OUR MISGUIDED MOTIVES IN THE MIDDLE EAST
The U.S Doesn’t Want to Destroy ISIS
American citizens rightly suppose that our President and his administration would do everything in their power to eliminate the threat of ISIS in the Middle East. Tragically, for misguided reasons, this is simply not the case.
The top priority in today’s U.S. geopolitical and military strategy for the Middle East constitutes a very different and ill-advised motive. President Obama’s stated primary goal is to seek regime changes across the board, eliminating the old autocrats from the late Muammar Gaddafi to the heinous president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. His priority is not destroy ISIS. As far as ISIS is concerned, President Obama’s plan has been to allow ISIS to remain alive so that it will continue to pressure Assad into resigning. Taking a step back to gain perspective, we can conclude that the core tenets of U.S. strategy to bring “peace” to the Middle East is to eliminate the old order which we once fervently supplied and supported with our foreign aid, military technology (if not armed forces), and covert operations carried out by our special forces.
Why would Assad’s resignation take precedence over destroying ISIS? To understand this motive, we must come to grips with the real reason why the U.S. has attacked ISIS half-heartedly for so long, (enabling ISIS to carry on its revolution of terror). Washington’s intention at a deeper level owes to the fact the U.S. seeks to weaken Russia’s hold on the Middle East and to dampen its hope to reestablish the Russian empire. By crippling Assad’s rule, Russia would no longer have its Syrian base of operations in Tartous, on the Mediterranean. Without the threat of Russia shoring up the predominantly Shia northern quarters of the Fertile Crescent (Iran, Iraq and Syria), the U.S. could continue to keep the area in disarray and diminish (if not dismantle) any particular force from getting too much strength and threaten the oil supply chain to keep the home fires burnin’. To venture further, Obama has operated under an assumption that Iran is the natural leader of the Middle East. The U.S. must help tear down the old guard that was established by Churchill and later America presidents, and allow Iran to bring the Middle East to order. That is why the Iranian “nuclear technology” deal was so crucial to his strategy. And why the American public has never been allowed to see behind the curtains.
On Saturday, October 24, 2015, I joined Derek Gilbert on his excellent internet Radio Program, A View from the Bunker. Our one-hour discussion centered on these issues and many more. Here is a link to the program. I continue in this article to recap of some of the other concepts we covered. But I encourage you to listen not only to my commentary, but closely to Derek’s as well, as he is a solid source for information being the lead news analyst and commentator at SkyWatch TV.
The Undisputed Strategy Which Drives Our Middle East Policy
To begin by repeating the main point: the highest priority, above all else, is for the United States in the Middle East to ensure that the economies of the Western world, and especially the U.S., remain stable. This is an obvious, undisputed fact. There are other goals, many which fall into the category of conspiratorial thinking. Such motives would include “fan the flames of conflict to keep the military-industrial complex humming along” and “control global politics to continue pushing toward the New World Order” and its implied one-world government. While these motives are speculations that many hold to be true (and I partially so), other secular sources and cynics castigate such thinking sardonically. Whether these motives are on point or not, at least the vast majority of experts concur with the economic priority guiding U.S. policy: our highest goal–keep the oil flowing.
The popular maxim for several decades (specifically since Watergate) reminds us that to uncover the truth you must follow the money. In the Middle East, however, a more specific method to discern what matters most is to follow the pipelines–oil and gas pipelines that is. Derek Gilbert, in his radio show yesterday, pointed out to me a highly relevant fact that discloses another probable ulterior motive for the current conflict (which beyond the Syrina civil war comprises a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia). Some Middle East leaders along with Russia envision new gas pipeline to Europe, passing through Syria, then under the waters of the Mediterranean, bypassing Turkey, an American ally and potential choke point. Russia’s presence in Syria assures this revised course will be the new pathway. Therefore, as I was quick to point out to Derek, we can see that the situation is much more “grey and not black and white.” It is not that that the U.S. plays the bad guy and Russia the good guy. Both have their own self-serving goals disregarding most moral issues affecting the geopolitics of our world.
We can quickly surmise that Moscow’s presence comprises a nationalist agenda just like Washington’s does. Russia wants to corner the market on oil and gas to control oil pricing. After all, over 52% of Russia’s revenues (for its government) come from the sale of oil and gas. Controlling pricing will revive their economy, restore the Ruble to a solid currency, and put the West at an enormous disadvantage. To do business, metaphorically speaking, the West will have to kiss Putin’s ring. Russia’s move into Syria was obviously motivated for more reasons than to give the Russian military some firing practice (although that too, was a motive so Putin could put his military prowess on parade). Crucially it must be underscored that both Washington and Moscow contend vehemently that they own the moral high ground in their respective actions in Syria. The reality is that neither do. Moral arguments justifying policy are misleading, misguided, and ultimately immoral themselves because they are used to cloak the real reasons our leaders take the actions they do. The people for whom these governments are accountable must learn this truth.
The Watershed Moment “in the Course of Human Events”
Given the facts on the ground, Saudi Arabia should be feeling real pressure by the Russian bear’s presence. Is the House of Saud, the monarchy so long an ally of the U.S., the next autocratic government to go? Is Saudi Arabia losing its grip on the world oil supply? To be sure, the Saudi princes should wonder just how soon Putin’s military might come calling, eyeing their most prized possession: namely, their still oil-infused but otherwise worthless sands. Clearly, Russia’s reemergence in the Middle East does not constitute just one of those little coincidences that the mythical “the man behind the curtains” sternly advises us to ignore. As Derek said in the interview yesterday, it may be time for the men in Mecca to pack and put the “for sale” sign out. As I said, this development in the Middle East is the most important event in global politics since the Korean War. It is more important that Vietnam, the Cuban Missile crisis, and the many vital wars in the Middle East so far. It is a watershed moment. The world has forever changed.
