Fomenting War In The Middle East Is A Sad Foreign Policy

Am I suggesting that the Obama administration is deliberately trying to instigate war in the Middle East? Yes I am. And, moreover, there seems to be a unified policy that includes the US, the UN and, Europe in the form of NATO.

No, I didn’t arrive at this conclusion because I’ve fallen in with some conspiracy theory. All that I have done is try to connect the dots after observing events over the last few months. Below I will discuss some of the dots that I believe can be connected.

Dot Number One. We have all read accounts of our State Department’s involvement in training young people from the Middle East (In which I’m including North Africa) on how to foment protest against their authoritarian governments. We have seen the success of our State Depart’s efforts in Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Bahrein and Syria. To a lesser extent, we’ve seen some protest in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Our leaders call this the Arab Spring; a spontaneous uprising of the down trodden clamoring for freedom and democracy. We know that is a lot of bull crap. The Muslim Brotherhood is going to be the major player in Egypt’s future and they don’t give a damn about democracy and freedom for their people. Gaddafi will soon fall and we know without a doubt that it won’t be a democratic freedom loving government that comes to power there. As obvious as this is to you and I, it is just as obvious to the CIA, the State Department and, our President, in spite of what they say publicly.

Dot Number Two. We are already directly involved militarily in Libya and Yemen. Did you know that we are supplying arms to the rebels in Syria?

…The Washington Post reported that the State Department has secretly funded Syrian opposition groups, according to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.

“Trying to promote a transformation to a more democratic process in this society is not undermining necessarily the existing government,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. (Reuters)

How noble of us. What other rebel groups in the Middle East are receiving funds from our State Department? One has to wonder if we are also supplying arms to some of these “freedom fighters”.

Dot Number Three. Let’s look at with whom we are allied in this endeavor to foster the Arab Spring;  NATO and the UN. Starting with NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. An organization established in the Cold War  as a defensive alliance between the US and its European allies; the potential enemy originally being the old Soviet Union. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has struggled to find a reason to continue in existence. But, WTH is NATO doing leading a war to topple the Libyan government? Was Libya threatening one or more of the NATO allies? I don’t think so. And, what about the UN?  Apparently it was France who asked the UN to approve military action against Libya. (I don’t think France asked the UN to approve a “kinetic action”.)   And, the UN acted uncharacteristically with the speed of light to give their approval. Why? Because Gaddafi is a tyrant and would kill a bunch of his own people? If that was the reason, why hasn’t the UN called for military action against hundreds of other tyrants in the world?. 90% of the countries that make up the UN are run by tyrants. It doesn’t make sense. And, why Libya? Why not Iran?

Dot Number Four. For decades our three most important allies in the Middle East have been Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The Obama administration has turned its back on Israel, demanded that Mubarak, who was key to maintaining relative peace in the Middle East, step down, and, in so doing , pissed off Saudi Arabia. Why?

When I connect these dots, I can only conclude that the US and their NATO allies with the tacit support of the UN want war in the Middle East and they are going to get it. Dumping Mubarak and the raise of the Muslim Brotherhood is an open invitation for the enemies of Israel to begin attacking Israel at will. It will inevitably lead to a full-scale world war. How can it not?

But we are still left with the WHY. Is it about oil or is it about a new world order or some other nefarious reason? A serious question. We can be sure our government is not going to tell us the truth.

I might have included a fifth dot. I find it very convenient for the US and Europe, that both have such serious economic problems which serve to divert attention from the coming war. The central banks of Europe and the US seem to be deliberately following policies that can only end in economic disaster. Why?

Anyway, that is what I am thinking. What are your thoughts?

18 thoughts on “Fomenting War In The Middle East Is A Sad Foreign Policy

  1. You are so right Jim, the evidence is there for any who choose to see. I wrote a post on this back in May: Heading To World War 3
    https://loopyloo305.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/2190/
    I don’t think that anyone who looks at it objectively could say that he wants anything more than to stir up chaos and war. Whether he truly wants WWIII as I think he does, is probably debatable, he surely knows what he is doing is leading that way and is doing nothing to stop it, but rather seems to be ramping it up even more. As for the WHY? I think that the man is such a narcissist, that he honestly believes that he is going to be admired and respected for what he is doing. I believe that the man is truly insane, being both a narcissist and a sociopath!

  2. Well done. My hunch he is working up to world governance. See, the little people cannot manage themselves. The Samantha Power concept then requires to be implemented.

    “R2P is an effort to create a new international moral standard to prevent violence against civilians.
    In her career as a genocide expert, Power was an indefatigable proponent of R2P, and now on the National Security Council has been “trying to figure out how the administration could implement R2P and what doing so would require of the White House going forward.” Hillary is her ally in this effort, it appears.”

  3. What’s even better? Team Bamster is such a dolt he’ll start a Middle eastern mega-clusterbang to deflect attention away from his woeful economic record, but he’ll find a way to screw that up so badly we’ll end in World War III.

