What I’m saying in the headline is that all of the below is wrong. Almost every single claim is wrong. In no way has the Pindo-Jewish global ZOG backed out of the mid-East. Such a thing would be inconceivable and nonsensical. All it has done is add layer upon layer of thickly painted deniability, in order to say: we don’t run them, they run themselves. It has done exactly the same thing in the Pacific, by actually encouraging disgusting racist-nationalist politicians in SK and Japan. So all of the below is doo doo – RB
The Foreign Policy Establishment Strikes Back at Obama
Melvin Goodman, Counterpunch, Mar 31 2016
The most fascinating aspect of Obama’s unusual interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic was his liberation from Washington’s foreign policy establishment. Now the establishment is striking back. The president of the CFR, Richard Haass, led the charge with the startling observation that Obama’s refusal to use force in Syria was comparable to Bush 43’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. The latest broadside came from a former career diplomat, Nicholas Burns, a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and a likely Sec State or national security adviser in a Hillary Clinton administration. Burns’ old thinking on national security policy is exactly what Obama had in mind in breaking with the traditionalists among the so-called foreign policy mandarins. Burns, like so many members of the orthodox establishment, is particularly critical of the president’s failure to use military force against Syria after drawing a “red line” on Assad’s (supposed) use of chemical weapons. In fact, without using military force, Pindostan and Russia were able to get Assad to admit to having chemical weapons, to give up the weapons, and to join international organizations responsible for monitoring such weapons. Burns fails to mention that Obama had parked five cruise missile destroyers off the Syrian coast, which points to a important success for coercive diplomacy. Nor does Burns mention that even Netanyahu praised the efforts of the Obama administration. Burns also ignores the observation that the intelligence regarding Syria’s use of chemical weapons was not a “slam dunk.”
Burns also castigates Obama for his criticism of Britain and France for performing as “free riders” in the Libyan campaign of 2011. Unlike Burns and Hillary Clinton, who defend the use of force in Libya, Obama considers that the Libyan operation was a “shit show” and that the incompetence of Faschingstein’s European vassals has made Libya one more haven for ISIS. Obama understands that the Middle East must be de-emphasized, and that it would be a “basic, fundamental mistake to try to govern the MENA.” Burns believes that the president’s major failing in Libya was allowing Pindostan to take a secondary role in an important NATO mission for the first time in its history. (But in the view of this author), the president’s failing was in acceding to the-Sec State Clinton’s push for regime change in Tripoli. The Pindosi policy of regime change, which began in Iran in 1953, has never worked. See the Congo, Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. Burns is critical of the president for his criticism of the Toads, arguing that it “never works to embarrass a friend publicly.” Unlike Burns, Obama understands that for too long the Toads (and Pakistan) have sponsored an intolerant variant of political Islam that has poisoned countless Muslim minds with virulent propaganda and recidivist violence. Obama understands that the Middle East is far less important to the security interests of Pindostan, and that it is time to stop treating the Toads (and Israel) with kid gloves.
In arguing that Obama has “ceded too much ground to Russia, Iran, and others” in the Middle East, Burns displays his ignorance of the limits that Moscow and Tehran face in gaining leverage in the region (hardly likely, actually, since Burns worked in the region for decades as State’s top professional diplomat – RB). Iran, a non-Arab Muslim nation, will have difficulty gaining influence over the long term. Russia, a nation in political and economic decline, cannot afford to invest heavily in the backwardness of the Middle East. The notion that Putin has enhanced Russia’s credibility and influence with his moves in Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria could not be more wrong (That is true, Putin has made himself look like a combined fool & doormat – RB). Obama can be credited with understanding that the Middle East is “no longer terribly important” to Pindosi interests, and that even if the region were surpassingly important, there would be “little a Pindosi president could do to make it a better place.” Pindostan has lost credibility and power with its misuse of military force in the region, but Burns and the foreign policy establishment rely on the old shibboleths of credibility and force to make a case for the use of military power.
Obama’s attack on these shibboleths is critical. Finally, the president understands that the long-term goal of Pindo diplomacy in the region is to increase the number of diplomatic stakeholders in the Middle East and to nudge Iran and the Toads toward a less confrontational approach (Pindostan is in fact destabilizing everyone, as he knows – RB). There will be no stability in the region until and Sunnis and their Toad backers and the Shia and their Persian benefactors come to their senses and seek conciliation (the usual false equivalence, this is pretty poor stuff for Counterpunch – RB) Burns and Haass believe that more military force is necessary in the Middle East, but Obama understands that our overextension in the region has harmed our economy, compromised our ability to seek opportunities elsewhere (particularly in the Pacific), and unnecessarily endangering the lives of Pindosis in a region where there is less Pindo national security interest.