Clicky

Close

Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Donor CNW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    278
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    209
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    337
    Thanked in
    172 Posts

    The Balkanization of Syria & Iraq: The Roadmap to US-Israeli Hegemony in the Middle East

    ** This is a long analysis by Bas Spliet who has obviously put in many hours of research in trying to gain a sound understanding of the problems in the Mideast. He also has a writing skill that makes for easy reading. I think he's done an excellent job of it. There are 85 resource links at the end of the article as well as a long list of decent intelligent comments. It's definitely a worthwhile read, especially if you think you have a grasp of the global situation. Bas is a very good addition to Newsbud. CNW **



    Newsbud Exclusive- The Balkanization of Syria & Iraq: The Roadmap to US-Israeli Hegemony in the Middle East

    Bas Spliet

    We are often told that the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the war in Syria are disastrous failures of Western foreign policy. This article, however, argues that the architects of these wars were, and are, well aware of the destabilising consequences of their military efforts, and in fact, had always regarded the breakup of Iraq and Syria along sectarian lines as a desirable outcome. The millions of deaths and injuries resulting from these horrific wars, as well as the displacement of several more millions, then, are nothing more than “collateral damage” to achieve US-Israeli hegemony in the region. Viewed from this perspective, post-9/11 Western Middle East policy in retrospect is not a failure, but a success.

    Part I: Partition, the only solution?

    “Let’s look at the reality on the ground in the Middle East: Iraq and Syria are effectively partitioned along sectarian lines. [...] In the current, chaotic moment, we see two post-imperial systems collapsing at once: the state boundaries drawn by the Versailles Treaty in 1919 to replace the Ottoman Empire [...], and a U.S.-led system that kept the region in a rough balance [which has been shattered] by America’s failed intervention in Iraq. The ‘line in the sand’, as author James Barr called the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement to partition the region, is dissolving before our eyes, and the primary beneficiaries are ruthless Islamic terrorists.”[1]-David Ignatius, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a 2014 article in the Washington Post

    In early 2016, then US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that “it may be too late to keep [Syria] as a whole,” and that “I know that [partition] is the best way to try to end the war and it is the only alternative available to us if indeed we are going to have a political settlement.”[2] Kerry coined the possible breaking up of Syria as “plan B,” making it sound like the proposal was a desperate move to save the peace. Both the Syrian government and the armed opposition rejected federalism, let alone partition, however,[3] and even the Kurdish National Council strongly denounced the federalism declaration of its PYD rivals in the wake of Kerry’s statement.[4] In addition, Maram Susli has pointed out that partitioning Syria would happen along sectarian lines instead on whether or not any particular state would be able to sustain its population. Therefore, as Syria’s scare water resources, as well as its agriculture and oil, would end up in the hands of only a small percentage of the population, perpetual war between divided Syrians would be the likely result.[5] So, if breaking up Syria is a recipe for endless conflict between weakened enclaves and is opposed by almost all Syrians, why did Kerry brought it up? Was it just a hastily mistake in his otherwise brave humanitarian endeavour to save the Syrian populace, or are there other agendas at play?

    Actually, Kerry’s plan B sounds an awful lot like the plan A of various Anglo-American policy makers, strategists, think tanks and imperialist organs. Six months prior to Kerry’s statement, the Brookings Institute argued for the establishment of Western-backed “safe zones” that would eventually develop into more or less autonomous areas.[6] In October 2015, the author of the Brookings article, Michael O’Hanlon, specified his vision of Syrian balkanisation in an op-ed for Reuters as follows:

    “One largely Alawite (Assad’s own sect) [sector], spread along the Mediterranean coast; another Kurdish, along the north and northeast corridors near the Turkish border; a third primarily Druse, in the southwest; a fourth largely made up of Sunni Muslims; and then a central zone of intermixed groups in the country’s main population belt from Damascus to Aleppo.”[7]

    ...

    In Part II: Divide and rule: the US-Israeli quest for a new regional order, Bas shows the part that Israel plays in all this.
    In Part III: Different president, same plan, He says that Trump - regardless of what he says isn't really in charge and apparently doesn't have much choice in the matter.
    ...

    Read More:
    https://www.newsbud.com/2017/04/23/n...e-middle-east/


    Bas Spliet, Newsbud Analyst & Author, is a bachelor’s student in History and Arabic at the University of Ghent, Belgium. He is interested in geopolitics, focusing most of his time on getting a better understanding of wars in the Middle East. Mr. Spliet is proficient in English, Dutch and Arabic, and his analyses can be found at www.scrutinisedminds.com. He can be reached at bas.spliet@gmail.com

  2. #2
    Donor
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    109
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    134
    Thanked in
    83 Posts


    If Balkanization is so great, why did we put the thirteen colonies together to form one unit, then fight a civil war to maintain it?

  3. #3
    Techie Admin Vanessa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,594
    Blog Entries
    23
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,105
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,135
    Thanked in
    569 Posts
    Videos
    8


    Nominated. I keep forgetting to nominate good threads but this time I remembered.
    You can easily get agreement between a pig and a cow that wolves are bad, but they can easily fall into the trap where the pig says
    wolves should eat more beef, while the cow recommends a diet of pork.

Similar Threads

  1. Growing up with War: Children of Syria
    By Vanessa in forum Film & Documentaries
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-21-2017, 12:19 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-17-2017, 02:18 PM
  3. Peace Activists Confront Amy Goodman on Biased Syria Coverage
    By Vanessa in forum Media & Its Reporting
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-17-2017, 12:02 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-23-2017, 02:26 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-01-2017, 11:48 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •