NEO: If NATO wants peace and stability it should stay home

by  Ulson Gunnar, … with New Eastern Outlook, Moscow

[ Editor’s note: This is a hoot. NATO’s well-funded PR stooges, from the RAND Corporation no less, are pitching NATO as the only qualified entity to provide “security” in Libya, Syria and Iraq. If you are thinking that is a Saturday Night Live stand-up comedy routine, so was I.

As some anonymous person once said, “You just can’t make this S___ up!” But apparently that wisdom has not filtered down to the NATO propaganda organs. But my experience is that as long as the paycheck does not bounce, the PR whores couldn’t care less if their pitch doesn’t have a lick of sense to it.

The obvious goal is to install the regime change in these places that it has failed to do so far, and this even included the places where they put puppets in place. A better case could be made, with more proof, for casting NATO as a terrorist organization – one of those that operates with full immunity.

I am not saying that is all they do, but they do it when they want to, along with a substantial list of other Western democratic institutions, which their respective intelligence agencies would be happy to verify, if given immunity. Ulson Gunnar eats these NATO hacks alive. These people are a disgrace to Memorial Day. Enjoy the spectacle belowJim W. Dean ]

Jim’s Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal[email protected]

This includes research, needed field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving, and more – Thanks for helping out

*

Remember US NATO Cmdr. General Breedlove, who told us that the Russian Army was poised on Ukraine’s border, ready to sweep across the country in a week, when it was having its annual summer drill, with numbers of foreign observers who saw nothing of the kind?

– First published  …  May 20,  2017 –

A curious op-ed appeared in The National Interest, penned by Hans Binnendijk and David Gompert, adjunct senior fellows at the RAND Corporation. Titled, “NATO’s Role in post-Caliphate Stability Operations,” it attempts to make a case for NATO involvement everywhere from Libya to Syria and Iraq in fostering stability in the wake of a yet-to-be defeated Islamic State.

The authors propose that NATO step in to fill what it calls an impending “vacuum left as the caliphate collapses,” heading off alternatives including “chaos or Iran, backed by Russia, filling the void, with great harm to U.S. and allied interests in either case.”

The op-ed never explains why Iran, neighboring Syria and Iraq, is less qualified to influence the region than the United States which exists literally oceans away and shares nothing in terms of history, culture, language or shared interests in stability and peace. The op-ed would literally claim:

NATO is the only security organization with the skills and breadth to take on this task. The U.S.-led anti-Islamic State coalition of 68 partners is ill equipped to engage in this complex task. A more cohesive organization such as NATO should lead, but in ways that allow continued Arab participation. A creative version of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) coalition could provide the answer.

It was an interesting choice by the authors to showcase one of NATO’s most stupendous and continuing failures in Afghanistan with mention of the ISAF, a force that not only has failed to bring stability to the Central Asia nation in over a decade and a half of occupation, but has presided over the emergence of the Islamic State there where previously it had no presence.

The reality of what NATO is versus what The National Interest op-ed attempts to pass it off as, resembles more of a sales pitch for a shoddy product than a genuine attempt at geopolitical analysis or problem solving. But the truth goes deeper still.

NATO is a Global Wrecking Ball, It Cannot Create Stability

The op-ed focuses primarily on proposing NATO roles for a post-Islamic State Libya, Iraq and Syria. Libya is perhaps the most tragic of the three, with NATO having used direct military force in 2011 to topple the government of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in support of known extremists passed off at the time by both NATO spokespeople and the US-European media as “moderate rebels.”

The predictable fallout from this military campaign was the collapse of Libya as a relatively stable and unified nation-state into warring factions. The instability became fertile grounds for extremism, with many of the groups backed by NATO evolving into what is now the “Islamic State.”

The National Interest op-ed also makes mention of “Arab participation.” It should be remembered that the most extreme factions fighting in Libya were not only aided by direct NATO military intervention, but were armed and funded by Persian Gulf dictatorships as well, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

A similar pattern of sowing instability has unfolded in Syria, leading to, not averting the rise of the Islamic State. And Iraq’s instability is a direct and lasting consequence of the US military invasion and occupation of 2003.

