By Vyacheslav YAGUBKIN
Complaining about “the failure of our international system to keep pace with an interconnected world,” from the podium of the 69th session of the UN General Assembly, Barack Obama declared that the US intends to address that problem through three years of air strikes on the positions held by the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” (ISIS). In other words, the “world’s policeman,” joined by an international coalition consisting of 40 countries that have supposedly heeded the US call, will require approximately 1,000 days in order to rout, according to some estimates, 30,000 terrorist insurgents entrenched in Syria and Iraq.
According to the United States Central Command, the first 14 air strikes, carried out with the assistance of its Middle Eastern allies, plus another eight that the US launched on its own, destroyed “at least” 20 militants. Those of you who fancy yourselves experts in math can easily calculate the odds that this collective, consisting of the world’s best armies, will actually be able to wind up its anti-terrorist operation by that deadline.
However, the ones who design and manage that group are not thinking mathematically but politically. Three years is sufficient time to create a well-entrenched myth that the US is leading the charge to resolve this globally and historically critical problem, culminating in a “full and final” American victory over the dark forces of international terrorism.
And if there is a sudden need to send aircraft carriers to “the shores of Belarus,” or any other region of the world – who will intervene, voicing the suspicion that these thousands of mercenaries, who are being paid to shoot anyone if so ordered, might actually have terrorist intentions?!
Incidentally, reports have already surfaced of an ISIS group in Afghanistan. So the question of what will happen in this long-suffering country once NATO troops pull out is no longer on the agenda.
Long ago the US was responsible for the creation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and now their successors are firmly established there under various brand names, including “the Islamic State.” They long ago perfected their methods for training and coaching volunteers in the US-sponsored foreign legions.
Recently Western experts peered intently at a face that flashed across their TV screens, the face of an ISIS commander whom the State Department calls Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim Ali Al-Badri, nicknamed “Al-Baghdadi” (from Baghdad), and without much surprise they found it bore a suspicious resemblance to a certain Elliot Shimon (Simon), born to a Jewish family and recruited by Israel’s Mossad to infiltrate al-Qaeda during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
It is entirely possible that those experts are wrong. But how to hush up the fact that the Syrian rebels, who fought against the Syrian army and have now joined ISIS, were trained between 2012 and 2013 by American instructors working at a secret base in Jordan?
According to sources within the Jordanian security service, “the British and French instructors also participated in US-led operations.” The goal of this project was to create approximately ten detachments of about 10,000 fighters.
As knowledgeable members of the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have admitted, one of the ISIS training camps was located near İncirlik Hava Üssü, a large American air base near the Turkish city of Adana, teeming with American soldiers and equipment. After being trained, thousands of ISIS militants set off for Iraq via Syria.
Is it any wonder that almost never a day passes in Iraq without explosions in public places that claim dozens of innocent lives? Is this how the militants are creating a global caliphate? No, these “terrorist acts” are needed to justify the American presence in the region, which, according to Washington, is clearly suffering from a lack of democracy.
No one could argue with that, but by what logic are the monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan signing up as America’s allies in order to build Arab democracy?
The president of the United States indirectly answered that question in the same speech before the UN. Talking about the newly launched, three-year campaign against ISIS, he stated that “… In this effort, we do not act alone — nor do we intend to send US troops …
Instead, we will support Iraqis and Syrians fighting to reclaim their communities. We will use our military might … We will train and equip forces fighting against these terrorists on the ground. We will work to cut off their financing, and to stop the flow of fighters into and out of the region.”
Germany’s minister for economic cooperation and development, Gerd Müller, appeared on the German television channel ZDF where he was asked who was financing ISIS in Iraq and Syria. He answered, “A story like this always has a history … Who is financing these troops? Here’s a hint: Qatar.”
Clearly the best way to cut off their financing channel is to control it. Therefore, the more “terrorists” that are needed, the more money the sheikhs can be forced to shell out. And if they suddenly dig in their heels and refuse, they can be immediately reminded of the lack of democracy in their oil-rich regions.
It is hard to believe that the new Ukrainian government could have been working on its own when it came up with the idea of classifying the predominantly Christian population of miners in the country’s eastern regions as part of a network of international terrorism, as is evident in the reasoning behind what is being called the ATO ( anti-terrorist operation).
There can be little doubt as to the true authors of this monstrously cruel, inhuman project, which is cut from the same cloth. For those who “choose hope over fear” (from the US president’s speech), in an “anti-terrorist operation” it makes no difference who (Arabs, Afghans, or Ukrainians) are destroyed by proxy, using money provided by sponsors.
If America has an interest in any region, they can pin the label of “international terrorism” on it at any time. Usually this is done unexpectedly, with no prior notice.
Source in Russian: PolitRus
Translated by ORIENTAL REVIEW