(This is the first part of two articles. Part two will be titled “Just Think Hot! Collapsing the Paradox with a little help from Jimmy Buffett.”)
How did someone that has never found the true raison d’etre for war, and still cannot understand the extreme blood-lust fever and madness that swept through the world during and immediately after the 2nd WW, come to be interested in, and following this war in Syria blow by blow?
In Syria, I recognized that something different was happening after the Russians stepped in (The reason that they stepped in is, of course, a study in itself. Mainly they were and are protecting themselves in terms of existence – it is existential for them in that the advent of terrorism threatens their existence and the development of their country – but, it is much broader than this). So, what I recognized in the Syrian war is that we are not seeing just a blind wholesale slaughter of humans as we’ve seen in other wars but what we were seeing is a whole new strategy.
I’ve talked with some friends over the years about how indigenous populations and older societies dealt with psychopathic and destructive people. Mostly it was by removing them from the population and either letting them die or making sure that they are far away so that they could not be destructive. They were expelled and exiled from the population. This is an aspect that I recognized in the Syrian war, with the ubiquitous green buses removing the headchoppers. With much thinking, I could not figure any other way of dealing with the basic problem of people that were literally raised as psychopathic drug-addled soldiers for the continuation of the war on humanity. One of Pat Lang’s contributors wrote about exactly this somewhere in the past few weeks and the situation on the ground has now changed, although the description is valid.
I quote and bold:
“The reduction of the Ghouta pocket, or de-escalation zone 3 as it was referred to at Astana, was a perfect example of the de-escalation strategy, a strategy to limit the death, destruction, and suffering to a minimum while still attaining R+6 objectives. It is a strategy carefully planned and executed to avoid attrition warfare. It begins with an offer/ultimatum to the rebels. You can reconcile with Damascus or be bused to the Idlib area. If you choose Idlib you will leave all heavy weapons and vehicles to the SAA. If you refuse this offer, the R+6 will unleash a massive punch of artillery and air power followed by a violent strike by elite SAA units. This cycle is repeated until the targeted rebels surrender, reconcile or fall in defeat. This strategy saves civilian lives and infrastructure and preserves SAA combat forces. “
So, while Lang’s correspondent expresses this in ‘soldierly’ terms, what I observed was that there was an attempt at a humane side to this war. Of course, war is grossly inhumane by definition and my word ‘humane’ is probably wrong, and the description of avoidance of attrition warfare probably describes this better, but I am not a war analyst and this is not a formal treatise but rather for discussion. This strategy is working, and it is a Russian strategy. To my mind it combines the best of ‘getting rid of the psychopathic strain’ in among us as humans and safeguarding those that simply want to live their lives, even though I have lived through 2 low-level wars, personally, I cannot countenance war. So far in our world, I have never seen anything like this. Up to now with all the reading that I’ve done about various wars, skirmishes, and killing between nations and groups, I have never seen this ‘humane’ aspect included as part of the basic strategy. Every other war included mass rape, and further killing even after the war was won. (Refer Dresden and the nuclear attack on Japan).
This strategy, of course, allows the forces on the ground in Syria to quickly de-mine, make safe, so the population can return to areas previously overrun with headchoppers. (We cannot call them jihadists as so many in the West do because Islamic scholars themselves prohibit calling these crazies jihadist). So, we forward to the current US stance on the war in Syria, and again for this one, Pat Lang comes to the rescue. He is writing a lot, trying to do his part to avoid a threatening world conflagration as he recognizes the dangers like so many do. His update here (a few weeks ago now) as to the situation on the ground, squares with that of Canthama and SyrianPerspective as well as a bunch of Syrians on the ground, so, we can take this as fairly accurate as a position on the ground. Pat Lang says in a comment which I’ve condensed:
“This belief in the uniformity of mankind is particularly American and reinforced by exposure to political science dogmas. Many American officers believe that foreign specialists are unnecessary because of that. A VMI classmate told me at an alumni dinner long ago that he did not understand why he had bothered with such a career because people are basically all the same. I have witnessed this attitude all my adult life. Americans carry this attitude across the world spreading havoc as they go.
