Sunday, April 13, 2014

US Calls it Quits in the Global War on Terror

One of my pastimes in writing involves speculation – speculation about historical events, speculation about current events, and speculation about what these might mean toward future events.  I can get to rambling a bit on this topic – I am trying to put into meaningful form ideas that are often abstract speculation still being worked out in my head. Often, my writing is just me in the process of working things out.

I suspect I will ramble through this post….

I have looked quite a bit at the history of the last couple of centuries – the history of the American Revolution, the maneuverings of Anglo-American power, the World Wars and Cold War of the 20th century.  Much of this has been done via reviews of books with a viewpoint different than the mainstream; some has been my own (although I doubt ever original) formulation for a different answer to two-plus-two.

Generally, my interpretations are guided by a few assumptions: 1) politicians lie for public consumption, 2) there are rarely big mistakes in desired outcomes on the big things (although, as they are human, mistakes happen, therefore making lemonade out of lemons is a developed skill), 3) there are individuals more powerful than the actors we see on the stage, and 4) these powerful individuals are not completely aligned toward common outcomes – they aren’t always on the same team; however, they share common objectives to the point where they will defend their common toolkit for control (for purposes of this post, the important tool in the toolkit is to create an enemy in order to rally and further control the masses).

Without reviewing every step of the road I have travelled, I am generally settled in a place where I believe a major shift is coming in the structure of the world order away from the Anglo-west; it seems fairly easy now to draw common thread through the growth and expansion of two-hundred years or more of Anglo-elite power, and to see the primary tools for the execution of this power transfer from Great Britain to the United States. 

As I have written often, it seems to me that we may have seen the zenith of Anglo-domination – the west may have played its last hand.  Long-time readers will be familiar with my speculation that we are headed toward a world where power will shift to a loosely-aligned group including China, Russia, Germany, and maybe Japan and Australia.  (See a recent post on this here.)  One can find signs in many recent events that point toward this.  I am also not the only one making such speculations – rarely is anything truly original under the sun.

Events in the Ukraine can certainly be interpreted along the lines of my general premise – the zenith of Anglo-elite power through the west is behind us; the world is re-shaping along the China-Russia-German lines mentioned above.

What does any of this have to do with the United States calling it quits in the global war on terror (GWOT)? 

It can also be considered that the west has played its hand with the whole GWOT thing – the invented enemy after the Cold War enemy didn’t have a very long shelf-life.  Perhaps it is because fewer and fewer people are buying the story (anyone with half-a-brain and an internet connection can at minimum find reason to doubt the official version of 911).  Or perhaps it is because the Muslim terrorist (as the stereotype is portrayed) – never truly capable in replacing the Red Army as bogeyman – has conformed to his reality: he isn’t much of a true threat, because the average Muslim is just like the average everyone else – someone who just wants to get by in this world.

There is ample evidence that the west is behind the explosion of violence throughout the Middle East and North Africa.  Yet, so far at least, this hasn’t yielded much fruit it placing the fear of the other in the minds of the average westerner.

It would certainly benefit the west to have a better (in a cynical use of the term) enemy.  As it apparently is not yet possible to convincingly demonstrate that the world is under threat of alien invasion – they couldn’t even get us to believe the whole terror-of-global-warming thing – perhaps an old dance partner is being trotted out: the Soviet Union, in the face of Putin’s Russia.

So I guess I have two thoughts about this: first, is this a sign that the US is calling it quits in the GWOT?  Or, to state it more accurately, has the GWOT well run dry?  For me, it seems reasonable to speculate that the answer to this is yes.

Second, what does this say about those above the politicians?  Do the same people who control the west also control Russia?  For this, the answer is not any clearer to me today than it was yesterday.  Are there multiple criminal gangs fighting for turf, or one gang using the toolkit to control the rest of us?  Criminal gangs don’t have to be permanently aligned to find reason to work together in common cause.  Or perhaps more precisely, the same event can be beneficial to both sides; therefore, both sides have reason to promote the same event.

Renewing the Cold War solves many problems in both the West and Russia.  This is good for the elite and not-so-good for the rest of us, no matter how the elite are aligned. 

But back to the subject of this post – perhaps, in the Ukraine, we are seeing the end of the global war on terror…because we are seeing the return to the Cold War.

The interesting question will be the alignments – whither goes Germany?  Japan?


  1. A further speculation, on my part would be that the US gov. has armed itself against their own people, because they know, that soon, convincing us of a credible enemy will no longer be possible, and that will convince many not to co-operate at all.
    Germany will go with Russia, because of oil, anything else would be foolish. And Japan may do the same, the added bonus being a counter to China.

    1. Its kind pof hard to fight terrorism when you are the terrorists. The criminals in Washington would have to fight themselves.

