US-Armed Syrian Opposition "Surrenders" to Al Qaeda?

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
November 18, 2014

Al Qaeda affiliates are suddenly now Islamic State (ISIS) affiliates, and entire groups of militants the US has been arming, funding, and training are "surrendering" to Al Qaeda, bringing along with them a large number of US weapons. Is this a failure of US foreign policy? Or is this simply a rhetorical means to explain away what appears to be an immense army of extremists the US is once again building up to direct at one of its enemies, just as it did in Afghanistan in the 1980's? 

Al Qaeda Morphs into ISIS

In late September, just in time to aid the US in its fumbling justification for bombing Syria, terrorists allegedly beheaded a French tourist kidnapped in the North African nation of Algeria. The timing, as with previous ISIS executions, was impeccable, lending maximum propaganda value, not to the terrorist organization, but to the United States which has utilized each grisly murder as a means for direct and continued military intervention on both sides of the Syrian-Iraqi border. 

The BBC in their article, "French hostage Herve Gourdel beheaded in Algeria," would report that: 

The beheading, the spokesman says, is to "avenge the victims in Algeria... and support the caliphate" proclaimed by IS in Iraq and Syria.

Jund al-Khilafa (Soldiers of the Caliphate) pledged allegiance to IS on 14 September. 

Until then it had been known as part of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which grew out of an Algerian militant group and is now active across North and parts of West Africa.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, was directly associated with terrorist groups armed and backed by NATO in the 2011 invasion and bombardment of Libya in efforts to overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi in Tripoli. 

Putin Exposes Criminal Global Order

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
October 26, 2014

Russian President Vladimir Putin, before an international audience, exposed an international order capitalizing on the end of the Cold War to reshape the world according to its own interests, sidelining concepts such as basic international relations, international laws, systems of checks and balances, and even the very concept of national sovereignty itself. Amid President Putin's speech, he would condemn the United States' support for neo-fascists, terrorists, and its contempt for national sovereignty around the world.

The West's Rebuttal 

Curious language accompanied the New York Times' account of the Valdai International Club discussion in the Black Sea coastal region of Sochi, Russia in front of which President Putin spoke. In an article titled, "Putin Accuses U.S. of Backing ‘Neo-Fascists’ and ‘Islamic Radicals’," the NYT attempts to portray President Putin's statements about US support for neo-fascists and terrorists as merely baseless accusations.

The NYT claims, "instead of supporting democracy and sovereign states, Mr. Putin said during a three-hour appearance at the conference, the United States supports “dubious” groups ranging from “open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.”" The NYT would also report, "“Why do they support such people,” he asked the annual gathering known as the Valdai Club, which met this year in the southern resort town of Sochi. “They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals, but then burn their fingers and recoil.”"

It is difficult to understand why the NYT attempts to portray this statement as particularly controversial, or as a "diatribe," as the Times puts it, rather than a factual, timely, and necessary observation.

Blowback Blackwater-Style

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
June 30, 2014

When we think about the term "blowback," we think of the rogues gallery of foreign mercenary forces the United States has created or exploited over the decades who invariably end up turning on their creators. The most prominent among these is Al Qaeda who, legend tells, was created in the Afghan mountains by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to fight the Soviet Union in the 1980's. Flush with cash and weapons, this Al Qaeda would go from lauded freedom fighters to America's preeminent global enemy, conveniently replacing the Soviet Union as the "free world's" new arch enemy as the Soviet Union collapsed.

Other "blowbacks" in the making include the terrorist forces the United States, many in Europe, and the Persian Gulf monarchies have created in their quest to reorder such nations as Libya, Syria, and now apparently Iraq. Time Magazine's mid-July 2014 issue includes a story titled literally, "Blowback," claiming, "with thousands of Westerners fighting for Islamist groups in Syria and Iraq, a foreign jihad no longer seems so distant, and officials fear that some of these fighters may eventually return radicalized by their experience - and ready to bring their war home."

A US & Filipino Front Vs. China

New Eastern Outlook 

Ulson Gunnar 

May 13, 2014

The reversal of longstanding policy preventing the US from using Filipino territory for military bases signifies and escalation in tensions between the United States and China, as well as exposes the true nature of the US "pivot" toward Asia. 

