Monday, December 26, 2016

The Fall of [Neconservatism and the Liberation of] Aleppo

Liberated vs Fallen

When a city or nation is successfully invaded by an outside entity, we tend to phrase the act differently depending on who the invader is. If the invader is an ally, or someone we empathize with, then we term it as a liberation. Iraq was liberated from Saddam. The Philippines were liberated from imperial Japan. Gondor was liberated from Sauron.

When the sides are switched, we talk about how our preferred side has fallen. We speak of the fall of Rome, not Rome's liberation by Visigoths. If you search the term "fall of Jerusalem" you will find references to its invasion by Saladin, but if you search for "liberation of Jerusalem" it will return references to Israel's successful 6 Day War of 1967 or to its occupation by Crusaders in medieval times. In the Anglosphere we know that the Fall of France refers to its invasion by Germany, and that the Liberation of Paris was the reactionary invasion by English speaking forces.

There is some fluidity of usage, but normally the opinion of the author can be determined by the phrasing used to describe these kinds of military actions.


In that context, the media's portrayal of the recent ousting of ISIS from Aleppo by the Syrian Army (with Russian support) is telling. Compare the news sources on the first page when searching the following terms in Google, at the time of this writing.

"Liberation of Aleppo"

  • OffGuardian
  • RT (Russian)
  • Mehr News Agency (Iranian)
  • PressTV (Iranian)
  • (anti-MSM source)
  • Katehon
  • Southfront

"Fall of Aleppo"

  • Daily Beast
  • The Atlantic
  • New Jersey Herald
  • The National Review
  • The Telegraph
  • NPR
  • VOX
  • Jerusalem Post
  • Newsweek

The conclusion is clear: the mainstream media sides with the previous occupiers. Their sympathies lie not with the House of Assad, the de facto government of Syria, nor with Russia, the only foreign military force invited by the Syrian government. No, the sympathies of our mainstream media are with ISIS. The Islamic State. The most cruel, barbaric, and despicable state in all of existence. You can't get worse than ISIS. North Korea is not nearly so depraved, so hostile, so cancerous. And that is who the mainstream media is openly siding with. It's so incredible I really do find myself at a loss of words. But let the conclusion be clear:


This is an interesting development for us who have been saying for a while that Obama has aided ISIS, using them as a tool of US foreign policy. This suggestion has some undertones of conspiracy theory, but with the mainstream media, who have done nothing but carry water for Obama's disgraceful foreign policy, now openly aligning with ISISian interests the argument is totally freed from attempts to smear them as wild conspiratorial fantasy. It is not so wild to claim that Obama has aligned with ISIS whenever useful after his media puppets have openly aligned with them as well. And that is something to note is that the media stance is more in defense of Obama's foreign policy than it is explicitly pro-ISIS. The ongoing US-backed invasion of ISIS-held Mosul is being touted as a liberation by his cheerleaders. And of course they aren't going hysterical about the humanitarian casualties of that operation.

Obama's Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism as I understand it can be summed up by the following three principles.
  1. American global hegemony must be extended into the 21st century to ensure world stability.
  2. No regional hegemonies will be tolerated. No national players who reject global US / Western hegemony will be tolerated.
  3. America will use any military, intelligence, political, and economic weapons at it's disposal to preempt the emergence of any power that might contest her empire.
While most associated with the Bush regime, Neoconservatism did not begin or end with W. US Empire At All Costs has been the de facto policy since World War II. (For those who aren't sure what I'm talking about, there are many analyses on the subject. I would suggest Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent as a great starting point.) The CIA has long been covertly sabotaging opponents, the IMF strangling them. The difference with Bush was that pre-emptive military attack became the stated policy. It has long been the de facto policy, but it was largely excluded from the public policy debate and was done as discreetly as possible. Under Obama the Bush Doctrine was alleged to have been overturned, and he was awarded a Nobel peace prize before the farce could be revealed. In reality all the old tricks were on the table, but they were used more aggressively, more openly, more deceitfully, and with greater incompetence. 

For example. it is not new for them to use US air power to influence a foreign war, as Bill Clinton did in Yugoslavia. Nor is it novel to secretly aid rebel groups to overthrow disliked rulers, as happened extensively in Latin America and other places. So it wasn't totally unusual that the Neocon policy would be implemented in Libya, which relied on US bombs and her aid to Islamic rebels/terrorists. But how it occurred was much more in line with the Bush Doctrine. There was no illusion that this was not a US operation. This was official state policy. Obama himself went on the record to demonize the Libyan government and advocate for war. There were UN resolutions passed, which only occurred because they lied to Russia and said the No-Fly Zone would not be used for regime change. Well regime changed did happen. It was brutal. It included Gadaffi being sodomized with a knife by an angry mob. It ended with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton smugly ridiculing his demise on national television. And the outcome was a Somali-level failed state in North Africa, a disastrous refugee crisis in Europe, and ISIS free to commit mass beheadings on the beach.

To reiterate, Obama pretended to roll back Bush's stated Neocon policy but did not, and wielded the normal tactics only more aggressively, more openly, more deceitfully, and with greater incompetence. 

Fall of Neoconservatism

Aleppo is the first great defeat of Neoconservatism. The Russians, duped in Libya, resisted the US in Syria, and outfoxed us both militarily (in secretly setting up air dominance over Syria) and diplomatically (in defusing the situation after the "Red Line" which was being used as a pretext for direct military action). The US has used ISIS as a tool to reduce Assad. This is how desperate they are. The removal of Assad, a secular leader who wears a suit and speaks English, is worth supporting the scourge of the Earth who don't even concoct a pretense of being civilised. The Russians demonstrated for all the world to see that the US bombing campaign against ISIS was a ruse. It was used not to destroy ISIS, but to steer them towards Syria and away from Iraq and other allies. Under US bombing ISIS oil business proceeded unhampered. Under US bombing ISIS boomed. But under Russian attack they're being dismantled. The fall of Aleppo (or should I say liberation?) is not only a blow to Neoconservatism strategically in destroying their dream of removing Assad, who resists US hegemony, but is also devastating in the philosophical or moralistic realm. Now world observers must come to one of two conclusions.
  1. The US is no longer capable of keeping the world safe from terrors like ISIS (but Russia is).
  2. The US is willing to unleash terrors like ISIS on the world to get her way.
It can be debated which is the more damning conclusion, but the point is moot since either conclusion is damning. It could also be debated how Neocons will respond. Will they blame it all on Obama's inept leadership? Will they turn on themselves or become more resolute in defeat? I suspect that point is also moot, because our incoming administration is not friendly to them at all. The only question of importance now is whether Trump will be able (and willing) to dismantle the deep-state apparatus for enforcing Neocon foreign policy in four or eight years. The last president to attempt something like that was publicly assassinated. That is a discussion for another time, but for now it's safe to speculate that Aleppo may be the Battle of Saratoga for all in the world who oppose US Neoconservative imperialism. And any media outlet that uses any language to indicate support with the defeated are illegitimate propaganda outlets that should be immediately discredited by all rational humans who are not Islamic fundamentalists. In fact this may become my new litmus test for sorting the different outlets out. It is a proxy measure for evil that can be quantified.

No comments:

Post a Comment