Saudi Arabia is our natural ally against Isil. Just like David Cameron, Riyadh is committed both to destroying Islamic State and to toppling Assad. It would be foolish to alienate them now … – UK Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: The House of Saud and the House of Bush, perfect together?
Free-Market Analysis: This article by a man who is the Telegraph's chief military correspondent, and thus makes a living warmongering, runs counter to the world's increasing disgust with the bloody Saud regime.
This disgust has further manifested itself since the latest House of Saud massacre that saw up to 50 "criminals" beheaded in a mass execution designed to further the cause of Saudi "justice."
But written in early December, this article's arguments surely remain current and are probably as good a summary of the pro-war, Middle East case as can be made.
Here's how it begins:
When David Cameron tried to find out just how many Syrian fighters were available to conduct ground operations against Islamic State (Isil), the response from his senior military advisors was hardly encouraging. "There is certainly no shortage of fighters on the ground in Syria," the Prime Minister's office was told. "The only problem is that none of them wants to fight against Isil."
That, in a nutshell, sums up the predicament facing Western policymakers as they attempt to devise a coherent strategy for defeating Isil – one that does not rely exclusively on the somewhat optimistic belief that if you drop enough bombs on the fanatics, they will simply give up on their attempts to establish their self-styled caliphate.
The article goes on to call for "rationalization" of British strategy regarding the various terrorist factions in the Middle East and Syria and mentions a Saudi summit to do just that.
Of course, the article – to do it justice – doesn't shirk from admitting that Saudi funds have found their way to both Al Qaeda and ISIL. But it quickly points out that the "Saudi government itself is at war with both groups."
This is the crux of the article:
The Saudis, therefore, are as committed to defeating Isil as they are to the removal of the Assad regime, their long-standing regional rivals which, as it happens, is not all that different from the aims espoused by Mr Cameron when setting out Britain's long-term objectives for its military intervention in Syria.
And for this reason, it makes perfect sense for Britain to "work closely" with Saudi officials and to make "common cause."
Contrast this sentiment to a lengthy analysis recently published by David Stockman at his Contra Corner. Interestingly, it builds off a recent article by Patrick Buchanan explaining that these Saudi executions were a clumsy way of trying to polarize the larger Middle East conflict.
By executing a prominent Iranian cleric, the House of Saud was hoping to antagonize Iranian mullahs into taking a definitively militaristic position regarding Saudi Arabia.
The theory is that this would force the Pentagon and the Obama administration to choose side between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Since the US has very close ties to the House of Saud because of its support of the petrodollar, there should be no question about where the US comes down – on the side of the Saudis.
But Stockman is eloquent in his disgust with the Saudi regime, even more so than Buchanan.
Washington's Mideast policy is predicated on the assumption that the answer to high oil prices and energy security is deployment of the Fifth Fleet to the Persian Gulf. And that an associated alliance with one of the most corrupt, despotic, avaricious and benighted tyrannies in the modern world is the lynch pin to regional stability and US national security. Nothing could be further from the truth. The House of Saud is a scourge on mankind that would have been eliminated decades ago, save for Imperial Washington's deplorable coddling and massive transfer of arms and political support.
Stockman obviously has strong feelings on the subject. Additionally – blessedly, from our point of view – he spends the latter part of the article talking about the hoax of "peak oil."
Regular readers will know that we have reported on this for over a decade now and were, at the beginning, almost a lone voice even within the alternative media community.
Stockman doesn't come right out and claim that oil is abiotic, and naturally reoccurring from geological processes, but he comes close to doing so. The main point he makes is stated as follows:
[Oil scarcity] was only a convenient Washington invention that was used to justify statist regulation and subsidization of energy domestically and interventionist political and military policies abroad.
And there is more truth-telling toward the end of the article:
The fact is, there is no such thing as generic Islamic terrorism. The overwhelming share of the world's 1.3 billion or so Sunni Muslims are not remotely interested in Jihaddism. Likewise, the 200 million adherents of the Shiite Muslim confession are not terrorists in any religious or ideological sense.
A comparison of these two articles shows us quite clearly that British establishment as usual has no intention of telling the truth about the current Middle East conflict because war suits British imperialism as it has, seemingly, for centuries.
Stockman's article is notable for its truthfulness, in our opinion, and is a sign that revisionist interpretations of historical events have now reached the highest levels of the Anglo establishment.
There is no doubt Stockman was once one of the most highly placed individuals in Washington DC (in the Reagan administration) at a very young age.
As we have predicted, the memes of Western elites are increasingly coming into conflict with 'Net reporting. This journalism is being practiced by a new generation of individuals (young and old) who have been radicalized by plentiful information now available that entirely undermines the kind of directed history that characterized the 20th century.
When elites lose control of the narrative, there are usually significant consequences. It is exciting to see "truth break out," but one needs to be aware of the brooding vengefulness of those used to orchestrating history in order to generate the appropriate narrative.
Increasingly deprived of this ability, they are liable to strike out in numerous, unexpected ways. Truth is certainly not an unalloyed blessing in the 21st century. Please plan accordingly.