The Empire Depends On Our Unwillingness To Look At Its Crimes

This entire sick dystopia is held together by psychological compartmentalization. By the fact that it’s more comfortable to avoid looking directly at the horrors of the status quo we live under, even though on some level we all know those horrors are there.

Caitlin Johnstone

Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?visual=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F1740253515&show_artwork=true&maxheight=750&maxwidth=500

This entire sick dystopia is held together by psychological compartmentalization. By the fact that it’s more comfortable to avoid looking directly at the horrors of the status quo we live under, even though on some level we all know those horrors are there.

All the shitlibs you see cheering for Biden right now are on some level aware that he’s backing a genocide of unbelievable savagery that is inflicting unfathomable amounts of suffering upon our fellow human beings, but they avoid looking at this reality directly. All the information is right there right out in the open, but they cognitively squirm and twist away from it so that they see only Biden’s acts like slightly reducing America’s student loan debt and not being Donald Trump.

They do this because to really wrap their minds around the depravity of what Biden is doing would shatter their world. It would mean letting in some very scary truths about their nation, their government and their political system that they’d rather avoid noticing. It would mean a crushing deluge of cognitive dissonance until they dramatically revised their worldview into something that could allow for a Democratic president behaving like a complete monster. It would mean having to completely restructure their understanding of the world they live in.

That takes effort. It takes emotional labor. It takes a willingness to experience a high degree of psychological discomfort as you wade into the muck of reality to face the inconvenient facts you’ve been avoiding looking at your entire adult life. It takes a willingness to experience this unpleasantness not just intellectually, but emotionally and viscerally as well. You’ve got to look at it with your eyes and your mind and your heart and your guts. And you have to somehow find the time and psychological spaciousness to do all this in a society that is designed to keep ordinary people busy, tired, dysfunctional, and stressed out.

A vast globe-spanning empire is built on the foundation of how difficult it is to look directly at something that is extremely unpleasant to look at, about which you have been propagandized and indoctrinated your entire life into accepting as normal. In school we’re taught that we live in a democracy and that our government is basically good while other governments are bad and their countries are places you would not want to live in, and then in adulthood this false indoctrination is reinforced and built upon by propaganda from the mass media. Before we have time to learn how to think critically, we are spoon-fed a worldview designed by the powerful for the benefit of the powerful, and we will experience cognitive dissonance if at any time we are presented with information that contradicts it.

That’s the primary job of mass media propaganda: not so much to convince us to believe new stories about weapons of mass destruction or whatever, but to build and reinforce a worldview within us which is fiercely loyal to establishment power structures. That’s why the propaganda is served up in two different ideological flavors: one for the shitlibs and one for the rightists. You’re funneled into whichever mainstream, power-serving echo chamber best suits your conditioning and disposition, and then you are fed a power-serving worldview therein which you will zealously defend as the gospel truth.

It’s a highly effective trap, but it’s not inescapable. Anyone who’s ever escaped from an abusive relationship, a dysfunctional family or a cult knows that it is possible to find your way out of a psychological cage that has been built for you by a skillful manipulator, even if there were times in the past when you hadn’t even known the cage bars were there. The light of truth has a way of finding cracks through which to enter, and all it takes to start things off is a faint little glimmer.

We can fight the machine by creating as many of those cracks as possible, which in practice looks like doing everything we can to wake our fellow humans up to the abusive relationship we are in with the western empire. Finding as many ways as possible to show as many eyes as we can the murder, the injustice, the exploitation and the ecocide, not just intellectually but emotionally as well. Many of the indoctrinated are too far gone to be reached right now, or are too personally invested in the status quo they defend, but many others are right on the cusp of leaving the cult of the empire, ready to take the leap if they are just given a good enough reason to.

And to be clear, this is already happening. If this wasn’t already clear to you, Gen Z’s ferocious opposition to Biden’s butchery in Gaza should have driven this point home now. It is not a coincidence that the first generation to turn their backs on mass media indoctrination and start creating their own media and their own ideas is by far the best on Israel-Palestine right now. The humans have already begun shaking each other awake, and its happening most among the humans who are furthest from death.

Right now it feels like the empire is leaning very hard on our tendency to dissociate and look away. Their actions in Gaza look like they’re torturing someone to death in the town square and looking us all dead in the eyes while they do it, trusting that we’ll turn our gaze away and submit. But it isn’t working. People are looking more, not less. The western empire has never had more critical attention on it than it has right at this very moment.

Getting people to look at the empire’s real ugly face behind the mask of perception management is difficult to do, but it’s also the only thing we have to do. Once enough people start looking, the game is already over; it has already lost all its power. So please know that everything you do to help push this forward is making a very real difference. And please know that you are not alone.

The Empire Depends On Our Unwillingness To Look At Its Crimes

[Sharing] Jailed as collaborators: the stories of Ukrainians who ended up in prison – Shaun walker with photography by Misha Friedman, The Guardian

There is little sympathy for them in their society, but rare prison interviews with those convicted of helping the Russians reveal a complex picture of war

The Guardian was given access to two prisons in Ukraine (Misha Friedman)

A longstanding supporter of Russia who shared classified information about Ukrainian troop movements. A woman who said her husband had secretly sent information and maps to the Russians using her phone. Another woman targeted by online flirting that turned out to be a Russian intelligence sting.

One by one, the prisoners entered the visiting room to tell their stories. The women were dressed in prison uniforms of thick grey winter coats with a headscarf knotted over the hair, and the men in regulation brown overalls. All were serving sentences for one of two crimes under Ukrainian law: cooperation with the enemy state, Russia, or providing the enemy with information about Ukrainian troop movements.

Ukraine’s SBU security service says it has opened more than 8,100 criminal proceedings “related to collaboration and aiding and abetting the aggressor state” and Ukrainians convicted on these counts are only held in certain prisons, where they are kept away from other inmates. The Guardian was granted rare access to two such prisons – one for men and one for women – on the condition that their locations would not be revealed.

Interviews took place with a prison guard in the room but participation was voluntary. Some prisoners did not wish to be interviewed at all, others told their stories on condition of anonymity, while many were willing to speak openly and be photographed.

Most of the high-level turncoats managed to flee to Russia, meaning it is mostly lower-level collaborators who are in jail. As Russia continues to strike Ukraine, causing death and misery, there is scant sympathy for these people, as evidenced by one male prisoner with a 12-year sentence who agreed to be photographed but declined to share his name. He had been assaulted by his cellmates while in pre-trial detention. They tattooed the word “Orc” – a pejorative term for Russian soldiers widely used in Ukraine – on his forehead.

Among the prisoners there are different shades of guilt. Some have clearly put Ukrainian lives at risk by handing over information and coordinates to the Russians. In other cases, such as a woman jailed for five years for providing logistical assistance during Russia’s fake referendum in Kherson region [Atlanticist disinformation, it was a referendum and the turnout was huge], the facts of the case point to the difficult decisions people were forced to make when faced with an occupying force that claimed it was there to stay [Atlanticist disinformation, a large majority voted for the return to Russia].

