“Hybrid war” is an expression that is much used of late. It has two opposing meanings which must carefully be distinguished. The first is the way the term is commonly used; that use is imaginary; the second is the way it is not used; that use is factual. – By Patrick Armstrong
Catégorie : Analyses – English
« The US markets itself as having an inclusive identity that’s capable of uniting its many disparate parts into a singular whole. Its unofficial motto, “E Pluribus Unum”, proudly proclaims that “out of many, one”, further signifying that this ideal functions as a cornerstone of the American ideology. In what makes for a very peculiar case of ideological doublethink, while the US insists on exporting its “democratic” model abroad, it hypocritically employs a calculated pick-and-choose approach to which countries should retain the “E Pluribus Unum” domestic identity component of its system and which should incorporate the “E Unum Pluribus” geostrategic innovation. »
One of these masterful journalistic pieces one keeps for reference. Published in April 2016. – « As this newspaper first reported when the treasure became available, one memorandum dated July 26, 1950, reveals a campaign to promote a full-fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the Central Inteligence Agency. »
« North Korea is the only country in the world to have been systematically blackmailed by US nuclear weapons going back to the 1950s, when hundreds of nukes were installed in South Korea. I have written much about this in these pages and in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Why on earth would Pyongyang not seek a nuclear deterrent? But this crucial background doesn’t enter mainstream American discourse. History doesn’t matter, until it does—when it rears up and smacks you in the face. «
« The U.S. government spends more on wars (and military occupations) abroad every year than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. In fact, the U.S. spends more on its military than the eight highest-ranking nations with big defense budgets combined. The reach of America’s military empire includes close to 800 bases in as many as 160 countries, operated at a cost of more than $156 billion annually. »
« That President Trump could be susceptible to obvious manipulation is not surprising, given his predilection for counter-punching on Twitter for any perceived slight; that his national security team allowed him to be manipulated thus, and did nothing to sway Trump’s opinion or forestall action pending a thorough review of the facts, is scandalous. History will show that Donald Trump, his advisors and the American media were little more than willing dupes for Al Qaeda and its affiliates, whose manipulation of the Syrian narrative resulted in a major policy shift that furthers their objectives. »
A large number of Trump voters believed he was anti-war. Were they conned? Meanwhile, the liberals rejoice: they finally have the war frenzy they were apparently pining for. Glenn Greenwald’s take on a sickening phenomenon.
« Why should we be surprised that, from Prince Bandar’s Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised — knowing a little about Wahhabism — that “moderate” insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of “One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed” could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance? »
Did you ever wonder why, prior to the birth of Al Qaeda, the terrorist outfit that grew from the U.S. arming of mujahideen against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s – and prior to that, in a less conspicuous way, from the US-backed training and arming of so-called « Muslim freedom fighters » in Yugoslavia in the early nineties – you had barely ever heard of « islamic terrorism » ? Why the responsibility for alleged « centuries of jihad » nobody had witnessed was abruptly slapped onto the Koran (hence all the Muslims wordlwide), and why all of a sudden, the « islamic threat » was all over the news? Amir Nour, an Algerian scholar and researcher, lays out his analysis of so-called « islamic » terrorism, a phenomenon that entirely belongs to modernity.
« Politics has been described as many things but in Britain currently a good summary is that it is the art of deceiving the public. Clare Short, after resigning her position as International Development Secretary, told a parliamentary inquiry of ‘a series of half-truths, exaggerations and reassurances that were not the case to get us into conflict [with Iraq] by the spring’ of 2003. This is, in my view, an understatement: all the evidence suggests that – at least over Iraq – the public has been subjected by the government to a campaign of managed deception. »