The Podesta emails - The outrageous US obsession to adjust the Middle East chaos according to the US interests
WikiLeaks
series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John
Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was
President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr
Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major
lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress
(CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.
An email sent by John Podesta to
Hillary Clinton in late September of 2014, shows characteristically
the degree of US obsession to adjust things in Middle East perfectly
according to their interests.
Even in an environment of absolute
mess, for which the US intervention was highly responsible, the key
associate of the Clintons, is an authentic example of how the US
officials are thinking. How they insist, after all this chaos, to
play the same games on the expense of millions of people who lose
their lives, their homes.
The most characteristic part of
this email, is that Podesta is still considering that the US should
fight ISIS under specific terms and conditions, as if the US have the
time and the luxury to do so.
As
he writes characteristically: “...
we will be able to work with the Peshmerga as they pursue ISIL into
disputed areas of Eastern Syria, coordinating with FSA troops who can
move against ISIL from the North. This will make certain Basher al
Assad does not gain an advantage from these operations.”
This shows that even after ISIS went out of control, the biggest
concern of the US was to prevent Assad of taking advantage.
At
the same time, Podesta admits that the US allies, Qatar and Saudi
Arabia, are helping ISIS: “...
we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence
assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi
Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic
support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”
The
plans for a kind of Kurdish autonomous state also confirmed: “With
advisors in the Peshmerga command we can reassure the concerned
parties that, in return for increase autonomy, the KRG will not
exclude the Iraqi Government from participation in the management of
the oil fields around Kirkuk, and the Mosel Dam hydroelectric
facility.”,
as well as, the subsequent worsening of the US-Turkish relations: “In
the past the USG, in an agreement with the Turkish General Staff,
did not provide such heavy weapons to the Peshmerga, out of a concern
that they would end up in the hands of Kurdish rebels inside of
Turkey. The current situation in Iraq, not to mention the political
environment in Turkey, makes this policy obsolete. [...] as Turkey
moves toward a new, more serious Islamic reality, it will be
important for them to realize that we are willing to take serious
actions, which can be sustained to protect our national interests.”
As,
indeed, described in previous analysis:
“Turkey
also exploits the current chaos and tries to crush Kurdish
resistance. One of the reasons that supports ISIS is to use it
against the Kurds. It is a sub-proxy war by Turkey in the area
according to its own agenda. The US are probably not very happy with
that, because they want to use ISIS in full force against Assad and
consider Kurds as allies.”
As
also has been estimated in the same analysis: “War
probably needs to be redefined in a sense that either it is not
conducted directly by nations, or, nations themselves simulate
methods more familiar to paramilitary groups, avoiding a full force
conflict in open front. Moreover, the line between victory and defeat
is not clear at all, and in most cases it is of less importance.
[...] It appears that direct wars between nations are extremely
costly and inefficient in our days. The increasingly complex
environment in the multi-polar world is not suitable for full-scale
conflicts. The continuous armament even of less important regional
powers, is another preventing factor towards this perspective.”
Through
this letter, Podesta actually confirms this estimation too: “The
most important factor in this matter is to make use of intelligence
resources and Special Operations troops in an aggressive manner,
while avoiding the old school solution, which calls for more
traditional military operations. [...] This entire effort should be
done with a low profile, avoiding the massive traditional military
operations that are at best temporary solutions. [...] This course of
action offers the potential for success, as opposed to large scale,
traditional military campaigns, that are too expensive and awkward to
maintain over time.”
More parts of the letter prove
that the US officials are interested only to satisfy the US
ambitions, not to deal with the chaos.
In
the beginning of the letter Podesta admits that there is a “chaotic
security situation in North Africa and the Middle East.”
In another part of the letter, he clearly acknowledges the danger of
further uncontrolled chaos: “In
the end the situation in Iraq is merely the latest and most dangerous
example of the regional restructuring that is taking place across
North Africa, all the way to the Turkish border. [...] If we do not
take the changes needed to make our security policy in the region
more realistic, there is a real danger of ISIL veterans moving on to
other countries to facilitate operations by Islamist forces. This is
already happening in Libya and Egypt, where fighters are returning
from Syria to work with local forces. ISIL is only the latest and
most violent example of this process. If we don’t act to defeat
them in Iraq something even more violent and dangerous will develop.”
Yet, in other parts of the letter,
he exposes the impossible ambition of the US to manage the chaos, or
at least exploit it, for the benefit of the US interests:
“It
is important that once we engage ISIL, as we have now done in a
limited manner, we and our allies should carry on until they are
driven back suffering a tangible defeat. Anything short of this will
be seen by other fighters in the region, Libya, Lebanon, and even
Jordan, as an American defeat.”
“At
the same time we should return to plans to provide the FSA, or some
group of moderate forces, with equipment that will allow them to deal
with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against the Syrian
regime.”
“These
developments are important to the U.S. for reasons that often differ
from country to country: energy and moral commitment to Iraq, energy
issues in Libya, and strategic commitments in Jordan.”
It's
interesting that Podesta, indirectly (but cynically) admits that
concerning Libya, there are only "energy issues" for which
the United States are interested. This is actually another admission
that the US are not interested to deal with the chaos, while also
confirms the neo-colonial race of the Western powers
for the Libyan resources, as has been revealed through another series
of the Clinton email archive.
Finally,
it would be worth to pay attention to the manner that Podesta starts
his letter. He actually sees the "advance
of ISIL through Iraq"
as an "opportunity"
for the US government "to
change the way it deals with the chaotic security situation in North
Africa and the Middle East",
and this tells us a lot on the way which the US officials are
thinking.
Full
letter:
All battery operated wheel chairs will disappear. Toilets will all become squat holes. Say good-bye goobers!
ReplyDelete