US troops returning to the Philippines signals an attempt by Washington to reassert itself in the Pacific against growing regional powers, China chief among them. (AFP) 

The Guardian in its article, "Philippines agrees to 10-year pact allowing US military presence," states that, "the United States and the Philippines have reached a 10-year pact that would allow a larger US military presence in this south-east Asian nation as it grapples with increasingly tense territorial disputes with China, White House officials said on Sunday." The article would go on to claim that the move seeks to "deter China's increasingly assertive stance in disputed territories" but that it could "encourage China to intensify its massive military buildup." 

For many geopolitical analysts, the move comes as no surprise. The "pivot" toward Asia, while promoted as America's attempt to reengage in the region diplomatically, was in fact nothing more than an attempt for the US to reassert itself as a hegemonic power against a rising China. The encirclement of China with a bloc of pro-Western Southeast Asian regimes has been the cornerstone of US policy in Asia for decades. 

Containing China: America's Ongoing Project 

As early as 1997, US policy makers were articulating a means of containing China's rise. One such policy maker, Robert Kagan, stated in his 1997 op-ed, "What China Knows That We Don't: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment," that, "the choice we face is not between containment and engagement, but between an ineffective, unconscious, and therefore dangerous containment -- which is what we have now -- and a conscious and consistent containment that effectively deters and ultimately does change China."

Kagan and other US policy makers' desire to "change China," includes the political reordering of the country within through covert subversion and the fueling of violent separate movements along its peripheries, as well as the military encirclement of China abroad. The recent pact between the Philippines and the US, giving American military might a new foothold in the Pacific, represents one of many attempts to encircle China. 

To understand this encirclement deeper, one must read through the 2006 US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute's report titled, "String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising Power Across the Asian Littoral." The 36 page report details the geopolitical and strategic background within which this latest pact between the Philippines and the US was signed. 

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...

The Corporate Colonization of Afghanistan

New Eastern Outlook 

Ulson Gunnar 

April 9, 2014 

A recent TIME Magazine article featured the “US NGO” Roots for Peace, which it portrayed as a victim of a regrouping Taliban bent on subjugating a newly “democratized” Afghanistan. This organization, funded by the US State Department and USAID, claims to be turning “battlefields into bountiful orchards.” But a lack of transparency makes it unclear as to just how they are doing this. With USAID using “aid” to usher in the corporate colonization of Afghanistan through other “NGOs,” its involvement with Roots for Peace raises warranted suspicions.

Already, the War in Afghanistan has given agricultural monopolies like Monsanto a multi-million dollar foothold in the landlocked Central Asian country. As part of efforts to eradicate poppy cultivation across the country, the United States insisted that Kabul sidestep health studies and sign off on an unpopular plan to spray millions of dollars worth of Monsanto’s “RoundUp” glyphosate herbicide across Afghanistan’s countryside. It should be noted that before NATO’s intervention in Afghanistan in 2001, poppy cultivation was nearly eradicated under the Taliban.

In addition to fears that the mass spraying of Afghanistan’s countryside could negatively impact the health of the Afghan people, there were also fears that licit crops could also be destroyed, leaving farmers with failed harvests, anger, and a willingness to further align themselves with armed tribesmen, including the Taliban.

For America’s overarching plan, the eradication of licit crops alongside poppy was ideal. That is because while Monsanto RoundUp herbicide was to be sprayed indiscriminately over the heads of Afghans, its genetically modified, RoundUp Ready terminator seeds were to be sown beneath their feet. The Nutrition and Education International (NEI), a front set up by Western agricultural monopolies, set out to replace Afghanistan’s traditional crops with both Monsanto’s genetically engineered RoundUp Ready soybeans, as well as copious amounts of RoundUp ready herbicide.

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...

Afghan Elections & the Myth of Progress

New Eastern Outlook 

Ulson Gunnar 

April 9, 2014 

Elections held this week in Afghanistan, while highly publicized as a showpiece in NATO’s lengthy intervention, will most likely not only achieve very little, but may be the first in a series of steps the nation undergoes as it slips back into regression and darkness. NATO’s inability to establish security even in Afghanistan’s urban centers bodes ill for whatever government takes over in Kabul, particularly as Western troops prepare to permanently withdraw.