  4. Good point all around Jim. As for point number three. France gets a great deal of it’s oil from Libya. They do no want that disrupted in any significant way.

    All in all, Libya had a low rated military with old Soviet equipment of the type that was devastation in the Gulf Wars, They were an easy target. Both Syria and Iran have much more advanced weaponry. In other words, NATO could defeat either, but it would cost them.

    1. Thanks, Matt. I’m aware of France’s dependency on Libyan oil. But the nation of Libya wasn’t trying to blackmail France. Maybe there is something in NATO’s charter that covers attacking a North African country that is not threatening a NATO ally. I just can’t imagine what it could be.

  5. They (they being the global elite, shadow government–and yes, they’re real) need total chaos in order to bring about one world governmen which will include one currency and no national sovernty. If Obama is not in the inner circle, he’s certainly taking cues from those who are. I am not a conspiracy theorist, either. But like you I see too many thiings being done to purposefully bring about chaos to economies and nations and drive unrest. Someone with a 4th grade education could figure out that our energy and economic policies are destroying us, but Obama–full steam ahead. I jut hope the cork doesn’t blow off before the next election.

    1. You and I are on the same page, Freedom. I have intentionally tried to arrive at a different explanation and I couldn’t make it happen. My assessment of Obama is that he would like the cork to blow off before the 2012 elections.

  6. One thing that we are all wondering here is, what is the end game by doing all of this? War is lucrative business…so is that the reason? Change up of regimes in the Middle East is pointing to our complicit creation of sworn enemies…which would make some sort of twisted sense since the O seems to be pretty much a sworn enemy himself. Oil? Destruction of Israel? Probably all of the above. I think your assessment of NATO is correct, but tearing up the Middle East in order to establish the Muslim Brotherhood….??? Attacking Libya only made sense years back when we discovered Gaddaffi was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. The timing now is bizarre. Nothing this (illegal) President has done has made sense to reasonable people…and his foreign policies are too insane to even try to make sense of them.
    Truthfully, I feel very sorry for our military personnel being drawn into this madness as we all watch and say, “What in the h e double ll is going on with this idiot?”

  7. Dot number 3 – The quick response of UN was a shock to me once you brought it up, I never thought about that. It is rather odd for that group no? But they only need to get a yes vote or abstain from the permanent members of the security council to get approval. Considering all but Russia and China abstained, it was an easy vote. The real question is what did China and Russia get for the abstention votes? They got something, otherwise they would have done their typical ploy and pulled the ole F**k You lever. Since I am a guessing man, I would suggest Russia either got a future abstention vote from the US on any action in Georgia or perhaps somewhere else, and China got the same with regard to the South China Seas (which is ramping up right now).

    On dot number four, there can be a couple views. The first one, and the one I think that jibes most accurately with Obama’s worldview, involves Obama turning his back on any and all traditional American allies. Check the boxes – the UK (from day one), Israel, Egypt, Libya (remember Qaddafi crapped his pants after Bush went to town on Saddam?). And Obama is supporting any and all traditional American haters – he is silent on Syria, silent on Yemen, silent on Iran, buddies with Russia screw missile-defense for Eastern Europe, etc. A very good article on this exact topic can be found here http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270192/obama-s-illiberal-foreign-policy-victor-davis-hanson.

    As far as the overall goal of this confluence of events, if I had to guess, Obama (and his stoolies) see only one way to “Fundamentally Transform” the United States, war. It is generally accepted in almost all realms, that centralized economic planning is a necessity in times of true, full-on war – see FDR for evidence. The need to build arms, train troops, ration food, fuel and metals all require direction from a centralized government – the marketplace is not adequate for such a task. To quote Woody Allen, “Obama should be given dictatorial powers”, not saying peeps are following Allen’s advice, but I am sure he isn’t the only lefty moon-bat to think of it. Again, like FDR (who practically was a dictator), Obama sees this as the only way to accomplish his “good works”.

  8. I have great respect for our military, but they have to take orders, no matter how illegal and illogical the hostilities. As the mother of a young teenage son, I am quite concerned that a draft could be implemented again. My son has elected to enroll in the Jr. Naval ROTC at his high school and we are prooud of his decision to do so. But I am also leery of him continuing this path with a commander and chief such as Obama at the helm. With current military actions, our military has almost become throw-aways. It’s tragic.

    1. Unfortunately, history is replete with heads of governments that have used their troops as expendable pawns in their games of chess. Sarah Palin said the other day, and I’m paraphrasing: we don’t owe our freedom to the Founders or the constitution or to any politicians; we owe our freedom to our soldiers. Of course, liberals don’t see it that way.

  9. What you are saying is most likely true, that war will come to the middle east. However i doubt very much that it’s due to their cunning connivance, seeing how the obama administration works, i’m putting it down to sheer stupidity and ignorance.

    To start a war, the relevant parties don’t all have to be clever and cunning, some of them just have to be too stupid to see what’s staring them in the face. Mind you obama might just be clever enough to feign stupidity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s