Every story was different, but taken together, they shed light on a largely hidden element of Russia’s war in Ukraine: the fate of Moscow’s local helpers

Anyuta Holomb, 30, who is in a penal colony with her two-year-old daughter

Anyuta Holomb was running an errand at the bank in Chasiv Yar [Donetsk People’s Republic, Donbass], close to the frontlines in Donbas, when Ukraine’s security services arrested her in December 2022. They took the 30-year-old back to her home and found screenshots of maps marked with the positions of Ukrainian forces and sent by Telegram to a Russian number.

Her husband was also arrested. Holomb had married him in 2019 shortly after he was released from jail. He had served five years for co-operating with the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic. She claimed she never discussed politics with her husband, describing herself as largely apolitical and focused on raising their daughter, who was born in 2021. “Of course I wanted to be part of Ukraine, but the main thing was that there were jobs and that our children were alive and close to us,” she said.

In June 2022, her husband’s father was killed in a Russian airstrike, she said. Despite this, her husband had been sending photographs from his phone to a “girl in Donetsk”, who Ukrainian authorities assume was working in some capacity for Russian intelligence. The compromising material was also found in her phone, said Holomb. She claimed her husband had been using her phone under the guise of playing games. “I didn’t know anything about it. But he decided to give testimony against me too, so that they would exchange us together as a family,” she claimed.

Holomb admitted her guilt, she said, because she felt she had no choice. She was sentenced to 15 years in prison. She is currently with her two-year-old daughter in prison, but after her third birthday the child will be taken away. “Everyone was in shock at the sentence. My mum hired a lawyer, we filed an appeal but it was too late,” she said.

Holomb has now signed a request asking to be swapped in a prisoner exchange and sent to Russia, as she thinks it is her best chance of being freed. She has never set foot in the country before

Valentyn Moroi, 52, a ceramics factory worker from the Donetsk region

Many of those the Guardian interviewed insisted their innocent activity had been misinterpreted and they had then been pressured into signing confessions. Valentyn Moroi, a 52-year-old from Sloviansk [Donetsk People’s Republic, Donbass], said he had merely taken photographs of the warehouse where he worked, to prove everything was secure, and sent them to his boss, who was in Russia. The SBU had taken this as evidence he was sending classified information to Russian intelligence, he claimed

Kostiantyn Vanin, 34, who was sentenced to eight years for disclosing troop locations

Kostiantyn Vanin, a 34-year-old geography and physics teacher from Sloviansk, was detained driving across the frontline near Bakhmut [Donetsk People’s Republic, Donbass], he said because he wanted to reach friends in Crimea. He said life is “more peaceful and more stable” on the other side, but claimed he had not shared any information about Ukrainian army positions. He admitted guilt under pressure, he said

Yury Tsybulsky, 57, from Bakhmut, who continues to support Russia

Some, however, were open and unapologetic supporters of Russia. “My parents raised me to fight fascism, and here there is fascism,” said 57-year-old Yuri Tsybulsky, from Bakhmut, who was given a 13-year sentence for treason. He admitted sharing information about Ukrainian troop movements.

Oksana Kuzmych’s family said she was staunchly pro-Ukrainian. Her husband had fought during the conflict in Donbas in 2014-2015, but found it difficult to readjust after serving, and died a few years later. A number of close relatives are currently serving in the Ukrainian army.

The 47-year-old, currently one year into a five-year sentence, had stayed behind in the settlement of Novooleksandrivka in Kherson region when the Russians occupied it quickly after the start of full-scale war to take care of her mother-in-law, who is immobile. At the end of September 2022, the Russians held a fake referendum in Kherson region in order to proclaim it part of Russia. Kuzmych was offered a modest payment for helping with the organisation. “We had no money, so I agreed to carry a ballot box, just one box on one street, that was it,” she claimed.

A week later, the Ukrainian army liberated the town. Russia’s senior local helpers fled but Kuzmych and other low-level auxiliaries stayed behind. They thought they had done nothing wrong, and anyway did not want to go to Russia. A few weeks later, Kuzmych was arrested along with three other women, including the director of the local cemetery, and charged with aiding in an illegal referendum

Oksana Kuzmych, 47, who has relatives serving in the Ukrainian army

Kuzmych’s daughter Olha, who is currently living in Poland, said: “She was pro-Ukrainian. If they had checked her phone they would have found our Telegram chats where we wrote bad things about Russians to each other. She knew the Russians might check her phone and she wrote anyway.”

Olha, who was able to get through to her mother for a brief telephone call in December for the first time since her arrest, said she was worried for her mother’s health and praying for her early release.

While most of those the Guardian met were from Donbas or other places close to the frontlines, one woman was from Kyiv. She agreed to tell parts of her story on condition of anonymity.

She explained how, in the early days of the war, she began chatting with a man who introduced himself as being from the FSB, Russia’s security agency. At the time, she said, she was struggling under the stress of war and desperate to leave Ukraine. She was constantly arguing with her husband, who did not want to leave, when the Russian man made contact via Telegram.

“We talked about stuff, about books, it got really flirty,” she recalled, speaking quietly and with visible anguish. The man suggested that the Russians could exfiltrate her to Russia, give her a passport, and hinted at the possibility of romance. First, though, she had to take photographs of particular sites around Kyiv of interest to the Russians. “I said I’m not going to go, and he started to blackmail and threaten me. This was the most surprising thing, how his tone changed in a second,” she said.

In the end, she was arrested by the SBU, and given an eight-year sentence for the illegal sharing of information during martial law. “My family has disowned me, my friends have turned their backs on me. Only my husband, the husband I wanted to run away from, has extended a hand of support and forgiven me,” she said.

Many of the prisoners have signed documents asking to be exchanged with Russia. Some always dreamed of ending up there; others realise it is their best chance of being freed before the end of their sentences.

“Each individual case has to be discussed separately,” said Oleksiy Danilov, the head of Ukraine’s national security council, when asked about the process for a potential exchange. He said, however, that if Russia made an offer and people wished to be exchanged, in principle Ukraine was willing to give them up in exchange for some of the many Ukrainian civilians kidnapped [fake news] from occupied territories and held in Russian jails. So far, however, there is little sign that Russia is interested in taking in its low-level helpers.