Promises of a “democratic tomorrow”are more likely to be replaced at best with an uncomfortable, and perhaps only temporary accommodation between rural tribesmen (including the Taliban) and the new government in Kabul. In time, as rural tribesmen redirect resources from their fight with NATO’s departing troops, and against whichever government presides in Kabul, that accommodation may inevitably lead to a “Taliban” government once again ruling Afghanistan.

When Superficiality Becomes “Progress” 

The elections were praised by the UN and United States. The Washington Post in particular claimed it was a “milestone” particularly for Afghan women who were able to both vote and appear on the ballot. However, the Washington Post’s piece, “Afghan women make election strides,” is suspiciously short for such a supposedly historical breakthrough. Its brevity is due to the fact that any historical examination of women’s social progress in Afghanistan, or any social progress for that matter, would reveal Afghanistan not as a nation finally emerging for the first time into the light of modernization, but instead a nation mired in decades of darkness as the direct result of Western interference during the 1980s.

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...

US Ambassadors: Diplomats or Agitators?

New Eastern Outlook 

Ulson Gunnar 

April 3, 2014 

A diplomat is defined as "a person who represents his or her country's government in a foreign country: someone whose work is diplomacy," while diplomacy is considered, "the work of maintaining good relations between the governments of different countries." This is with the avoidance of arousing hostility kept particularly in mind. An ambassador, the highest ranking diplomat representing their respective nation while living in another country, should therefore be exceptionally skilled in diplomacy.

An agitator on the other hand is considered by definition "a person who tries to get people angry or upset so that they will support an effort to change a government." A diplomat and agitator would appear to be polar opposites pursuing opposing agendas while using opposing means and methods. But apparently American politics find accommodation for both within a single job description. 

The parting shots of China's establishment reflected resentment over the machinations US Ambassador Gary Locke helped facilitate during his 2 year stint in Beijing. The Chinese paper, The Global Times, reported in its article, "US Ambassador to China to step down," specifically that, "amid the applause Locke won from the public praising his style, heated debates stirred as adverse voices arose saying Locke making a show was an American plot to stir citizens' resentment of their own leaders." 

Locke's "style" was that of a modest man "of the people," hinging on widely publicized images of him carrying his own luggage and ordering his own coffee at the airport upon his arrival. It was a playact designed intentionally by Washington script writers to stand in contrast to the perception that China's leadership is opulent and out of touch with the Chinese people. In reality, Locke has well above average annual income in America and many times more than the average Chinese citizen. He holds millions of dollars in assets and is ranked as one of the richest executive branch officials in the United States, according to the South China Morning Post.

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...

US Expels Syrian Diplomats – Dangerous Desperation in the Air

New Eastern Outlook
Tony Cartalucci
March 19, 2014

The United States has officially told the Syrian government to immediately suspend its diplomatic and consular missions in the country, and ordered its diplomats to leave the country if they are not US citizens.

 

“We have determined it is unacceptable for individuals appointed by that regime to conduct diplomatic or consular operations in the United States,” US special envoy for Syria, Daniel Rubinstein, said in a statement issued on Tuesday.

 

The move is suspected by many to be in retaliation for the permanent reversal of fortunes for US-backed militants operating inside of Syria, and perhaps the prelude to an act of Western aggression in response to other geopolitical loses elsewhere, including Crimea.

 

West Arrives at a Dangerous Turning Point 

 

It was a turbulent week for Western hegemons. First the teetering regime they thrust into power in Kiev, Ukraine was exposed globally as led by armed Neo-Nazis. Next, the people of Crimea fled en masse via a referendum that overwhelming chose for the strategic peninsula to join with Russia rather than be left subjected to the Western-backed fascists occupying Kiev.

 

The West’s response was impotent sanctions quickly brushed off by both the Russians and Ukrainians they targeted, with military posturing by both NATO and their new regime in Kiev also appearing feckless and altogether desperate.

 

And finally, in Syria, a complete reversal of fortunes for the Western-orchestrated bloodbath, now in its third year, culminated in Syrian forces retaking the pivotal city of Yabroud, northwest of Damascus and very near the Lebanese-Syrian border.

