan.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for clearing that up for me!! I was a little confused before...

Anonymous said...

Really, going back to the original question.

Why did 'they' the hawks, particularly western leaders in Merkel, Obama, Cameron and Hollande encourage Syrian Sunnis to rise up against al Assad? Were 'they' pushed, exhorted and wound up to it by the madmen Sunni Klan running the KSA and Qatar, Abu Dhabi et al?

Pipeline claims aside, this was and is now, a clash of tribes between Sunni and Shia, this conflict was never about the hopes, autonomy and aspirations of the country of Syrians. For the Saudis and Turks, it was about putting their puppets (bloody Sunni madmen) in charge of the land known as Syria.

It still comes down to preferences, does it not?

On one hand, do the perpetually myopic thick bastards who pretend to be in charge of affairs in western countries see Bashar al Assad hegemony as preferable?

Where, on the other hand, to what could be the future of Syria - run by some knot of blood crazed killers high on amphetamines and the prospect of gaining enough power to be able to rape every girl or young boy in the Levant and worse than that expand their filthy code.

If it is to the latter, then, allow Saudi and Turks to get on with it thus will cause something far worse. A causation to bring about a wider scale conflict because Iran who would not stand idly by spectating if the Turks and Saudis dictate the war - and that would also draw in Southern Iraqi militias.

Or, do we allow the Syrian army backed by Iran and the Russians to get on with the job of clearing out the pestilential al Qaeda and then diseased nutters of ISIS, the best and ONLY chance of restoring some sort of peace to the region?

I know which one Israel prefers.

What choice does the west, tend to?

And in Britain's case or should I say Cameron and his team of civil servant advisers 'the pro Wahhabi Araby fuckwits' - just stay the fuck out of the way.

mikebravo said...

Anon 09:26

"Why did 'they' the hawks, particularly western leaders in Merkel, Obama, Cameron and Hollande encourage Syrian Sunnis to rise up against al Assad? Were 'they' pushed, exhorted and wound up to it by the madmen Sunni Klan running the KSA and Qatar, Abu Dhabi et al?"

Because the USA demands it.

Hillary Clinton said on September 13, 2001: "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Any western nation that does not want to incur the wrath of the USA does exactly what it is told to. The USA has its full spectrum dominance plan and nobody is going to stand in the way of the psychopaths who run the George Bush Centre For Intelligence.

They want their gas pipeline and to strangle the Russians at the same time.

Anonymous said...

mikebravo - so nothing to do with Israel then?

If you want to see who sets the US agenda, look at who runs America. It isn't the Sikhs.

mikebravo said...


Not really relevant is it? Also somewhat of a distraction.

It is US policy no matter where it emanates from.

Cascadian said...

"Only the US could make that work for the Saudis and others"-correct

"and only Britain could bring along other significant European allies"-don't think so, and anyway what could the EU possibly contribute? I have an idea-deploy the Euro rapid reaction force-snicker.

No mention of NATO which is key to both statements.

All-in-all very poor analysis, which is what one expects these days.

I see Merkel is calling for a no-fly zone in Syria, laughable, Syria is already a no-fly zone for NATO courtesy of the Russians. Why would Russia give up their advantage to avoid Europe's/USA embarrassing non-competence?

Is anyone willing to review the former Yugoslavia debacle and perhaps admit Milosevic was right? The EU and USA as usual were wrong, and we are supposed to listen to these insufferable jokers.

Anonymous said...

Putin is the new Hitler, or didn't you know?

Yesterday's Grauniad was a hoot too, with Project Fear's 2IC Phillip Hammond reported as saying: "Putin could end Syrian war with one phonecall.."


Phillip Hammond’s claim is an astounding piece of double-talk. Because the West could end the war in Syria just as easily, but don’t expect the British Foreign Minister to elaborate on that particular point.

All the West has to do to end the conflict is end support for its proxies — the so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition forces — but that isn’t going to happen. The West isn’t going to accept responsibility for prolonging the war in its efforts to oust Syrian President Assad. Just as it once refused to accept responsibility for arming Saddam Hussein.

So instead Western politicians like Hammond are trying to shift the blame onto Putin. Thereby moving the focus of attention away from the desperate efforts of their proxies to oust President Assad.

Over the past few decades the West’s foreign policy has been based on disinformation and downright lies. With the assistance of a compliant corporate media we’ve been fed stories about Saddam’s WMD, to justify the Iraq invasion, stories about bin Laden hiding in Afghanistan, which rationalised the 2001 invasion, and now stories about the “moderate Syrian opposition”.

This latest episode of Western adventurism is being carried out through proxies because the Western public would be unlikely to approve their armies engaged in another war after Iraq and Afghanistan. At least not without an immediate readily identifiable threat, although this is being cultivated in the form of Islamic State (ISIL, ISIS or Daesh).

Instead the so-called “moderate Syrian opposition” are being bankrolled by Saudi Arabia and there is often little to differentiate them from Sunni extremists opposed to President Assad.

Nor is there any guarantee that IF those opposition forces do succeed in ousting Assad they won’t suddenly transform into adherents of radical Islam.

With Russian and Iranian intervention that now seems unlikely, for now at least, but that doesn’t mean the West and its allies won’t give up trying.


Anonymous said...

As a big fan of the late Benny Hill, cannot all the occupants of that benighted country all be called "Syria Irriots"?