If nothing else, this exposes NATO and its members as a collective, global wrecking ball. Just as a wrecking ball cannot be used to construct a building on a vacant lot, NATO cannot be used to construct the conditions for stability across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

Really Stopping the Islamic State Means Really Stopping Support for It 

Ultimately, what the op-ed calls for is the permanent occupation of the three nations by NATO forces ranging from special forces in Libya to the formal occupation of Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq.

Interestingly, the op-ed suggests that the NATO occupation force in Syria should not only be used to combat the Islamic State, but to also deter “Syrian military thrusts,” referring to the armed forces of the actual and only legitimate government in Syria.

This last point exposes fully what NATO is really interested in, and what this sales pitch is really advertising. NATO is not in MENA to defeat the Islamic State, it is merely using the Islamic State as a pretext to project Western hegemony across the region. The closing paragraph states:

This NATO strategy cannot, and should not be expected to, settle the Syrian civil war, bring ethnic and sectarian harmony to Iraq, or create an effective Libyan state. What it could do is create conditions of stability in which lasting solutions at least have a chance. It can do so only if the U.S. is ready to call upon NATO to join it in filling the post-ISIS void and for the European allies to answer that call.

Certainly, NATO’s presence in Syria, Iraq or Libya will not bring any sort of stability. NATO has proven its absolute inability to achieve this in its 16 year occupation of Afghanistan. Claiming NATO occupation will “create conditions of stability in which lasting solutions at least have a chance” is merely NATO’s way of ensuring no matter how the chaos it itself has created across MENA, it will hold a stake in the outcome if for no other reason because it has literally taken and occupies territory within the post-war region.

It is interesting that the Islamic State rose in the wake of US-led, NATO-backed violence stretching from North Africa to Central Asia and only began to suffer setbacks upon greater and more direct Russian and Iranian intervention.

The bombing of Islamic State and Jabhat Al Nusra logistical lines emanating from NATO-member Turkey’s borders by Russian warplanes, for example, inevitably led to huge gains by the Syrian Arab Army including the eventual liberation of Aleppo, the containment of Idlib and a significant retraction of Islamic State-held territory in eastern Syria.

The torrent of supplies feeding Islamic State and other fronts of extremist militancy flowing from Turkey is the admitted result of Persian Gulf sponsorship, which in turn, serves as an intermediary for US and NATO support for what the US Defense Intelligence Agency called in 2012 (.pdf) a “Salafist principality.”

The specific purpose of this “Salafist principality,” admittedly backed by Persian Gulf dictatorships, Turkey and what the US DIA refers to as “the West,” was to “isolate the Syrian regime.”  Clearly then, were NATO genuinely interested in defeating the Islamic State and undoing the damage it has done, it would begin by withdrawing it and its allies’ own support of the terrorist organization in the first place.

In short, if NATO truly wants to create stability across MENA, it merely needs to stop intentionally sowing instability.

Of course, a unilateral military bloc intentionally sowing chaos across an entire region of the planet is doing so for a very specific purpose. It is the same purpose all hegemons throughout human history have sought to divide and destroy regions they cannot outright conquer. A destroyed competitor may not be as favorable as a conquered, controlled and exploited competitor, but is certainly preferable to a free and independent competitor contributing to a greater multipolar world order. NATO, by embedding itself amid the chaos it itself has created, as it has proven in Afghanistan, only ensures further chaos.

Within this chaos, NATO can ensure if its own membership cannot derive benefit from the region, no one else will. A call like that featured in The National Interest for NATO to bring “stability” to the MENA region stands in stark contrast to the reality that everywhere NATO goes, chaos not only follows, it stays indefinitely until NATO leaves.

The best thing NATO can do for stability across MENA is to leave.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.   

*

Share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on Tumblr


All content herein is owned by author exclusively. Some content may be satirical in nature. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network and its assigns. In addition, all images within are full responsibility of author and NOT Veterans Today Network.
Legal Notice - Comment Policy

Posted by on May 30, 2017, With 1507 Reads Filed under WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

12 Responses to "NEO: If NATO wants peace and stability it should stay home"

  1. Peter Johnson  May 31, 2017 at 12:42 pm

    History repeats itself and these countries will once again be part of Iran as they mostly have been since the beginning of civilisation.