 

The retaking of Yabroud seemed perhaps a greater symbolic victory than a strategic one – and strategically, it was a very important victory. It is yet another step in stemming the flow of foreign militants, weapons, and cash into Syria, effectively isolating militants within the country to be sweep away by the Syrian Arab Army. Symbolically, it represents the irreversible momentum gained by the Syrian government and its security forces in retaking the country and restoring order within and along its borders.

 

In light of this reversal, one that has been ongoing since the beginning of 2013, Saudi Arabia has now apparently abandoned or at the least reduced its extraterritorial involvement in Syria, meaning Western attempts to geopolitically and economically reorder Syria while stripping neighboring Iran and Lebanon of an important ally have been all but effectively ended.

 

For the West, who has enjoyed global hegemony for so long, the slipping away of its power and prestige – all based on the illusion of its strength – leaves the world facing a dangerously desperate entity willing to do anything to reestablish that illusion. The sitting heads of state across the West, including, and perhaps most symbolically, US President Barack Obama, endlessly creating “red lines” the world boldly walks across exemplifies just how diminished that illusion is.

 

An example must be made, and with the expulsion of Syrian diplomats from the US, that example may be Syria.

 

Striking Syria Will Be the Ultimate Act of Weakness 

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...

US Exit Strategy in Afghanistan Shadows 1989 Soviet Withdrawal

New Eastern Outlook
Martin Harris
March 18, 2014

On the twenty fifth anniversary of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Taliban have likened the success of the holy war fought against the Soviets to the “jihad” now forcing the United States and its allies out of Afghanistan. While it remains unclear how post US involvement in Afghanistan will compare to what followed the Soviet occupation in 1989, there are important parallels that can be drawn from the experience of both former Cold War rivals as they sought to cut their losses and withdraw from the so-called “graveyard of empires”. 

 

On December 27, 1979, after repeated calls for assistance by Kabul, the USSR entered Afghanistan in order to stabilize the country’s fledgling communist government. Supported by an estimated 80,000 troops, the operation was completed in just two days and marked the Soviet Union’s largest foreign military intervention since the Second World War.

 

But within just the first year, the Soviets recognized that the situation was not going well. Babrak Karmal, the Afghan president who Moscow installed following the invasion, had proved ineffective. Desertions within the Afghan National Army were rampant and the Soviets found themselves engaging a growing constellation of rebel groups amid rising causalities.

 

The arrival of Soviet Primer Mikhail Gorbachev in the Kremlin coincided with a growing stalemate on the ground, and one of his first orders of business was to steer the war in a new direction. Thousands of more troops were sent in and tactics were shifted to include heavier use of Special Forces and helicopter gunships. Moscow also replaced president Karmal with the more able Dr. Mohammad Najibullah, a former head of the Afghan secret police. Najibullah began implementing a policy of national reconciliation and had improved the effectiveness of the Afghan army. But despite the augmented troop presence, which peaked at around 120,000, and the new military tactics and political approach, by 1986, it was clear that Moscow was already looking for a way out. In many respects, these changes were central to the broader exit strategy.

 

A decade later, on the pretext of responding the September 11, 2001 attacks in NYC, the US invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban regime due to its failure to hand over Osama bin Laden. In accomplishing its mission, the US used heavy airpower coordinated by Special Forces on the ground; these units also worked with local militias, which were fiercely opposed to the Taliban and had been fighting the Islamist movement since it came to power in 1996.

 

As with the initial stages of the Soviet intervention , the US’s invasion was swift and faced weak or limited resistance. Upon securing the capital and other major population centers, Washington launched a campaign of “nation building” with Hamid Karzai as the new leader and face of Afghanistan’s democracy. US troops meanwhile scoured the countryside for known or suspected members of Al Qaeda. But to ensure security throughout the country, the US increasing relied on former mujahedeen commanders who, following Afghanistan’s civil war in the early 90s, had effectively carved out personal fiefdoms in various parts of the country. Though anti-Taliban, these “warlords” were often despised by the local population. Indeed, their corrupt and chaotic rule was a main reason the Taliban came into existence in the first place.

 

This seemingly contradictory policy of “spreading democracy” while empowering warlords, combined with the near immediate US shift its focus to regime change in Iraq after dislodging the Taliban, would later come back to haunt the US. Just months into the operation, Washington had already diverted substantial military and intelligence resources to the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, the Taliban – far from defeated – had simply melted away only to fight another day.

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...