US: Feeding the War Machine
November 6, 2015
Robert Fantina
Correspondent
Recent revelations show conclusively that the United States government’s desire to overthrow Syrian president Bashar al-Assad led it to support radical militants who are now ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), who the US is now also fighting.
This is not a new phenomenon; the US is forever creating and arming deadly monsters, and then fighting them. This is excellent business for both US weapons manufacturers, and undertakers around the world.
Let’s look at a just two earlier examples.
In the late 1950s, the US supported Abdel Karim Kassem in Iraq. However, by 1961, he had fallen into disfavour with the US, mainly because he was beginning to challenge US dominance in the Middle East. So the US armed Kurdish rebels, and in 1963 Mr Kassem was overthrown and executed.
With the government and media still portraying Communism as the big, bad wolf, the US decided to support and arm the anti-Communist Ba’ath party, working closely with an up and coming party member, Saddam Hussein.
Forty years later, the US launched its deadly and illegal war to replace Mr Hussein.
When Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the US, not wanting the Soviets to expand their influence, supported radical Islamic extremists with training and weaponry.
After several years, the mujahedeen (fanatical Islamic ‘holy warriors’) were successful in defeating the Russians. Yet, having done the US’s dirty work, they were not willing to turn the country over to a US -appointed puppet government. The mujahedeen evolved into the Taliban, which the US has now been fighting in the longest war in its history.
The public reason for supporting these radical groups is always that they are freedom fighters, innocent men and women who only want to live in a free, democratic society, and who are prevented from doing so by a cruel, oppressive government.
Were that the case, the US would have been arming the Palestinians and not the Israelis, but that is a topic for another essay. Let’s look at a quotation from a recently-declassified Pentagon report: “. . . there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”
The risks of such an action were not unknown: “ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organisations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of territory.
But is unifying Iraq and protecting the territory ever what the US wanted?
The concept of peace is anathema to policy makers, who garner so much support from weapons manufacturers.
By supporting the radicals attempting to overthrow the Syrian government, and then fighting them at the same time, weapons can be sold to all and sundry.
No need to take sides; let the weapons flow out, and the money flow in!
Lest one be horrified at the suggestion that the US doesn’t take sides, and that it is willing to make a buck from anyone it can, regardless of whose blood that buck is soaked in, let us look at just some of the business dealings the US government approved of when it was fighting the Nazis during World War II, as reported by Charles Higham in Trading with the Enemy: The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933 — 1949.
ITT: Provided support throughout the war to improve Germany’s communications equipment, including submarine and ship phones, and aircraft intercoms.
Ford Motor Company: Provided supplies for the 5-ton trucks that were the backbone of Germany army transportation.
Standard Oil of California: In 1940, its chairman, Torkild Rieber, said this: “If the Germans ever catch [any of my ships] carrying oil to the Allies they will have my hearty permission to fire a torpedo into her”.
These business dealings required US government approval, as designated by an amendment to the 1917 ‘Trading with the Enemy’ act.
The agreement, in part, reads thus: “A general license is hereby granted, licensing any transaction or act proscribed by Section 3(a) of The Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, provided, however, that such transaction or act is authorised by the Secretary of the Treasury by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, licenses or otherwise, pursuant to the Executive order No. 8983, as amended”.
So while US soldiers were fighting German atrocities, US companies were helping to kill them.
Today, US bombs are killing people in the Middle East who are rampaging across the area with weaponry provided by the US. They have forgotten that their role was to overthrow Mr Assad, so the US could install a puppet government in Syria.
One has to wonder if the US will ever learn that arming radical groups to overthrow governments is never a good idea. Of course, for the US, it may be fine, considering the huge profits in weapons dealings when one is arming both sides. And with the corporate-owned media encouraging hatred of Muslims, bombing them doesn’t bring about much resistance in the US.
So history, as it is wont to do, once again repeats itself. And US terrorism continues to rack up both phenomenal profits and untold suffering.