  2. joetv  May 31, 2017 at 10:09 am

    NATO just keeps feeding the machine. It’s a wonderful, but simple extortion racket. It may all becoming to a boil. The USA is very greedy, and if it were a person it would be the fat man at a cheap carnival’s side show. That said, no way Tillerson walks away from Syria to allow Russia’s South Stream pipeline. YES, there will be a fight. Annihilation Mode, heard it this morning on NPR. Some general said it, referring to Raqqa. The US plan to allow the terrorists to escape the city, and move to Palmyra was squashed by Russia. So rather than allowing capture and interrogation, we kill ’em all. No witnesses. We are genius, we are krazy smart.

  3. paul becke  May 31, 2017 at 5:18 am

    Yes, we’d prefer a NATO like the Swiss army. Very fierce warriors in the Middle-Ages – they literally didn’t take prisoners for ransom, like our lot used to, or for any other reason – but kind of dormant, stay-at-home warriors unless and until needed.*

    *According to a non-mendacious, rational definition.

  4. Chris Paul  May 30, 2017 at 2:41 pm

    A curious little note appeared in the local Tory Rag, which is called the Dominion Post in honour of its Colonial antecedents. The Prime Minister William English has been asked to consider sending Two, yes two, additional troops to Afghanistan to augment an existing cintingent of twelve. Firstly, New Zealand was supposed to have withdrawn years ago and obviously has maintained a token support for the Heroin Peddling Puppet Government since then. Secondly, and more interesting was that the request was made on the basis that NATO wanted this to happen.

    So an identical raqtionale is being used and All The Usual Suspects are being button holed to support the Old World Order. Oh Woe is me?

  5. ayelyahbenjamin  May 30, 2017 at 12:37 pm

    NATO the pilfering war machine paving the way to “create conditions of stability” for Corporate thieves and locusts to move through….by “using projection and inversion of word meanings, they have created a political reality which signals virtue while scheming mass murder”…. “NATO “should not be expected to, settle the Syrian civil war, bring ethnic and sectarian harmony to Iraq, or create an effective Libyan state”…… then get out of the way

  6. paul becke  May 30, 2017 at 11:03 am

    Funnily enough, if you take ‘staying at home’, as an all too serious metaphor, as I think you intended, it makes the best sense of all.

  7. paul becke  May 30, 2017 at 11:01 am

    ‘If NATO wants peace and stability it should stay home’.

    Excellent advice, Jim. If only….murmurs the Middle-East.

  8. paul becke  May 30, 2017 at 10:56 am

    Do you think the current Supremo in the ‘war on drugs’ wouldn’t be a more than able comrade-in-arms with Escobar in the outlaw world, had a perverse fortune not arranged for him to enjoy official CIA status as a legitimate anti-drug warrior ?

    • Amelius  May 30, 2017 at 11:03 am

      I used that as a basic example. From what I can tell, the CIA controls the international drug trade and like the so called “war on terror”, the supposed war on drugs has always been a huge hoax as well. All I’m trying to say is, putting the fox in charge of the hen house is a stupid idea.

  9. paul becke  May 30, 2017 at 10:49 am

    How is it those sinisterly exotic-sounding names of certain US Generals, such as Breedlove, Dr Strangelove and General Midwinter, are so evocative of the real, if bizzaro world ? Well, Dr Strangelove was a fictional, composite character based on Wernher Von Braun, the mathematician, Von Neuman, Edward Teller, another key figure in the Manhattan Project. General Midwinter, as I recall was a fascist, US General with a private, survivalist-type army in one of Len Deighton’s books.

    The Wikipedia article on the parts played by Peter Sellers in the film, Dr Strangelove, below, is absolutely hilarious, especially relating to the casting of Slim Pickens.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove

    • Harry Haller  May 31, 2017 at 3:03 am

      Dr. Strangelove is a once a year watch for sure; Sellers in The Mouse That Roared is a great laugher too.

  10. Amelius  May 30, 2017 at 10:09 am

    I guess it makes no difference that none of these countries want a NATO presence on their territory. Iran would have as much right to occupy the US. Luckily, Iran has much more sense than US/NATO. Putting NATO in charge of Middle Eastern security would be like hiring the worlds most famous pimp to combat prostitution, or hiring Pablo Escobar to lead the so called war on drugs. Completely nonsensical. It never ceases to amaze me, what these scumbags will say and do for some pieces of paper.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network