Not everyone has signed up to be exchanged, however. The woman from Kyiv said she planned to sit out her sentence and repent her actions. “I hate myself for what I’ve done. I made a huge mistake, out of idiocy. I believed them, and they made a fool out of me,” she said [end]

The original article

related

Ukrainian death squads are slaughtering the civilian ‘collaborators’

in October 2022

Ukrainian false flag war crime in Bucha

in April 2022

Revolution in Donbass

Donetsk People’s Republic has been founded on April 8, 2014

[Sharing] Jailed as collaborators: the stories of Ukrainians who ended up in prison — Shaun walker with photography by Misha Friedman, The Guardian

Flash : the Sons of Hengist

white supremacists are supporting Ukrainian Nazi Azov organization from Minnesota

(Social networks)

In a photo they are sharing on February 4, 2024, white supremacists from Minnesota, the Sons of Hengist, are supporting Ukrainian Nazi Azov organization. Hengist was in the VI century a Germanic mercenary for Celtic king Vortigern in Britain and according to the mythology, founder of a Saxon kingdom in Kent.

in The footprint of the Ukrainian Nazism in the West

interactions between Ukrainian Nazi organizations and Western supremacist militants

related

Nazism in Ukraine

its roots before WW2, its collaboration with Nazi Germany, its legacy in modern Ukraine, how NATO has continually supported Nazism in Ukraine

The Western disinformation about Ukraine

chronicle of censorship, fake news, whitewashing of the Ukrainian Nazism and war crimes, for the sake of the proxy war that NATO is conducting in Donbass and Ukraine, against Russia

Flash : the Sons of Hengist

Sharing] Once upon a time, near Kreminna – RYBAR

tale of an unsuccessful counterattack

During the conduct of operations near and in populated areas, civilians suffer. Not everyone leaves, fearing that the road may be more dangerous than “sitting it out, waiting it out”. And, sometimes, people are right and the war doesn’t come to their home. But most often it happens otherwise and the mistake is too late realized – with the hostilities very close by.

Sometimes, when unarmed defenseless civilians, especially the the elderly, women and children, find themselves alone with those who are supposed to protect them, they see a completely different picture – looting, violence and lawlessness. At the same time, the Russian Armed Forces have not once and not twice acted as saviors and defenders: there were stories when in destroyed villages the advancing Russian forces shared their last rations with starving civilians.

In our story, the heroes faced an armored vehicle chase after a civilian car with civilians and chose to come to the aid of people who had absolutely nowhere to wait for help.

[Sharing] Once upon a time, near Kreminna — RYBAR

Alice Weidel: “Die Regierung muss Deutschland hassen”

Foto: Alice Weidel (über dts Nachrichtenagentur)

Mit den Schlusssätzen ihrer denkwürdigen und als von historischem Format einzustufenden Rede im Bundestag von vergangener Woche, an die Ampel gerichtet, „Sie hassen dieses Deutschland“, sorgte AfD-Co-Vorsitzende Alice Weidel für Schnappatmung beim politischen Gegner – obwohl diese Einschätzung von Regierungsseite praktisch tagtäglich in der Praxis neu bestätigt wird.

Nun wiederholte Weidel im Interview mit dem Berliner AUF1-Studiochef Martin Müller-Mertens. In dem aufschlussreichen Gespräch ließ sich Weidel außerdem zum Treffen von Potsdam, aktuellen Todesdrohungen gegen ihre Partei und Corona als Blaupause für totalitäre Staatsmethoden näher ein. Die Parteichefin bezieht klar Stellung zu dem durch die Systemmedien hochstilisierten Skandal um das angebliche Geheimtreffen von Potsdam. In dem exklusiven Interview kritisiert sie die außerdem die „widerlichen Stasi-Methoden, mit denen in Deutschland gegen Andersdenkende vorgegangen und die Opposition bekämpft wird“.

Ziel: Totale Beschädigung der AfD

Über das angebliche „Geheimtreffen“ von Potsdam sei ein veritables Lügenkonstrukt aufgebaut worden. Die Staatmedien hätten dieses ungeprüft übernommen. „Das Ziel: Die Beschädigung der AfD sollte perfekt sein!“ Das Soros-nahe “Faktenchecker-Kollektiv” „Correctiv“ könnte eine Tarnorganisation des Verfassungsschutzes sein, vermutet die AfD-Vorsitzende ganz offen: Es gebe inzwischen genügend Anzeichen dafür.

Für diese Vermutung spräche etwa der Informationsaustausch mit den Behörden in Echtzeit. Die Denunziationskampagnen würden mittlerweile jede Grenze überschreiten. „Wenn jetzt auf Deutschlands Straßen offen zum Mord an AfDler aufgerufen werden darf, dann sind wir von Anschlägen aus politischen Motiven nicht mehr weit entfernt“, zeigt sich Weidel besorgt.

“Corona war ein Test”

Corona sieht Weidel rückblickend als “ein Test, wie weit der Staat gehen kann“: Bürgerrechte wurden ausgehebelt, Ausgangssperren verhängt, Demos verboten, Teilnehmer niedergeprügelt und mit Wasserwerfern bekämpft. In Deutschland sei ein „schmieriger Spitzelstaat“ entstanden, der die Opposition überwache, während „zeitgleich die Funktionäre des Systems im Gleichschritt durch die Straßen marschieren und den Tod von Oppositionellen fordern.“

Für Alice Weidel ist inzwischen klar: „Diese Regierung muss Deutschland hassen!“ So bitter dies auch ist, lasse sich nur mit dieser Erkenntnis die zerstörerische Politik gegen das eigene Volk und die Wirtschaft erklären. Die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung sei mit der Arbeit der Ampel-Regierung nicht zufrieden. Dennoch sei die Regierung überzeugt, fest im Sessel zu sitzen – sonst würde sie anders agieren. Ein Staat im Endstadium greife zu solchen Mitteln, sagt die Politikerin: „Andersdenkende und die Opposition werden mit totalitären Mitteln bekämpft. Das hat sich in der Geschichte immer wieder gezeigt.“ Mittlerweile gebe es in der Gesellschaft kein „links oder rechts“ mehr, sondern nur mehr „totalitär oder freiheitlich“. (red.)

Alice Weidel: «Die Regierung muss Deutschland hassen»

Guten Appetit: Özdemir will Fleischsteuer einführen

Cem Özdemir (Foto: Imago)

Berlin – Herzlichen Glückwunsch und die ohnehin ausgesaugten Verbraucher dürfen sich auf eine neue Steuer freuen – die natürlich von den Grünen eingeführt wird. So viel Hass gegen die Bürger muss schon sein:

Bundeslandwirtschaftsminister Cem Özdemir (Grüne) will offenbar eine Verbrauchsteuer auf Fleischprodukte einführen. Darüber berichtet “Bild” (Mittwochausgabe) unter Berufung auf ein Eckpunktepapier, welches sein Ministerium an die Ampel-Fraktionen verschickt hat.