The Vietnamese often complained of it to me saying that the French had treated them as children, but beloved children while we Americans expected them to be like us and so favored the most toadying among them. We did do that, favoring the ones who spoke colloquial American, drank Bourbon and professed to like Poker. Yes, the children of wrath, the young neocons studied the occupation of Germany. I lived in Bremen and Frankfurt as a child because my father was an official of the US Zone of Occupation. There was no resistance whatever to the occupation after the Germans surrendered. I rode the Strassenbahn alone to school with a car full of Germans. I would tell the conductor where I was going and he would summon me at that stop. No one was unfriendly to a small obviously American child. The neocons tried hard to assert after the Iraq invasion that there had been resistance in Germany but there had not been. In my opinion, we have learned nothing and are making the same mistakes over and over again because it is in us to make them. MY brother foreign specialists and Green Berets are thought of as eccentrics to be tolerated as needed. The SF officers who really get ahead are the door kicker types. pl ”
And then he answers a question as follows: “Question: Just to clarify: do you assume that the neocons hold that silly idea of spreading freedom and enlightenment sincerely, or that it is a pretext? If the latter, what is their real motive? PL’s Answer: Yes. They are driven by their belief in the Manifest Destiny of the US, but, if they can make a few million out of that, so be it. (He explains quite a bit of the Zionist and Neocon philosophies here).” The piece that Lang wrote, as well as the comments, make a very good conversation and it is absolutely worth spending time on that. http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_s…delusions.html
So, we compare and contrast on the one hand the NeoZiocon Manifest Destiny philosophy supported by the continual warfare promulgated by the US administrations through modern time, vs the Russian avoidance of attrition warfare that we visibly see in Syria.
What does this all mean in terms of our changing world?
TheSaker supplies a handy chart and surprisingly, it resonates with Catherine Austin Fitts’ position, who says that the decision that we are in as humankind, is the stark choice between an animalistic future, or a future as human beings. TheSaker puts it like this: “…, our entire planet has to make a choice between two mutually exclusive world orders.”
“In this context, the war in Syria is primarily a war over the right of the USA to do whatever the hell it wants irrespective of international law, facts, logic or even common sense.” In other words, Manifest Destiny would hold that the US is the indispensable nation and the exceptional nation, all while the rest of the world knows that they are made up only of a bunch of zio/neocons with too much money (or is it too much debt?) and weapons. Manifest Destiny means that ‘we are the best’ and ‘you must be like us’ (with a continual changing definition of what the ‘like us’ actually means) and we are ‘morally superior’. Some will recognize this as part of the basic Zionist philosophy.
The reminder is that Syria today, and the other hotspots that we watch, are only the inhuman Petri dishes, the laboratories of the essential choice of our human future.
For a short moment, let me put all this as a backdrop to what is happening in the larger social media on Syria. What we see (besides the many link wars and word wars and social media insults) basically is a tenacious clinging to concepts which may be fast becoming outmoded:
We have the two perspectives:
– “Well Hell, is there is a war coming? Where are our forces and can we win this thing?
in contrast to
-“Well Hell, is there a war coming? Let us do whatever we can to avoid yet another world conflagration that is unthinkable”.
In the bigger sphere, we can see this on every social media out there. In the even bigger sphere, we frequently lose connection with what it is about; the simple decision between an animalistic or human civilizational model. What we personally should probably be thinking long and hard about is that this is not a decision between Russia and China, or between The UK and The US or France and Germany. It is a global and worldwide decision as well as an individual decision. You and I individually must make that decision as to how we think about world affairs today; as a series of skirmishes continually threatening to wipe humanity out, or as a civilizational choice. Then, we should most probably govern ourselves accordingly in every word and deed. Simply being anti-war and ‘thinking peace’ is no longer sufficient.
These few words are for thinking about and commenting on and probably for those that read widely. It is not meant as a scholarly treatise or analysis with supports and links up the wahoo; just my thoughts.