Popular Posts


A Desperate Overreach: The Geostrategic Game of Obama and Brzezinsky

Neoconservatism officially died in 2008, scandalized and having lost support from the world, namely the European powers used as pawns in the Republican bid for a strengthened position on the world stage. Two war theaters remained for Barack Obama to deal with, and new ones were opened.
"There's another target, and that's Pakistan. It's a Muslim country with 160 million people, and they have nuclear weapons, and they have the means to deliver them. Back last summer in Chicago there was a Democratic debate, and Obama came out and said: I want to have the unilateral US bombing of North West Pakistan, and now the US is doing what Obama demanded", said Webster Tarpley already back in 2008, warning that Barack Obama was a "face-lift" for American imperialism, a hand-puppet of The Trilateral Commission, taking cues from the Polish American geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski.
"...and indeed, the US and NATO is preparing to invade Pakistan across the Afghan border", Tarpley continues.

Indeed. In August 2007 Obama announced that he would take the fight to Pakistan, warning Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.
"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won. The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan", Barack Obama said to an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District.
This policy is now in effect: Not only has drone attacks been increased by Obama on North West Pakistan, but the recent incursion into Pakistani terrority to allegedly kill Osama bin Laden carries all the traits of provocation. 

In fact, it was followed up by subsequent provocations from Washington, heating up the US-Pakistani relationship and spurring further domestic turmoil in the terrorism afflicted nation of Pakistan.

The Last Attempt at Anglo-Saxon Hegemony

According to Tarpley this is all policy, not accident. It is a staged event that follows a direct, specified and formulated policy of disprupting Pakistan in order to carve it up, and remove an ally to China.

This is why China has responded with unwavering support for Pakistan, reaffirming the "all weather" relationship with Pakistan and stating to USA in an unprecedented diplomatic missive, that an attack on Pakistan will be perceived as an attack on China.

Every US engagement on the world stage tightly follows the Brzezinsky-Obama script as it is interpreted by Tarpley.
"[Barack Obama is a puppet of Zbigniew Brzezinski... it's going to be not so much wars in the Middle East, but wars on a greater scale. Brzezinsky says: The centre of power in the world is not Iran; it's Moscow and Beijing... that's the project, and it's more ambitious than any neo-con, and it's more adventurous, and more dangerous."
It is understood that Brzezinsky's war doctrine is far more sophisticated and comprehensive than the one dominating the Bush-administration. It is predominantly concerned with the economic aspects of warfare, ressources and logistics, rather than primarily with "firepower and mobility".
"What makes Obama attractive to me is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and peoples", said Brzezinsky of his support for Barack Obama.
Hailed by the Economist as "Barack Obama's new brain" Brzezinsky is seen as the brilliant and prolific mastermind of Obama's geostrategic perspective, one that includes the ambition to "dismember the Russian Federation itself and put the finishing  touches on Afghanistan as an impregnable US military base against  China, Russia..." (Eric Wahlberg on Rense.com).

The Arab Spring: A Surprise, Except for Libya

Whether or no Brzezinsky is really the behind-the-scenes mover fomenting the US sponsored rise of  Islamic fundamentalism as a bulwark against Soviet communism, and involved in the overthrowing of the Shah of Iran with the Iranian Revolution, is less important than to identify that Washington is currently involved in a geostratetic game directed at the Sino-Russian alliance.

What Tarpley does not seem to fully acknowledge is that the current paradigm of global war is not a new one. It is only a temporary shift in focus and means. For instance, the impoverization of North Korea, and the US sanctions against Iran, are long-standing policies aimed at the Sino-Russian alliance - policies that have remained unquestioned, even as the neocons directed their attention at the Arab world.

Tarpley correctly identifies a couple of other targets in the potential Sino-American conflict, besides Pakistan, namely Taiwan (whom he sees as having passed on the bid, forming closer ties to Beijing rather than turning aggressively pro-Western or imperialistic), and Sudan where the US interest in the conflict may be to deprive China of 7 percent of her oil imports.

The civil war in Libya attacked Chinese oil interests, forcing the country to remove 30,000 Chinese workers in the largest overseas evacuation ever. From the beginning there were indications that the rebel forces were backed by CIA. In spite of vowing "no boots on the ground", Obama did position CIA agents inside Libya.

The Libyan leader, Khalifa Haftar, is a long-standing enemy of Gadaffi with ties to CIA.

In a bizarre twist, Colonel Gadaffi  used the example of China’s violent crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989 to justify his own use of military force against domestic opponents.
“The unity of China was more important than those people on Tiananmen Square,” he bellowed.
The UN mandate for a US-NATO "humanitarian intervention" was the fastest mandate in history, but notably carried out with the strict imposition that "boots on the ground", an actual Western military force to take control of the country and linger in it for ages, was not allowed.