Die Steuer soll demnach auf bestimmte tierische Produkte erhoben werden und stellt eine Verbrauchsteuer im Sinne der Abgabenordnung dar. Sie ist nach dem Vorbild der Kaffeesteuer konzipiert. Ziel der Steuer ist es, “Steuereinnahmen für wichtige, vornehmlich landwirtschafts- und ernährungspolitische Vorhaben” zu generieren (“Tierwohlcent”). Einnahmen aus der Steuer würden zunächst dem regulären Bundeshaushalt zufließen.

Besteuert werden sollen “Fleisch, Fleischerzeugnisse und genießbare Schlachtnebenerzeugnisse”, sowie “Verarbeitungsprodukte mit einem bestimmten Anteil von Fleisch, Fleischerzeugnissen oder genießbaren Schlachtnebenerzeugnissen”. Auch importierte Fleischprodukte sollen besteuert werden, einzig der Import für private Zwecke wäre ausgenommen.

Geplant ist ein Preisaufschlag pro Kilogramm verkauften Fleischs. Wie hoch der Steuersatz sein soll, ist laut Eckpunktepapier “politisch zu entscheiden”.

Wie wär es denn mal mit einer zweihundertprozentigen Steuererhöhung auf geschächtetes Lammfleisch, Herr Özdemir? Es geht Ihnen doch um das Tierwohl, oder?  (Mit Material von dts)

Guten Appetit: Özdemir will Fleischsteuer einführen

Mehr NATO für das Kosovo

Pistorius in Prishtina: Bundeswehr wird Truppen im Kosovo aufstocken, da die Spannungen dort stark zunehmen – nach 25 Jahren NATO-Präsenz. Mehrere Staaten haben Anerkennung des Kosovo zurückgezogen.

BERLIN/BELGRAD/PRISHTINA (Eigener Bericht) – Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius hat am gestrigen Montag bei einem Besuch in Prishtina die Aufstockung der deutschen Truppen im Kosovo bestätigt. Demnach wird die Bundeswehr im April mehr als 150 Militärs zusätzlich in das Gebiet entsenden, in dem sie seit fast 25 Jahren im NATO-Rahmen Soldaten stationiert hat. Hatten Berlin und der Westen nach dem völkerrechtswidrigen Angriffskrieg gegen Jugoslawien und der Besetzung des Kosovo versprochen, das Territorium zu befrieden, so nehmen die Spannungen wieder markant zu, seit im März 2021 ein nationalistischer Ministerpräsident in Prishtina amtiert. Er geht aggressiv gegen serbische Strukturen vor allem in den vier serbischsprachigen Gemeinden des Nordkosovo vor, die bislang im Sinne eines halbwegs erträglichen Zusammenlebens im Kosovo toleriert wurden und für das Bildungs- und das Gesundheitssystem der serbischsprachigen Minderheit unverzichtbar sind. In Belgrad wird unterdessen wieder über eine etwaige Rückkehr wenigstens von Teilen des Kosovo für den Fall spekuliert, dass sich die globalen Kräfteverhältnisse ändern. Die Zahl der Staaten, die das Kosovo anerkennen, geht bereits zurück.

Nie mehr als drei Fünftel

Im Hintergrund der aktuellen Spannungen im Kosovo schwelt nach wie vor der Konflikt um die internationale Anerkennung der kosovarischen Eigenstaatlichkeit. Seit die NATO im Jahr 1999 nach einem völkerrechtswidrigen Angriffskrieg gegen Jugoslawien dessen Südprovinz besetzte und ihr am 17. Februar 2008 zur formellen Abspaltung von Serbien verhalf, haben nie mehr als rund drei Fünftel aller 193 UN-Mitgliedstaaten das Kosovo als Staat anerkannt, obwohl sich die stärksten Mächte des Westens, darunter die USA, Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien, entschlossen dafür eingesetzt haben. Sogar fünf EU-Staaten verweigern sich dem Ansinnen bis heute: Spanien, die Slowakei, Rumänien, Griechenland und Zypern erkennen das Kosovo nicht an, weil sie von seiner Abspaltung eine Signalwirkung für Sezessionskonflikte auf ihrem eigenen Territorium befürchten – Spanien vor allem mit Blick auf Katalonien und das Baskenland, die Slowakei und Rumänien mit Blick auf die Gebiete mit ungarischsprachiger Bevölkerungsmehrheit, Griechenland vor allem, weil in den Grenzgebieten zu Mazedonien eine mazedonisch sprechende Minderheit lebt, sowie Zypern, da der türkischsprachige Teil der Insel seinen eigenen Staat gebildet hat. Dass Serbien die Abspaltung seiner Südprovinz nicht anerkennt, versteht sich von selbst.

Der Westen gegen die BRICS

Mittlerweile hat die Zahl der Länder, die das Kosovo als eigenen Staat anerkennen, ihren Höhepunkt überschritten. Lag sie 2017 noch bei mehr als 110 – einzelne Länder haben sich unklar positioniert –, so sinkt sie seitdem wieder, weil mehrere UN-Staaten die Anerkennung widerrufen haben. Ghana etwa zog sie zurück, wie sein Vizeaußenminister Charles Owiredu am 11. November 2019 erklärte: Accra habe sie voreilig erteilt und dabei nicht genügend berücksichtigt, dass die Abspaltung unter Bruch der UN-Resolution 1244 erfolgt sei.[1] Diese verlieh dem Kosovo weitreichende Autonomie, dies aber innerhalb Jugoslawiens. Von Bedeutung ist, dass vor allem westliche Staaten und ihre Verbündeten die Eigenstaatlichkeit des Kosovo anerkannt haben, während etwa die fünf Gründungsmitglieder des BRICS-Bündnisses (Brasilien, Russland, Indien, China, Südafrika) sie verweigern. Der Konflikt um die internationale Anerkennung der Sezession ordnet sich damit in den globalen Machtkampf für bzw. gegen die westliche Dominanz ein. Mittlerweile haben mehr als ein Dutzend Staaten die Anerkennung des Kosovo widerrufen. Laut offiziellen serbischen Angaben lag die Zahl der Länder, die das Kosovo anerkennen, im Januar 2023 nur noch bei 94, die Zahl derjenigen, die die Anerkennung verweigern, bei 106. Drei Länder äußern sich demnach weiterhin unklar.[2]

Druck auf die Minderheit

Auf die international ungeklärte Lage kann sich auch die serbischsprachige Minderheit im Kosovo berufen, die die Abspaltung ihrer Wohngebiete ebenfalls nicht anerkennt. Lange Zeit ließen ihr die kosovarischen Behörden gewisse Spielräume, die im Kern auch den Konzepten von Minderheitenrechten entsprechen, wie sie etwa die EU vertritt. So konnten Schulen in den vier nordkosovarischen Gemeinden weiter nach serbischen Lehrplänen betrieben werden; zudem wurden sie von Serbien finanziert. Ähnliches galt für das Gesundheitswesen. Nun geht aber die Regierung des seit März 2021 amtierenden nationalistischen Ministerpräsidenten Albin Kurti, wie etwa die International Crisis Group in einer aktuellen Stellungnahme festhält, mit großer Härte gegen serbische Strukturen im Nordkosovo vor.[3] Ihre jüngsten Schritte bestanden darin, zum 1. Februar die Nutzung des serbischen Dinars zu verbieten [4] und vier serbische Einrichtungen – allerdings außerhalb der vier Gemeinden im Nordkosovo – zu schließen [5]. Ersteres entzieht faktisch dem Bildungs- sowie dem Gesundheitssystem in den vier Gemeinden jegliche Finanzierung; Zehntausende Angestellte können nicht mehr bezahlt werden, wenn die nicht näher präzisierte Übergangsfrist, die Prishtina gewährt, endet. Gegen die erwähnte Schließung serbischer Institutionen haben die EU und die USA Protest eingelegt.[6]

Streitkräfte aufbauen

Bereits im vergangenen Jahr war es in den vier serbischsprachigen Gemeinden im Norden nach Maßnahmen der kosovarischen Behörden, die von der dortigen Bevölkerung als offene Provokation verstanden wurden, zu heftigen Auseinandersetzungen gekommen.[7] Die NATO hatte anschließend ihre Truppen im Kosovo (KFOR) wieder aufgestockt; aktuell sind dort knapp 4.500 KFOR-Soldaten im Einsatz. In Kürze wird, wie Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius am gestrigen Montag während eines Aufenthalts in Prishtina bestätigte, auch die Bundeswehr wieder stärker vertreten sein. Gegenwärtig ist sie mit gut 70 Soldaten im Kosovo präsent; im April sollen sie auf annähernd 250 Soldaten aufgestockt werden.[8] Zu den bereits jetzt im Kosovo stationierten deutschen Soldaten zählen auch Militärs, die im Rahmen des NATO Advisory and Liaison Team (NALT) eingesetzt sind. Dieses wiederum begleitet, wie das Bundesverteidigungsministerium erklärt, „den Fähigkeitsaufbau der Kosovo Security Force (KSF)“.[9] Die KSF wiederum soll laut einem Parlamentsbeschluss in Prishtina vom 14. Dezember 2018 in echte Streitkräfte transformiert werden. Auch dies bricht die UN-Resolution 1244 und wird deshalb unter anderem von der UNO abgelehnt.[10]

Modell Bergkarabach

Vor dem Hintergrund wachsender Spannungen im Nordkosovo und des systematischen Aufbaus kosovarischer Streitkräfte weisen Beobachter darauf hin, dass in Serbien mit Blick auf das Kosovo zuweilen auf die Rückeroberung Bergkarabachs durch Aserbaidschan hingewiesen wird. So wurde Serbiens Präsident Aleksandar Vučić unlängst mit der Aussage zitiert, Aserbaidschan habe Bergkarabach zwar in einer Phase der Schwäche verloren, dann aber begonnen, seine Wirtschaft sowie seine Streitkräfte systematisch zu stärken, und als die Zeit reif gewesen sei, habe es seine Chance genutzt: „Akzeptiere, was du akzeptieren musst, und warte auf den Augenblick, in dem du ein anderes Ergebnis erzielen kannst“, sagte Vučić.[11] Ähnlich äußerte sich der einstige serbische Außenminister Vuk Jeremić, der vor kurzem darauf hinwies, der Konflikt zwischen Aserbaidschan und Armenien habe lange Zeit gleichfalls als erfolgreich eingefroren gegolten, bis Baku sich die veränderte Weltlage habe zunutze machen können: „Internationale Umstände ändern sich.“[12] Belgrad hat in den vergangenen Jahren im regionalen Vergleich massiv aufgerüstet. Die USA wiederum haben Prishtina die Lieferung von 246 Panzerabwehrraketen Javelin zugesagt. Das ist dasselbe Modell wie dasjenige, mit denen die ukrainischen Streitkräfte den Vormarsch der russischen Panzertruppen in den Wochen nach dem 24. Februar 2022 bremsen konnten.

[1] Ghana reverses ‘premature‘ recognition of Kosovo. modernghana.com 12.11.2019.

[2] Talha Ozturk: Serbia claims 9 countries withdrew recognition of Kosovo. aa.com.tr 04.01.2023.

[3] Toward Normal Relations between Kosovo and Serbia. crisisgroup.org 30.01.2024.

[4] Kosovo schafft den serbischen Dinar ab. tagesschau.de 02.02.2024.

[5] Xhorxhina Bami: Kosovo Euro Rule, Closure of Belgrade-Run Offices, Draw International Criticism. balkaninsight.com 05.02.2024.

[6] Kosovo: Statement by the Spokesperson on latest police operations against Serbia-run entities. eeas.europa.eu 04.02.2024.

[7] S. dazu Unruhen im Kosovo (II).

[8] Besuch auf dem Westbalkan: Verteidigungsminister Pistorius im Kosovo. bmvg.de 05.02.2024.

[9] Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius auf dem Westbalkan. bmvg.de 05.02.2024.

[10] IntelBrief: Kosovo’s Controversial Decision to Form an Army. thesoufancenter.org 21.12.2018.

[11], [12] Michael Martens: Das Ende der „Pax Americana“? Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 05.02.2024.

https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/news/detail/9476

Auf Krieg einstellen (I)

Deutsche Militärs erarbeiten erstmals seit dem Kalten Krieg einen konkreten Operationsplan für militärische Operationen auf deutschem Boden im Fall eines Krieges mit Russland. Deutschland ist laut NATO-Plänen Drehscheibe für den Aufmarsch nach Osten.

BERLIN (Eigener Bericht) – Deutsche Militärs entwickeln bereits seit dem vergangenen Frühjahr konkrete Planungen für kriegerische Operationen auf deutschem Boden. Zuständig für die Arbeit an dem „Operationsplan Deutschland“ ist das Territoriale Führungskommando der Bundeswehr. Dessen „wesentliche Aufgabe“ sei es, den „vorgesehenen Aufmarsch“ – der Sache nach gegen Russland – und die „Versorgung verbündeter und eigener Streitkräfte in der Drehscheibe Deutschland sicherzustellen“, erläutert die Bundeswehr. Die „Forderungen der NATO an Deutschland“ als Drehscheibe eines transatlantischen Vorstoßes in Richtung Osten seien die „zentrale Einflussgröße bei der Erstellung“ des Operationsplans. Die Bundesregierung arbeitet bereits seit Jahren am Ausbau der transeuropäischen „militärischen Mobilität“. Jüngste Initiative ist eine kürzlich unterzeichnete Absichtserklärung der Niederlande, Polens und Deutschlands, die gemeinsam einen „Musterkorridor“ für Truppenverlegungen an die NATO-Ostflanke aufbauen wollen. Als „zentrale Transitnation“ sei gerade für Deutschland der Ausbau der „militärischen Mobilität“ von „strategischer Bedeutung“, äußert die Parlamentarische Staatssekretärin im Verteidigungsministerium Siemtje Möller.

