Eternal Conflict: The Aim of Western Intervention in the Middle East

From de Veer Magazine
Jump to: navigation, search
Armed Sunni militiamen north of Baghdad, Iraq. Courtesy: Open Source

By Ann-Marie de Veer
Saturday 27 September 2014

In the latter half of 1979 the US, with the help of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others, started arming, funding and training the Mujahideen of Afghanistan. The purpose of this mission was to counter the former United Soviet Socialist Republic's (USSR) influence throughout the region and assert US geo-political and economic authority in eastern Asia.

Later, the Mujahideen morphed into the Taliban, gradually filling a power vacuum as the USSR withdrew its forces from Afghanistan in 1989. Thereafter, years of internecine war ensued as many disparate factions and their supporters vied for control until the Taliban finally created the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 1996.

The US coup d'état of Afghanistan by proxy was complete.

However, the Taliban turned out to be considerably less benign than their sponsors had anticipated as they adopted an extremely militant and belligerent form of government. The Taliban were also known to be harbouring the al-Qaeda organisation, a group that had previously been supported and lauded by the US but were no longer needed following the withdrawal of Soviet forces. Thus, diplomatic relations quickly soured.

That the US had created both the Taliban and al-Qaeda monsters, lost control of them and had no coherent plan to get rid of them back in 1996 was patently obvious. Even their eventual ousting in late 2001, by the US and its Western cohorts, aka. the Evil Empire (eEmpire), have only temporarily displaced them. The fact that they continue to receive weapons, training and support from the Inter-Services Intelligence agency of Pakistan in mounting insurgency operations throughout Afghanistan is common knowledge.

Moving forward to 2003.

The eEmpire's second incursion into Iraq in 2003 was both an unjustified and illegal war. It destroyed the legally constituted Hussein government of Iraq and then went on to destabilise the whole region by enabling the Kurds in northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, northeast Syria and eastern Turkey to rise up and challenge their host nations. The turmoil that swept through the region lasted for years.

Nonetheless, the eEmpire's coup d'état of Iraq was complete.

However, the Iraqi regime installed by the eEmpire proved to be the very antithesis of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They were divided, weak and ineffective: a product of the micro-management system imposed by the eEmpire who were fearful of repeating their mistakes in Afghanistan.

That the eEmpire had created a power vacuum, failed to fill the void when in occupation and then continued to let it develop when drawing down their forces is obvious. When the eEmpire finally withdrew from Iraq in December 2011 they left a country divided by sectarianism and unable to protect its borders and sovereignty. As former refugees and Ba'ath Party members returned, the country has continued to slip further and further into a state of anarchy.

Moving on again, to 2010.

As the revolutionary wave and protests of the Arab Spring swept through North Africa and the Middle East from December 2010 on, the eEmpire saw many opportunity's and sought to capitalise on most of them. One of those opportunity's though has proven to be more elusive and resilient than most, the legally constituted Syrian government of al-Assad, an ally of the Russian Federation.

That first the UK, and then the US, both tried to coerce their electorates and the UN into mounting an invasion of Syria under the auspices of a humanitarian mission is also common knowledge. Of course, they have since made many other attempts to usurp and undermine the al-Assad government, to no avail. Thus, from early 2012, the eEmpire have sought to arm, fund and train the Syrian rebels and terrorists in yet another attempt at overthrowing a legally constituted government in a coup d'état by proxy.

However, on this occasion the plan has gone horribly wrong.

The weapons and funds have found their way into the hands of an extremely militant and radicalised group of Islamists who have their own agenda, and it does not accord with their initial benefactors and mentors, the eEmpire.

The result is a caliphate, a self-proclaimed Islamic state known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), that also claims religious authority over all Muslims across the world.

Which brings us almost up to date.

On the 19th September 2014, forty nine Turkish hostages were released by ISIL, many of whom were the staff and families of the Turkish consulate in Mosul, Iraq. Their release was a welcome relief for the Turkish authorities who had eschewed from the latest eEmpire inspired response to the emergence and spread of the Islamic State, much to the chagrin of its NATO partners and many other state sponsored belligerents in the region.

That Turkey had effectively rebuffed the protestations of this newly formed eEmpire cabal and set out its own course in dealing with the latest regional crisis was clear.

Turkey had learned from the eEmpire's illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its subsequent misuse of its Air Base at Incirlik during that time. It had also learned that a weak and indecisive Iraqi regime had led to a resurgence and exacerbation of the destabilising forces wielded by the Turkish PKK.

In essence, the eEmpire, as a result of its illegal and gratuitous invasion of Iraq, had upset the regional status quo and destabilised the whole area. Turkey, Iran and Syria were left to deal with the fallout of the Kurdish insurrections that ensued.

Returning to the release of the hostages: no sooner had they arrived back in Ankara, the capital, the eEmpire, via its complicit and subservient media in the west, began to question the Turkish authorities' claim that no concessions had been granted to ISIL. Naturally, the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, rebuffed these assertions insisting that diplomacy and political negotiations had secured their release. Nonetheless, the Western media purposely chose to undermine Turkey's sovereignty by claiming that Ankara had traded the hostages for its abstention from the newly formed ISIL busting cabal led by the US, or that they had released ISIL prisoners to secure the deal.

Clearly Erdogan was not going to enjoy the same privileges that the West usually extract from its media, namely: privacy and secrecy in its diplomatic and regional relations.

That these events conjure up a sense of déjà vu is completely lost on the West.

So, what are Pakistan and Turkey up to?

Both countries are being pragmatic. They know that middle-eastern problems require middle-eastern solutions and one of them is strong leadership: the type of leadership that is often reviled in the West but essential for the peace and stability of the region. Thus, the removal of legally constituted governments by the West will only serve to create problems that only they can solve.

They also know from experience that these Western inspired missions will eventually fail and it is them who will have to deal with the consequences long after the bombs, missiles and drones have stopped. The use of force by the West, particularly military force, with its inherent ability to cause collateral damage, will only serve to create enemies and endanger its own people.

That the eEmpire has created, and continues to create these problems by its nefarious and military voyeuristic activities is clear. It is also clear that they have no interest whatsoever in curtailing them, not least because of the profit their military industrial complex can extract from the conflicts but their economic and geo-political interests can only be served by eternal conflict. Regional peace and stability is the very antithesis of their objectives, there is no benefit in it.

Force has no place where there is need of skill.
Herodotus