— Counterpunch
Robert Fantina
Correspondent
Recent revelations show conclusively that the United States government’s desire to overthrow Syrian president Bashar al-Assad led it to support radical militants who are now ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), who the US is now also fighting.
This is not a new phenomenon; the US is forever creating and arming deadly monsters, and then fighting them. This is excellent business for both US weapons manufacturers, and undertakers around the world.
Let’s look at a just two earlier examples.
In the late 1950s, the US supported Abdel Karim Kassem in Iraq. However, by 1961, he had fallen into disfavour with the US, mainly because he was beginning to challenge US dominance in the Middle East. So the US armed Kurdish rebels, and in 1963 Mr Kassem was overthrown and executed.
With the government and media still portraying Communism as the big, bad wolf, the US decided to support and arm the anti-Communist Ba’ath party, working closely with an up and coming party member, Saddam Hussein.
Forty years later, the US launched its deadly and illegal war to replace Mr Hussein.
When Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the US, not wanting the Soviets to expand their influence, supported radical Islamic extremists with training and weaponry.
After several years, the mujahedeen (fanatical Islamic ‘holy warriors’) were successful in defeating the Russians. Yet, having done the US’s dirty work, they were not willing to turn the country over to a US -appointed puppet government. The mujahedeen evolved into the Taliban, which the US has now been fighting in the longest war in its history.
The public reason for supporting these radical groups is always that they are freedom fighters, innocent men and women who only want to live in a free, democratic society, and who are prevented from doing so by a cruel, oppressive government.
Were that the case, the US would have been arming the Palestinians and not the Israelis, but that is a topic for another essay. Let’s look at a quotation from a recently-declassified Pentagon report: “. . . there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”
The risks of such an action were not unknown: “ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organisations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of territory.
But is unifying Iraq and protecting the territory ever what the US wanted?
The concept of peace is anathema to policy makers, who garner so much support from weapons manufacturers.
By supporting the radicals attempting to overthrow the Syrian government, and then fighting them at the same time, weapons can be sold to all and sundry.
No need to take sides; let the weapons flow out, and the money flow in!
Lest one be horrified at the suggestion that the US doesn’t take sides, and that it is willing to make a buck from anyone it can, regardless of whose blood that buck is soaked in, let us look at just some of the business dealings the US government approved of when it was fighting the Nazis during World War II, as reported by Charles Higham in Trading with the Enemy: The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933 — 1949.
ITT: Provided support throughout the war to improve Germany’s communications equipment, including submarine and ship phones, and aircraft intercoms.
Ford Motor Company: Provided supplies for the 5-ton trucks that were the backbone of Germany army transportation.
Standard Oil of California: In 1940, its chairman, Torkild Rieber, said this: “If the Germans ever catch [any of my ships] carrying oil to the Allies they will have my hearty permission to fire a torpedo into her”.
These business dealings required US government approval, as designated by an amendment to the 1917 ‘Trading with the Enemy’ act.
The agreement, in part, reads thus: “A general license is hereby granted, licensing any transaction or act proscribed by Section 3(a) of The Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, provided, however, that such transaction or act is authorised by the Secretary of the Treasury by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, licenses or otherwise, pursuant to the Executive order No. 8983, as amended”.
So while US soldiers were fighting German atrocities, US companies were helping to kill them.
Today, US bombs are killing people in the Middle East who are rampaging across the area with weaponry provided by the US. They have forgotten that their role was to overthrow Mr Assad, so the US could install a puppet government in Syria.
One has to wonder if the US will ever learn that arming radical groups to overthrow governments is never a good idea. Of course, for the US, it may be fine, considering the huge profits in weapons dealings when one is arming both sides. And with the corporate-owned media encouraging hatred of Muslims, bombing them doesn’t bring about much resistance in the US.
So history, as it is wont to do, once again repeats itself. And US terrorism continues to rack up both phenomenal profits and untold suffering.
— Counterpunch
No comments:
Post a Comment