Operationsplan Deutschland

Zum ersten Mal seit dem Kalten Krieg stellt die Bundesrepublik einen umfassenden Verteidigungsplan auf, den sogenannten Operationsplan Deutschland. Dabei handelt es sich um konkrete Planungen für „den operativen Einsatz der Bundeswehr in Deutschland in Frieden, Krise und Krieg“.[1] Hintergrund ist die sich mit der drohenden weiteren militärischen Eskalation des Einflusskampfes zwischen den NATO-Staaten und Russland „verschärfende sicherheitspolitische Lage in Europa“, erläutert die Bundeswehr: Es gelte, sich „letztendlich auch“ auf „Krieg einzustellen“.[2] Der Operationsplan beruht nach Angaben der Truppe auf der „Basis der NATO-Verteidigungsplanung“.[3] Wesentliche Teile der deutschen Streitkräfte sind inzwischen in unterschiedlicher Form im NATO-Aufmarsch in größtmöglicher Nähe zur russischen Westgrenze gebunden. Die deutschen Militärs gehen bei der Erarbeitung des Operationsplans davon aus, dass „ein größerer Teil“ der Bundeswehr „in Deutschland selbst nicht eingeplant“ werden könne, da er „an der Ostflanke“ der NATO „gebraucht“ werde.[4] Nicht zuletzt deshalb stützt sich der Operationsplan maßgeblich auch auf die Einbindung ziviler Kräfte und Reservisten (german-foreign-policy.com berichtet in Kürze).

Nach Osten

Von dem konkret ausformulierten Operationsplan Deutschland erhofft sich die Bundeswehr eine „schnelle Handlungsfähigkeit über alle Ressort- und Ländergrenzen hinweg“. Das Planungspapier soll die Bundesrepublik befähigen, den „Aufmarsch der alliierten Streitkräfte über und durch Deutschland an die NATO-Ostflanke“ durchzuführen.[5] Dabei gehe es unter anderem um die Verkehrsleitung bei Truppenmärschen, um das Betanken der Militärfahrzeuge, um Unterstützung bei technischen Problemen und um die Unterbringung und Verpflegung der NATO-Soldaten auf ihrem Weg nach Osten. Ziel und Aufgabe der deutschen Streitkräfte sei es, „Aufmarschwege für Verbündete“ freizuhalten und „Konvois [zu] versorgen“.[6] Dieser sogenannte Host Nation Support zählt demnach zu den „wesentlichen Beiträgen“ Deutschlands zur NATO-Verteidigungsplanung und damit „letztlich auch zur Landes- und Bündnisverteidigung“.[7] „Bereits jetzt“ laufen nach Angaben der Bundeswehr „verstärkte Übungen“ in diesem Bereich [8]: Der Umfang der Truppenbewegungen habe wesentlich zugenommen, die Reaktionszeiten seien geringer geworden.

Vom Frontstaat zum Aufmarschgebiet

Bei der Ausarbeitung des Operationsplans greifen die deutschen Militärs nach Angaben des verantwortlichen Generals André Bodemann, Befehlshaber des Territorialen Führungskommandos der Bundeswehr, „auf alte Überlegungen aus dem Kalten Krieg“ zurück. Allerdings seien die damaligen Kriegspläne „nicht eins zu eins übertragbar“.[9] Hintergrund sind mehrere Jahrzehnte Ostexpansion von EU und NATO und damit auch des unmittelbaren deutschen Einflussgebietes über die ehemalige Westgrenze der Sowjetunion hinaus. Mit seiner Expansion nach Osten hat der NATO-Block nicht nur die Nachkriegsordnung untergraben, sondern auch Deutschlands strategische Position im Ringen der Großmächte um Osteuropa verändert. Während des Kalten Krieges verlief die Frontlinie zwischen den Blöcken noch durch die heutige Bundesrepublik bzw. durch Berlin. Heute stoßen die Einflusssphären viele hundert Kilometer weiter östlich aufeinander. Die Bundesrepublik ist heute nicht mehr Frontstaat, sondern „die logistische Drehscheibe für Marschbewegungen der Partnerstreitkräfte“ auf dem Weg nach Russland, wie das Verteidigungsministerium formuliert.[10]

Angriffe auf die Infrastruktur

General Bodemann rechnet deshalb „nicht“ mit einer „Panzerschlacht“ auf deutschem Boden.[11] Aufgrund Deutschlands „geostrategischer Lage“ [12] als militärisches Transitland gehen die Militärplaner vielmehr von Angriffen auf die „kritische Infrastruktur“ aus. Wahrscheinlicher seien Sabotageaktionen mit dem Ziel, „den Aufmarsch zu behindern oder zu verhindern“ – etwa durch „irreguläre Kräfte“ oder „eingesickerte“ Spezialkräfte –, aber auch Angriffe mit „ballistische[n] Raketen“. Insbesondere Häfen, Brücken und Energieunternehmen seien „bedroht“.[13]

Ausbau der Marschwege

Bei der Formulierung des Operationsplanes können die deutschen Militärs auf die Ergebnisse der Kriegsvorbereitungen der vergangenen Jahre zurückgreifen. Berlin treibt bereits seit Jahren Maßnahmen voran, um europaweit die infrastrukturellen Vorraussetzungen für die Verlegung militärischer Großverbände zu verbessern – beispielsweise mit den PESCO-Projekten Network of Logistic Hubs und Military Mobility.[14] Ziel ist nach Angaben des deutschen Verteidigungsministeriums der „Aufbau eines europäischen Logistik-Netzwerkes, um Ausrüstung, Material und Munition zu lagern und für Transporte vorzubereiten“. Zudem sollen Verfahren für Truppenbewegungen zwischen den EU-Staaten beschleunigt und die Verkehrsinfrastruktur modernisiert werden – „insbesondere in Richtung NATO-Ostflanke“.

Militärischer Musterkorridor

Jüngster Vorstoß in diesem Bereich ist eine kürzlich von den Niederlanden, Deutschland und Polen unterzeichnete Absichtserklärung, in der sich die drei Staaten dem Aufbau eines „grenzüberschreitenden Musterkorridor[s] für den militärischen Verkehr von Westen nach Osten“ verschreiben. Laut Verteidigungsministerium planen Den Haag, Berlin und Warschau gemeinsam „die Organisation des zentralen militärischen Verkehrs [der NATO-Nachschubtruppen] von West nach Ost“. Verantwortlich für die Umsetzung des Musterkorridors „von den Tiefseehäfen an der Nordsee an die besonders exponierte NATO-Ostflanke“ ist die im deutschen Ulm angesiedelte NATO-Kommandostruktur JSEC, die laut dem deutschen Verteidigungsministerium „sämtliche Truppenbewegungen der NATO im europäischen Bündnisgebiet“ koordiniert – german-foreign-policy.com berichtet in Kürze.[15]

[1] Es geht nur gemeinsam. bundeswehr.de 26.01.2024.

