15 Years of Crime

[David Guyatt]

The Wolfowitz Doctrine and the Pentagon's Planning document are from 1992 (when GHW Bush was president) but such policies probably contributed to the Democratic victory that same year, as the average American simply wants and believes his country is, and should be, part of the "community of nations." As you know, 9/11 and PNAC was 9 years later, but many of the same players had been recycled into the GW Bush administration.

The Ramsey Clark speech was 2007. Once again, the candid remarks may, or may not, have contributed to the defeat of the Republican candidate for President in 2008. If not that precise candid statement, the fact was that the Republicans certainly seemed intent on prosecuting foreign wars in which the average American had quit believing.

The anti - Syria campaign that is alleged to have begun in 2009 in response to Syrian refusal to permit a Saudi pipeline under Obama seems to me to be a horse of a different color, in that direct US military intervention has been successfully avoided by Obama, even though his domestic opponents (then and now) have advocated more direct intervention. I have no confidence that Clinton would manage to (or desire to) prevent direct intervention, and plenty of confidence that Trump would quickly increase US involvement.

It seems to me that, to the extent the Wolfowitz Doctrine has controlled foreign policy, it has historically done so only from a Republican Presidency. And also that the American public, when given a chance, has heroically voted down Wolfowitz and its offspring, when it became apparent that the coinciding administration was pursuing policies consistent with Wolfowitz. I just don't know if we will be given that chance in 2016.

Yup, the WD dates from 1992 and was the new doctrine set out immediately following the disintegration of the Soviet Union and was was part of the Project for a New American Century, which implies that it was meant to take the US forward for a century. My take is that important foreign policy plans such as this are always above and beyond narrow party divisions, and are usually set for long periods of time. And the people aren't consulted about it. That would be far too democratic and thus dangerous for the elite who runs the US.

My argument is that the Doctrine is above and beyond either of the two political parties. Both have followed it. Perhaps if Trump wins the election he'll continue to do so too? We'll have to wait and see. I also consider it is really very evident that the Doctrine is still very much part of the ongoing neocon strategy and that Obama has followed it throughout his term in office. As we can see from the Wesley Clark vid, the 7 nations in 5 years is still ongoing all these years later. The 5 years was probably knowingly optimistic by the politician generals who run the Pentagon.

In regard to your horse of a different colour - I agree to the extent that the policy chosen by Obama was adapted to use regional actors instead of direct US military intervention. This, I think was simply a case of politically expediency on Obama's part --- almost certainly as a result of a recognition of war fatigue by the American public - and/or fatigue by US allies like the UK. Let's face it the UK stuck two fingers up when it unilaterally decided to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Further to this argument, and as former DIA boss, General Michael Flynn, made clear just a couple of years ago, Obama had purposely chosen to back ISIS and allow it to become the deniable US hand in Syria. And we know that Obama has funded and armed ISIS together with Al Nusra, al-Qaeda and the other thoroughly nice "moderates" in Syria to do the dirty work for Uncle - via its client states like Turkey, Saudi, Qatar etc. But ISIS went off the reservation and now has to be culled.

Meanwhile, it is fair to point out that the Syrian war has always been about the gas pipeline --- whether Qatar (de facto Exxon) gets its gas to Europe or whether Russia does. The US recognised a danger that a Europe dependent on Russian gas tended towards weakening US/NATO alliance inside the EU, with an emphasis on Germany because the US has always feared a close Russo-German relationship in Europe. Such a relationship would weaken the US's de facto control on that continent and consequently considerably hinder the bigger global project of the US. Just a few days ago, Turkey announced that is now going forward with Russia. So it's Russian gas that is going to Europe, it seems. That, for me, completely confirms US backing for the coup against Erdogan and he is responding accordingly.