With the NATO failure to produce a quick resolution, India, Russia and China in unison have called for an end to the bombings. The countries were forced to back intervention, as they saw their interests threatened, but all of the three emerging giants are horrified by the prospect of a new Western occupation.

The Dynamics of Ressource War

As previously explained, Washington's military strategy is to secure optimal mobility and momentum in aggressive wars by setting up a vast network of bases and allies, putting literally everything and everyone within strike range.

While not saints, China and Russia are useful as the only effective opposition to this titanic and, ultimately, totalitarian ambition.

Gadaffi tries to exploit the situation, threatening to seize European oil and gas operations in Libya and turn them over to India and China, The same may happen to the significant US oil interests in the country.

The oil wells of Libya are so embattled that expropriation reciprocated with a cash offer from the benefited countries to the American and European companies might not be acceptable compensation.

It is equally absurd to believe China has an interest in provoking war over Pakistan, as it is to believe that the Libyan crisis is a masterminded by Washington.

The Arab revolutions and revolutionary tendencies are the proverbial stick in the wheel for the Grand Area Strategy of Washington and her latest bid for global dominance. Bipolarity is not an emerging possibility, but a realized fact.

The conflicts of the 21st century will revolve around a land- and ressource-grabbing game in which "the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner", as Shakespeare put it in Henry V, necessitating the use of "soft power" and more agreeable trade agreements than presently customary.

The dynamics are simple: China will attempt to scoop up as much access to natural ressources as possible, while at the same time extending its trade network as far as possible. Neither China or Russia have sufficient conventional military power to assert themselves strongly outside their own immediate sphere of power, so they will play on political and economic instruments.

USA will undoubtedly attempt to do the same, as it happened in Africa under GW Bush, while at the same time keeping an option open for underhanded warfare, disrupting nations, where China holds considerable financial interests. USA has lost both political and economic credibility, so Washington is left to battle with crude instruments of war and of clandestine geostratetic scheming.

The financial condition of USA, and its debt dependency on China, does not allow for Washington to realistically pursue a direct military confrontation with China.

According to this matrix it is now possible to specifically highlight the areas of predictable conflict, which will follow the basic principles of crime and criminal investigation: Means, motive and opportunity.

Mexico recently foiled a bid by Hezbollah to set up a network in Latin America, as this was being exploited by right wing forces in USA to prepare America for armed conflict.

The race for China in Africa is to promote development at a faster pace than local forces, backed by US funding and arms trade, can foment strategic destabilization. China has, so far, avoided the unfortunate reputation of being a country it is hazardous to do business with, because it might find the weaker partner in the crosshairs of US interference.

War or Development, That is the Question

It is doubtful if this can continue. Washington is likely to do everything it can, beneath the radar, to alienate every single major player who is instrumental to the prosperity and continued growth of China. On the most apparent level the strategy involves encircling China, controlling the Pacific Rim. Producing pretext for war is the key ingredient in the new recipe for USA to remain a relevant player on the world stage.

In the case of the Arab Spring, the American strategy can be described as "Curb, Contain and Control". While keeping Afghanistan and Iraq as active war theatres for as long as possible to justify the ammassment of US and NATO ofrces, Libya and Pakistan have been added to the list of hot war zones.

The Washington strategy for the uprisings in the Middle East is to curb them whenever possible, offering military support for the clamp-downs in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrain, while at the same time condemning them and expressing support for the protesters.

In the case of Tunisia and Egypt, namely Egypt, the Western powers are moving in with foreign aid, 40 bn dollars combined grants and loans, largely funnelled through IMF and the World Bank, or through bilateral relations with USA and EU.

The money, as always, comes with specific demands for "peace and security" cooperation, meaning strategic compliance, and "structural adjustment", meaning economic compliance to a rigid set of demands leading to devastating conditions perpetuating the usual debt circle sending more money back to the lenders in the long run, filling up the empty treasuries.

The concern for Russia and China is that the waning of the US empire may lead to World War 3, as the Transatlantic Alliance is unwilling to accept the end of privilege and hegemony, and USA still controls the largest arsenal of conventional weapons in the world.

As things stand, people all over the world lean towards Western values and ideals, but reject the notion of Western hegemony for the unfair and imbalanced terms it imposes on everyone else. This can be seen in the Arab uprisings, and it will also factor into even a democratic movement in China.

Regardless of where you stand with regards to democracy and human rights, development remains a priority for every nation, and a nation at war develops poorly.

And to the profound disappointment of the belligerent extremes under every banner, and everyone invested in a zero-sum game, the most probable conclusion to the long equasion is relative peace, fostered by the emergence of a carefully self-regulating mechanism of multipolar deterrence.

No comments:

Post a Comment