[2] Operationsplan Deutschland: Wie verteidigen wir unser Land? bundeswehr.de.

[3] Es geht nur gemeinsam. bundeswehr.de 26.01.2024.

[4] „Hoffentlich keine Landung von russischen Fallschirmjägern“. t-online.de 25.01.2024.

[5] Es geht nur gemeinsam. bundeswehr.de 26.01.2024.

[6] „Hoffentlich keine Landung von russischen Fallschirmjägern“. t-online.de 25.01.2024.

[7] Es geht nur gemeinsam. bundeswehr.de 26.01.2024.

[8], [9] „Hoffentlich keine Landung von russischen Fallschirmjägern“. t-online.de 25.01.2024.

[10] Military Mobility: Musterkorridor für Truppenverlegungen geplant. bmvg.de 31.01.2024.

[11] „Hoffentlich keine Landung von russischen Fallschirmjägern“. t-online.de 25.01.2024.

[12] Operationsplan Deutschland: Wie verteidigen wir unser Land? bundeswehr.de.

[13] „Hoffentlich keine Landung von russischen Fallschirmjägern“. t-online.de 25.01.2024.

[14] S. dazu Das Military Mobility Project und Freie Marschrouten.

[15] Military Mobility: Musterkorridor für Truppenverlegungen geplant. bmvg.de 31.01.2024.

https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/news/detail/9477

Beware the Iran ‘Pearl Harbor’ Moment

Neoconservatives continue to advocate for a war with Iran despite its potential consequences and the need for careful strategy.

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

In 2000, the The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) proposed a U.S.-led global security perimeter in 2000, which influenced military strategies and led to the Iraq invasion after 9/11. Today, neoconservatives continue to advocate for a war with Iran despite its potential consequences and the need for careful strategy.) issued a report that proposed establishing a new U.S.-led security perimeter across the globe to protect Western interests and perform the “constabulary” duties associated with “shaping the security environment in critical regions.”

The report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” which suggested billions more in the Pentagon budget annually for reimagining military capabilities across the forces, including nuclear and space, was based in part on the Defense Policy Guidance, crafted by Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney during the George H. W. Bush Administration “for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”

The report noted that “the process of transformation” that PNAC envisioned, “even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

PNAC, which was founded by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan and had been actively lobbying to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power, got its “Pearl Harbor” a year later. Within two years of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. invaded Iraq, saw Hussein executed, and was well on its way to fulfilling at least one top line goal from “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”: to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars.” 

Of course the “winning” part never happened. Yet the centrifugal force that was the neoconservative project, which placed several of its founders and signatories at the levers of political and military power inside the George W. Bush Administration (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, Paula Dobriansky, Scooter Libby), was able to perpetuate a Global War on Terror and a U.S. military footprint across the Greater Middle East and Africa that remains to this day.

Click Here To Get Our FREE Newsletter No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

Why revisit this now? Despite their discredited handiwork overseas (vividly reflected in the vulnerability of 3,400 U.S. troops left over from counterterror operations against ISIS, a militant group created in the vacuum from PNAC’s vaunted Iraq regime change), neoconservatives and their aspirations are still at the very center of today’s foreign policy debates, and they really, really want the U.S. to go to war with Iran.

“You have to figure out which Iranian leaders are making the decisions, and you take them out,” the GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley said following the drone attack on three U.S. Army troops stationed in Jordan on Jan. 29. This wasn’t a one-off. Haley, who shares mega donors with AIPAC, has been neocon-friendly since her days in the Trump administration, when she helped kill the Iran nuclear deal. Her campaign has been heavily dosed with hyperbolic and simultaneous calls for fighting Putin, the mullahs in Iran, and Xi Jinping in China. She is fond of saying things like we have to “punch (Iran) once and punch them hard.”

Haley is part of a longstanding ecosystem of neoconservatives and their attendants in the foreign policy blob who have long identified Iran as a key, if not existential, adversary of both the U.S. and Israel—this was clear in “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”—putting it on the current place in the “Axis of Evil,” thanks to George W. Bush speechwriter and neocon David Frum in 2002.

The Biden administration may choose not to retaliate in a big enough way as to set off World War III—all signs this week thankfully point to an effort on both sides, Washington and Tehran, seeking to tamp down the prospects. Even with the U.S. strikes on militia targets in Iraq and Syria on Friday night, “they appeared to stop short of directly targeting Iran or senior leaders of the Revolutionary Guard Quds Force within its borders, as the U.S. tries to prevent the conflict from escalating even further,” according to early AP reporting. 

This is no thanks to this pernicious army of the Iran obsessed, who implicitly regard the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in Israel as the “Pearl Harbor” for the final confrontation, if not the regime change, they have long been seeking.

Top on this list is the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), which was conceived as an American public relations tool for Israel but made its mark in Washington as a neoconservative counterterrorism think-tank and Iraq War cheerleader after 9/11. With retired military and administration officials like Ret. Gen. H.R. McMaster often fronting the mission, FDD has long advocated for the toppling of the regime in Iran, mostly focused on Tehran’s nuclear program and its threats to Israel. 

The killing of U.S troops in Jordan has paved the way for the FDD’s apotheosis, as its fellows (like Mark Dubowitz, Andrea Stricker, Richard Goldberg) have enjoyed mainstream news attention, accusing President Biden of long-standing “appeasement” and demanding he “strike Iran hard.” Their talking points can be heard in the mouths of nearly every single war party hawk who has found his or her way to a microphone or camera following Oct. 7, including but not limited to, John Bolton, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, Tim Scott, Tom Cotton, and Roger Wicker. 

A number of retired U.S. military officers have been using their cache to advocate for war with Iran over the last three months, too. They may not be “neocons” but they work closely with groups that are, and have internalized the messaging. Just like the ramp up and justification for the Iraq invasion two decades ago.

Gen. Frank MacKenzie and retired Admiral James Stavridis lead this conga line, showing up on Fox News, Bloomberg, and NBC News almost daily now.

“Iranian leaders work with Lenin’s dictum that ‘you probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw.’ Tehran and its proxies are pressing their attacks because they haven’t confronted steel,” wrote MacKenzie just after the fourth anniversary of the U.S. assassination of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani. MacKenzie boasted that he was the commander of that operation under the Trump administration. 

“The Iranians subsequently backed down,” he added in his Wall Street Journal essay. “Here is the lesson: The Iranians’ strategic decision-making is rational. Its leaders understand the threat of violence and its application.”

