Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Trump’s “strategy” for destroying ISIS

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 working

Sure, 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 come

I 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 effort

6-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.”


  1. Whats Russia's role in all of this.

    1. Russia has lost the game, unless they do something drastic. Unfortunately, they seem pre occupied with placating US controlled PKK.
      They clearly had a deal with the US to partition Syria, they then took part in humiliating Turkey in Manbij, only for the US to block the SAA's and Russias road to Raqqa, and finally capture all the important ressources from the Syrian state.
      That's Russias role now, they are losers.

    2. Is Russia another Zionist satrapy or not? That is the question :D

      The MSM is shoving the Kurdish "freedom narrative" down everyone's throats; even RT does this. If Russia is a betrayer then that is how they will disguise their Zionist role. "The Kurds deserve their freedom" will be the refrain.

      It is going to be Israel 2.0 -- now I understand that phrase. Another false narrative to justify the cleansing of a land and the setting up of a militarized elite.

      Good luck for the preparations to counter that propaganda war!

    3. I think Russia was always taking care of it's own interests and could never save all of Syria.

      (unless we wish to witness nukes being tossed around? in which case no one wins)

    4. re: RT- I really find them to be no different then any other msm- And don't think because they are called "Russia Today" we should assume they tell us anything about Russia, today.

      Perhaps Russia Today, informs us through it's editorial process what we should 'believe' about Russia, today...

      I don't know?
      Does anyone have accurate information on the $$$ behind RT?

    5. funded by the Russian Government if that is what you mean.

    6. that doesn't seem entirely clear.
      even wiki states

      "It is registered as an autonomous nonprofit organization" then claims it's funded by the Russian government without substantiating that claim- I would like to see some type of proof of that?

      See the rest of the wiki claim goes like this

      "funded by the federal budget of Russia through the Federal Agency on Press and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation.[35][36]"

      but when you look at what this FA PMC of RF is, it purely looks to be regulatory

      So who funds RT is still the question, in my mind.

    7. can you tell this is bothering me?


      "RT America formally disassociates itself from the Russian Government by using a Moscow-based
      autonomous nonprofit organization to finance its US operations. According to RT's leadership, this
      structure was set up to avoid the Foreign Agents Registration Act and to facilitate licensing abroad. In addition, RT rebranded itself in 2008 to deemphasize its Russian origins"

      Quite frankly anyone could be funneling financing through this autonomous non profit and dis associate themselves from the network

    8. The owner is a Russian-Armenian

    9. Its an old article, I think its still relevant

    10. "Quite frankly anyone could be funneling financing through this autonomous non profit and dis associate themselves from the network"

      Now that is fascinating. Lol. RT is not RT.

    11. Hi Ally!

      How's it going? Good I hope.

      re: owner of RT- who might this be?
      any more information? I'd love it!

    12. "Now that is fascinating. Lol. RT is not RT"

      What exactly is RT and who funds it, is the question and it remains unanswered.

    13. Kaz: I read the article and there is no information within it on exactly who funds RT

      "(The channel’s budget was just $30 million the first year, but it grew in subsequent years before taking a hit during the global economic crisis that began in 2008. RT officials won’t provide specifics on the current budget, but the Kremlin has announced that it intends to spend $1.4 billion this year on international

      The implication in that statement is that the Kremlin supplies the money- kind of like a guilt by association? There are no dots connected and implying a connection doesn't make a connection

      If anyone provide some information that clarifies who funds RT, i would be very happy. I would welcome it- Until such a time- I remain unconvinced it's Kremlin funded

    14. Well, either we have to break in to their HQ and get that list of who is funding their network. Or you could try to judge them from the nature of their news and to do that you need understand Russia and its challenges and look in which tone they report that news.

      Besides lets say its not directly State funded. You also have this for example, and this does not only end with putin

    15. Hi Kaz:

      I live in Canada we have the CBC which is state funded and obviously so- much like the BBC

      Where it has Canadian content requirements etc

      RT does not appear many times to push a Russian point of view- example- I've seen information that is decidedly western- like gay rights and transgender stuff- this flies in the face of Russian ideals regarding this promotion

      So judging by the nature of their news etc., they seem quite western-

      Also the name itself "Russia Today" is chosen undoubtedly to plant a perception in the mind of the viewer- oh yah, Russia Today
      but not so fast... The Federal Reserve

      Is the Federal Reserve, federal (federal gov institute) and is it a 'reserve'? A reserve of what?

      It's privately held and run but allegedly "overseen" by the government which is a laugh in itself. Perception management is always at play.

      RT could be very much like the "Radio Free Europe" which was American propaganda- but you wouldn't know that by the name, right?

      "free europe" entirely US funded- undoubtedly that was unknown when it began in 1949

      Without more information we know for certain, that we don't have a clue who really funds RT. That is what we know, with certainty

      Additionally the way that it is set up is to make sure it's very hard to find the money trail. Why?
      Would Russia do that with a network, that's allegedly there own, called Russia Today?

      Or might someone else do that to deceive?

      I will keep my eyes open for information,but, until such a time as I find any, who funds RT is a mystery to me.

  2. conspiracy theroistMarch 30, 2017 at 11:59 AM

    No bigger threat to the planet than immoral America. Unfortunately seems that only some asteroid from outer space or the Yellowstone Volcano can solve this problem. America and Israel are above the law.

    BTW Another good article about Kurdish role in the Syrian conflict.

    1. hmm that's a change for 21st century wire- they who have generally pushed the kurd victim meme

      I've many articles here regarding that subject- but not all kurds are pawns, some are, some are very willing participants- those are the PKK/US affiliates
      And have covered for years now the abuses of Arabs and Christians alike by the US backed Kurds.

      Guess, it simply can't be covered up any longer..

    2. This is a change that I have observed since the Tabqa op. It is now so blatantly clear that Kurds are US vassels, annexing Syrian land, that no one can deny it.
      Communists on twitter who used to praise YPG, now course them. Alt news articles are also more critical of "the Kurds". These are ppl who support Syria, and hence were angry at the way the SAA were blocked from reaching Raqqa.
      Greater Kurdistan is on the horizon, but the period ahead will be difficult for them. Ppl in the region will now see them as American 5th columinsts. US policy will turn Kurds from citizens into enemies of the state.

    3. Yes, I've noticed it also and it's pathetic, IMO.
      How could they all not see what was in plain site for years- and now that it's undeniable they all change their tune-
      Could none of them read or think for themselves?
      Or were they intentionally misleading until it was all too late?

      I think the Kurdish militias long ago made themselves enemies of a number of states- can't blame that on the US- thinking of Turkey and Iran for sure-

    4. Think it in this way. Because Turkey is in Nato it has to be a USA goon, while the Pseudo-Kurd's are fighting and struggling against oppressive regimes by all sides and are fighting for an independent state, but nobody lets them.

      People act as the information they do know is complete, while they only know not even the half of the situation and therefor come with these weird conclusions which you cannot correct, because it does not fit their narrative. People search for information that fits their narrative, not information to find the right narrative.

    5. Kaz: "People search for information that fits their narrative, not information to find the right narrative. "

      I try as much as possible with my limited resources and time to find the information that is accurate- that makes sense- not what makes me happy all the time-

    6. My thoughts on the matter is.

      There are many partial truths/answers, but only 1 absolute truth.

      We are forced to take information from 3rd party sources, but not every 3rd party source will give the full picture. Its an horrible situation for people like us, where we have to value the 3rd parties worth on basis of information which correlate with information we already know. And trust them that this source will always give us the full truth. But today when there is an event, depending on the news outlets side. You will get colliding partial truths and hardly 1 absolute. And I do have ideas on how to get the oversight of all these matters easier, but there are a lot of constrictions which has to be overcome to even start on it. Skeletons in the closet is not a problem anymore when the owners of that closet is dead.

      Just fyi. I do think you are on the right track.

  3. For many on the left its ideological. They believe in the myth of the opressed Kurds and are PKK supporters.
    In the case of the alt press, it was in most cases, to intentionally mislead their readers into supporting imperial plans in Syria. Outlet such as The Duran is a good example.
    Things are going to change now. The PKK will be viewed much more negatively, & actions of Kurds will be scrutinised and criticised. But as you say, its too late now -- at least for Syria.

    1. I don't like the Duran- and don't read it- Last time I saw anything from it was at Saker's and it was that Mercouris guy's baloney- such a blatant liar-

      I wrote two posts on it oh and got labelled/name called at Sakers by his disinfo trolls for pointing out the lies of Mercouris- No use for that place at all. The Duran in particular and Saker's?? Rarely go there.