  2. Dear Bionic: your alertness to this shift is helpful to many who attempt to understand the chess playing on a world scale. Someone once said if a country is not at war, about a third of its workers will be unemployed. Even with the contrived wars and anti-terrorist efforts, unemployment is ~22% in the USA (source: ShadowStats). The recent Clive Bundy/Nevada cattle ranch standoff with the Bureau of Land Management shows how militarized a government bureau is when it shouldn't be. The railroads have security forces. The airports are full of redundant and ineffective security. The FBI is nosing in areas where it shouldn't. The CIA is active on-shore when it is supposed to be an overseas operation. It's all about jobs. When the first cold war vanished with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the FBI was left with no agenda to chase down imagined Soviet spies on shore. So it has been given investigative authority overseas. It is all about jobs, many redundant and worthless jobs. Every once in a while they have to contrive up some bombing like what occurred in Boston which was actually a reality drill complete with actors and stage makeup (fake blood). Government doesn't know how to drum up jobs, at least not real jobs. Solyndra is its shining effort -- complete with political pay offs under the guise of government-backed private enterprise. Keep up the good work.

  3. It's not over for Anglo-America-Israel. They know the key to control of the world is control of Eurasia, following the theory of Halford Mackinder. That's why there is mayhem in Syria, war threats against Iran, and regime change in Ukraine. It's all directed against Russia. Anglo-America must gain military control to the oil and gas fields of the Caspian and central Asia. If they do that, then the power of Russia will be broken and they will have their hands on the throat of China for the foreseeable future

  4. What about our increased interest in Africa? There is some blood left to be wrung from the terrorism stone. The center of things is moving I agree. I can't believe power will shift to places where we are obviously financing things. Japan, Korea...don't think so. Australia! Where did that come from? How about China or SE Asia quite possibly with an Islam flavor to it. It could well come from the opposite of where the administration is looking.

    1. Japan? Because growth will not be found in the US; it will be found in Asia.

      Australia? It is a big hole in the ground, and they will need to sell to someone able to buy.

      As I wrote... it is speculation. And the further I get from Germany / Russia / China, the more speculative it becomes.

  5. @Bionic Mosquito, you should have a look at this essay by FW Engdahl from 2006. It shows the Anglo-American strategy very clearly

    [quote]NATO encirclement of Russia, Color Revolutions across Eurasia, and the war in Iraq, were all one and the same American geopolitical strategy, part of a grand strategy to ultimately de -construct Russia once and for all as a potential rival to a sole US Superpower hegemony. Russia - not Iraq and not Iran - was the primary target of that strategy. [/quote]

  6. Its kind pof hard to fight terrorism when you are the terrorists. The criminals in Washington would have to fight themselves.

  7. The ongoing increase of the police/surveillance state along with the continual theft of individuals' rights & freedoms, will not halt until the introduction for a globalist NWO comes to a head via Russia + China teaming to go to world war with 'our' Anglo-American empire some time next decade...likely through North Korea as the final catalyst.

    1. I am not so sure about a new global war - at least not in the conventional meaning of war. It is my sense that the elite believe this too dangerous for their own well being.

      But I would agree that the end of the war on terror will not result in the pullback of the surveillance state.

  8. I think the best lens of analyzing the foreign-policy decisions of the US and its allies is that of the "dollar hegemony" (i.e. the US dollar's status as the global reserve currency). This hegemony was established by the Bretton Woods Agreement and was originally maintained by the system constructed by that agreement. In the aftermath of the US government unilaterally abolishing that system, the dollar hegemony has been maintained solely by the influence of the US and its allies. Ultimately, as with all other hegemony, this influence relies on military power.

    Even the Cold War can be analyzed using this lens. Indeed, if one analyzes the Cold War in terms of the dollar hegemony, one will find that it's the actual reason that the Cold War occurred at all. More specifically, one will find that the Soviets never ratified the Bretton Woods Agreement. As a result, a huge part of the world wasn't hooked into the dollar hegemony for almost 50 years. The entire policy of "containment" that was characteristic of the US and its allies during the Cold War seems to have been aimed at preventing any more of the world from breaking away from the dollar hegemony.

    Since the end of the Cold War, the policy of "containment" has persisted, but given different rationales. The "Global War on Terror(ism)" seems to be in response to various countries in the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, and Libya, at least) threatening to pull away from the dollar hegemony. Now the Middle East appears largely pacified - on the surface. In the meantime, however, the dollar hegemony is starting to crack all over the place. The military forces of the US and its allies may soon be faced with a real "asymmetric war", i.e. a global rebellion against the dollar hegemony. Whether this rebellion will be described publicly as "terrorism" or something else remains to be seen, but it won't make a difference to those who know what's really going on.