So what will happen in the months ahead? What does today’s terror and tumult mean?
ISIS and other rebel groups have kept the pressure on Assad for several years. But that situation has now dramatically been altered. Russia’s intrusion into the Syrian civil war radically changes the equation. One reporter in the region indicates that Putin’s military has done more to decimate ISIS capability in three weeks than the U.S. had done in 3 years. Why? It isn’t just because Putin wanted to strengthen his military base in Syria and keep his thumb on what happens in the region. No, it is much more than that. The “Arab Spring” rages much too close to home for comfort. Russia has grown strongly motivated to disperse the revolutions and the rebels in the northern parts of the Middle East so they don’t come calling upon its neighborhood, namely the other side of the Balkans. Having a massive Muslim population both within his nation and in the bordering countries, Putin worries that Islamic revolution could spread not just onto his doorstep, but inside his very own house. Terrorism is a proximate threat to Putin. He must face it today, far more than the United States.
The U.S., through the CIA has, been arming Syrian rebels to the tune of hundred’s of millions of dollars with very little to show for it. As I discussed in an earlier article, (“Pick Your Poison: The U.S. Can’t Win in Syria”), it is now an established fact that $500M was expended to train the “Free Syrian Rebel Army.” Through encounters with ISIS and with Assad’s official Syrian Army, only five rebel warriors remain alive and in the fray costing $100M apiece to get and keep them in the fight. It is also an established fact that the rebels are co-headquartered in Western Syria in the province of Homs with Jabhat al-Nusra, Syria’s Al-Qaeda. Indirectly, the U.S. has made the immoral decision to support Al-Qaeda over ISIS, and ISIS over Assad. This isn’t making the best out of a bad situation. It is making a bad situation much worse. The barbaric deaths of hundreds of civilians including women and children, mostly Christian, as well as the destruction of priceless historical artifacts in numerous cherished ancient cities, has been the trademark of ISIS. From a biblical perspective, ISIS will soon be judged for its murders. The U.S. (and Russia) will be judged one day for its conspiratorial complicity and massively immoral choices. Indeed, the U.S. evinces to those with eyes to see that it trades in slaves and the souls of humankind (Revelation 18:13) and carries the blood of the saints on its hands . (Revelation 17:8, 18:24) The day of reckoning is near–very near.
Why Liberalism Will Be Our Undoing
To Summarize: most Americans have missed the consistent and public testimony of U.S. officials who indicate it has no intention of destroying ISIS, only “containing it.” Washington has no intention of wiping ISIS out. Instead, it bases its policy on the murders of the Syrian regime rather than the murderous and barbaric crimes of its rebels. The U.S. argues it is incongruous to support a ruthless dictator who attacks his own populace with chemical weapons (the so-called “barrel bombs.”) Assad must go NOW! Presumably we selected our political and military approaches because we knew it would take boots on the ground to eliminate Assad and his army–and we didn’t want to go down that path again. Iraq reigns in our memory. Our approach was to spray away Assad with a garden hose rather than a fire hose. Our hope was that he would eventually be doused and melt away.
In contrast, Russia has come into the field with a “double barrel” fire hose (as if there was such a thing), demonstrating that it wants to destroy all the rebels in its wake and support the official government of Syria, reestablishing state institutions and drowning the conflict out altogether. Putin’s argument is that the U.S. has a record of destroying autocratic governments and leaving failed states in their place. Given what’s happened in Libya, to some extent Egypt, and to a great extent in Iraq, Putin’s point seems well taken.
The U.S. does not have a stellar record lately in making good choices and picking the right dog in the fight. It would have helped if we had made the tough choices we needed to make three to four years ago, to keep a sizable contingent in Iraq to quell the inevitable uprisings sure to come. But we choose to abandon our post. We denied the wisdom of 250 years of geopolitics and remember the “balance of power.” For some reason, we could see it in Korea where we continue to maintain 40,000 troops. But we couldn’t see it in the Middle East. Now its time to pay for our failure to learn history’s lessons and our gratuitous money-motivated approach to realpolitik. The unintended consequences are momentous with millions of refugees (many of them highly agitated Muslims) streaming into Europe and purportedly to the United States for a better life. We can’t blame them for wanting that for themselves and their children. Western “liberal” governments (motivated not by Judeo-Christian principles but by utopian notions of humanitarianism–the classic definition of liberalism; and in Germany’s case to fix a demographic problem of too few young people in a aging population), have opened their doors wide for all manner of immigrants with no screening and no background checks. The flood is enormous. The United States, thanks to our administrations near “open border policy” is only too happy to help too.
“Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.” A wonderful guidepost, emblazoned on the Statue of Liberty, which characterizes what’s best about our republic. Unfortunately, this maxim assumed a moral character that no longer lives in the hearts of many who come now to live among us. The consequences are vast.
Therefore, our time for confronting Islamic terrorism “as a way of life” is almost here. It won’t be pleasant and one day in the not-too-distant future we will wonder not only why we didn’t see it coming, but why we made it so easy for the “unassimilated masses” to enter into our gates along with violent and rogue terrorists who hid in their midst.
* * * * * * *
FOR INFORMATION ABOUT DOUG WOODWARD
If you feel led, please consider donating to my writing ministry. I am now seeking to do much more writing via timely articles than through books to meet the demand for responding to so many vital “breaking news events” in the world now (available in less than a week from when I conceive them, instead of six months for a book!)
The DONATE BUTTON is located on the top right column and will take you to PayPal where you can donate via credit card or your PayPal account.
Also PLEASE SUBSCRIBE to my blog to get an email copy sent automatically to you when published at faith-happens.com. Email me at email@example.com. I’m available to speak at events too. Just mail me to inquire about dates and expenses!