Meanwhile, Stavridis, who never misses an opportunity to push military solutions onto complex combustible geopolitical problems, has written at least two Bloomberg pieces outlining plans for multi-pronged strikes on Iran and its proxies. After the Jordan strikes, his plans now include attacks on Iranian warships, boarding and seizing an Iranian naval or commercial vessel, targeting Iranian oil and gas platforms in the Arabian Gulf and strikes against Iranian military command-and-control sites, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps headquarters.

“If that doesn’t work, the administration is going to have to consider strikes inside Iran,” Stavridis told NBC News on Thursday. 

Earlier in January, Stavridis was echoing a familiar call in the message force multiplier vortex—that the U.S. sank the Iranian naval fleet in 1988 during “Operation Praying Mantis.” “Iran got the message,” he said. “Perhaps it is time to send it again.”

McKenzie and Stavridis aren’t the only ones. Ret. Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg and Ret. Gen. Jack Keane have also appeared on Fox seeking direct action against Iran as early as November. 

So what does this all mean? 

Neoconservative forces injected the foreign policy discourse as early as the 1990s with the idea that deposing Saddam Hussein was part of a grander plan to maintain peace and security (U.S. primacy) in the Middle East. They pushed this idea until it became a reality, with 9/11 giving them their opening to make war on Iraq and to push the boundaries of their Middle East vision in the Global War on Terror.

Twenty years later, the Iran piece of the “Axis of Evil” remains intact. There is no doubt that Iran has funded and resourced proxies that have fought against the lingering U.S. military presence in Iraq and Syria. There is no doubt Iran has funded and resourced Hamas, which bears the sole responsibility for the horrific Oct. 7 attacks on Israel. Yet it is important to put the voices for war with Iran into perspective and not allow them to inflate the threat for their own agenda, which far predates the current crisis and for which motivations are less clearly in the U.S. national interest.

In other words, we cannot afford another war, and if we need to retaliate, it should be after careful deliberation and based on sound strategy, not the saber rattling of zombie neoconservatives and their minions in the blob.

Click Here To Get Our FREE Newsletter No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

https://informationclearinghouse.blog/2024/02/05/beware-the-iran-pearl-harbor-moment/15/embed/#?secret=AUgSwz5ftj#?secret=AmLH5aGHQw

Beware the Iran ‘Pearl Harbor’ Moment

Bring US troops home from Iraq and Syria now

3,400 Americans are there ostensibly to fight ISIS. But after Sunday’s attacks, they may become the reason we fight Iran

By Paul R. Pillar

The drone attack on Sunday that killed three U.S. service members at an outpost in Jordan near the Syria border is more likely to increase rather than decrease U.S. military involvement in the region.

This is unfortunate, and doubly so coming at a time when the Biden administration was showing signs of considering a withdrawal of the 900 U.S. troops in Syria and 2,500 in Iraq. Just last week, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin intimated that a joint U.S.-Iraqi review might lead to a drawdown of at least some of the troops in Iraq. Other reporting points to discussions within the administration about possibly removing the troops now in Syria.

It is unclear why the administration chose this time to consider what was already a long-overdue withdrawal of these troops. The answer probably involves the upsurge in regional violence stemming from Israel’s devastating assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and associated anger against the United States for its backing of Israel. Since the Israeli assault began, U.S. military installations in Iraq have been attacked more than 60 times and those in Syria more than 90 times.

Click Here To Get Our FREE Newsletter No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

The attacks underscore how much these residual U.S. deployments have entailed costs and risks far out of proportion to any positive gains they can achieve. They have been sitting-duck targets within easy reach of militias and other elements wishing to make a violent anti-U.S. statement. Even without deaths, U.S. service members have paid a price, such as in the form of traumatic brain injuries from missile attacks.

The now-familiar tit-for-tat sequence in which American airstrikes against militias in Iraq or Syria alternate with more militia attacks on the U.S. installations illustrates a perverse form of mission creep. Whatever was the original mission of the U.S. troop presence gets sidelined as protection of the troop presence itself becomes the main concern. The tit-for-tats also carry the risk of escalation into a larger conflict.

This weekend’s attack just across the border in Jordan is likely to become part of the same risk-laden sequence. A White House statement promised to “hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner our choosing.”

This will lead the administration to shelve for the time being any ideas it had about bringing home the troops — out of fear of showing weakness amid the inevitable criticism from domestic political opponents. The better course would be to interpret the attack as one more demonstration of how the troop presence in Syria and Iraq represents a needless vulnerability that ought to be ended sooner rather than later.

The official rationale for the presence on both those countries is to prevent a rise of the group known as Islamic State or ISIS. But the motivations have always involved more than that. The presence in Iraq is in some respects a legacy of the U.S. war begun there in 2003, which has imparted the sense of ownership that often follows a large-scale military intervention. The fixation with Iran and a desire to match Iranian presence and influence in these countries have constituted another motivation.

As for ISIS, although it has shown resilience, it is nowhere near what it was in 2014 when it ruled a de facto mini-state across much of western Iraq and northeastern Syria. If the group ever were to begin approaching that status again, much more than the small U.S. contingents in Syria and Iraq would be needed to counter it. To those who might argue that ISIS already is resurgent, one is entitled to ask exactly what good the presence of those contingents is doing in keeping ISIS down.

With regard to any terrorist group, the foremost U.S. concern ought to be not how the group plays in some local conflict but rather the risk of it striking U.S. interests, either at home or abroad. In that regard, the most relevant fact, repeatedly demonstrated with other terrorist groups in other places, is that anger at a foreign military presence is one of the chief motivations for terrorist attacks.

To the extent that ISIS has been kept down, this is partly due to popular opposition in Iraq and Syria to the group’s brutal methods that it displayed when it had its mini-state. It is partly due to the efforts of security forces in those two countries. And it is partly due to the efforts of the foreign state most extensively involved in those countries — Iran.

Iran is very much an enemy of ISIS. It has been a victim of highly lethal ISIS attacks within Iran, including bombings in the heart of Tehran in 2017 and, earlier this month, an attack on a memorial ceremony in the city of Kerman that killed nearly 100 Iranians. Iran was a major player in the earlier efforts to undo the ISIS mini-state. Combating ISIS is a shared interest of Iran and the United States, as illustrated by the United States reportedly sharing — quite properly, in conformity with the duty to warn — information about the planned ISIS attack in Kerman. It would be in U.S. interests to have Iran continue to do the heavy lifting in holding down ISIS — and to have Iran, not the United States, risk any resulting terrorist reprisals.

Paul R. Pillar is Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University and a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He is also an Associate Fellow of the Geneva Center for Security Policy.

Click Here To Get Our FREE Newsletter No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

https://informationclearinghouse.blog/2024/02/05/bring-us-troops-home-from-iraq-and-syria-now/15/embed/#?secret=2HuScEFgYY#?secret=nPqLF2TVaX

Bring US troops home from Iraq and Syria now