Who Is Right?
Obummer's cretinous bunch are on high PR alert to bad mouth Russian intervention in Syria. What is omitted from this frenetic outpouring is the weak and pathetic, probably illegal action on-going by America and its arms dealer backed allies. That same old Western staple of corporate wealth, known on this blog as the Maxim gun syndrome.
That syndrome is the immorality employed by arms industries, using the euphemism of "defence industry", to disregard where or for what purpose their weaponry is deployed. IRA terrorists, Hamas, Hezbollah or even Daesh (ISIL). How the weaponry reaches such disparate users is of little matter. The greater the complexity of any conflict, in Africa or the Middle East, the easier these murdering wares are distributed at enormous profit returned down the supply chains to the manufacturers and shareholders wherever they may be squatting.
So forget the varied tribal, Sunni, Shia enmity. The last thing the arms industry wants is peaceful settlement. Thus the regime changes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, either deliberately or by, for the arms trade, fortuitously, have been little more than a commercial and profitable success. Can we not view all this chaos, death, displacement and horror as a trade war as well as a bloody one.
Let me elaborate. The biggest competitor to western domination of the arms trade is Russia. Assad is an ally to Putin, as is Iran. Ergo, more likely to employ Russian produced armaments than western. Saudi, on the Sunni majority side of the equation, wish Syria destabilised and Iran subjugated. Thus their weaponry of choice is western. Regardless of the need for Sunni and Shia centuries old feuding, Syria, under Assad, has been far more benevolent to minorities than that shown by the barbaric methods of IS or even the Saudis.
However we must not get bogged down in right and wrong in such disputes. As in all physical conflict, hatred becomes currency, fear a bargaining chip. Nobody has any superior morality. Especially the global ambition of the West's corporate and insatiable greed run through Common Purpose.
With those observations in mind, is the West's and Obummer run mantra of antipathy, against Russia and Vladimir, justified? In the Middle East Daesh is the greatest threat to the West and to Russia. Even the Saudis have cause to fear this movement more than anything Iran can get up to. Similarly a united coalition of Iran, Saudi, America and Russia could have far reaching benefit to the blighted region of the Middle East.
Leave out Europe and even China at this stage. The former is a weak, unpopular, unwieldy and undemocratic bunch of inadequate bureaucrats with a political background of pipsqueaks. Merkel, Hollande and Cameron notable amongst them. China is safe, for the present, from mass swarms of migrant, terrorist masking, Trojan horses and happily signing up a fair number of Black despots we ignore.
So in what is described and preached of as a complex situation, by the self interest of corporate Common Purpose and therefore underwrites their mega arms contracts, could, quite possibly, be simplified by a joint cooperative alliance with Russia. In the same way so could Ukraine be more readily pacified if the interests of all concerned was a matter of grown up debate and the democratic will of majorities. It's long past time, even in the UK itself, that majority, democratic processes replaced the gross tribal attitudes of them and us, socialist versus self reliance, which blights our own landscape.
Just as in a similar manner, Sunni against Shia are the badges of loathing so prevalent in human nature. Attitudes which only draconian methods, to date in human history, seem able to control. Thus the temporary success of the Saddam, Gadhafi and Assad or even Mao and Stalin regimes might be regarded, sadly, as the lesser of the evils the governance of humanity demand.
Wherever this essay might go, I will close with this "mantra" of my own. No side in any argument has total merit. No military action is ever wholly right or wholly wrong. Always war ends with the same inevitable consequences. Destruction of societies, buildings and people, often innocents. Eventually either the warring parties fight to an exhausted standstill and stalemate or a Pol Pot like victory wrestles a genocidal regime from the defeated, before themselves being usurped and absorbed, Nazi style, into a period of more civilised transition.
After the cold war ended an opportunity for a global time of peace was hailed, arms to be reduced and a real UN created. Instead the corrupt soul of humanity triumphed yet again. The destabilisation of the Middle East was made in an unnecessary response and retaliation, against a hidden enemy, after 9/11. A reaction which sealed the success of that atrocity in the mayhem and financial crash which ensued.
Meanwhile Russia, with Putin at the helm, stamped hard on their Islamic terrorists, beavered away to build strong trading bases and refused to roll over when the West sought to park its military on their front lawn. Ironically much of Putin's action heavily backed by majority will, as in Crimea. Were we to have a greater mind and character in the White House prepared to place personal attitudes aside for the good of all, Russia's approach to the Middle East could have its pragmatic core adopted for the good of all in that region and beyond.
Instead the likes of Cameron spout the ventriloquist dummy's garbled words mumbled from Washington. Mumblings as influenced by the arms dealers just as much as those same manipulators lobby to keep their home grown sales of guns flowing. In essence, when push comes to shove, which side of the global argument carries the most efficacy? For me it is Putin's. Regardless of which side has the more draconian approach to conflict. Assad, if we can believe the reports we get, ran a safer Country for minorities than Daesh will do. Or even as the Saudis have done, abetted by the West for decades and continue to do so.
I rest my case.