Former NATO Commander Warns of Wider War in Middle East
01.20.2014 at 09:41pm
Former NATO Commander Warns of Wider War in Middle East by Slobodan Lekic, Stars and Stripes
NATO’s former top military commander has warned that the widening sectarian conflict in Syria and Iraq could engulf a broader region in the Middle East, just as the religious wars in Europe did in the 16th and 17th centuries.
James Stavridis, who served as the alliance’s supreme commander until last year, said that although Syria and Iraq are the flashpoints of the conflict at the moment, Lebanon and other nearby nations could easily be sucked into a war. He said the conflicts present a direct security threat to Europe as well…
Ah, the NATOists. But that is a story for a different day.
Do you suppose we Americans will ever be free from the atlanticists? As presently configured, I mean? European security, eh? Why ever cut the cord.
The US will not survive another Middle East war, I mean, if we are dragged in. Like the British after WWII, we will lose any hope of an American century if we spend our blood and treasure in this way and become even more embroiled in the region.
It’s game, set and match for the American Century or any hope for it if we allow ourselves to get dragged in. Note, I am not talking about humanitarian assistance or diplomacy. But more mucking around ending in another war?
The Chinese can begin cashing in.
I suggest some read John Batchelor….
We probably need to be in there and Africa as well, if for no other reason than to prevent Chinese influence and manipulation of Islam to further there own ends. But if so we are going to have to be honest about it. We can’t deceive ourselves into saying it is for anything but a few reasons. Money, resources, trade, investment etc. And we can’t lie about the enemy either, which for them it is a religious war.
NATO this and NATO that, LOL. NATO is at least occasionally useful, if imperfect organization. And a thousand times more useful than the UN on it’s best day.
I would really like to know who the genius is that came up with the idea of the “Pacific Pivot” as part of our National Defense Strategy.
The topic would make a great skit for Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update “Really” gag:
Really America? Your REALLY going to shift your focus to the Pacific while over 20,000 people were killed in Narco-Terror attacks in Mexico last year alone and over 100,000 people have been killed in the Syrian civil war and Iraq is on the verge of collapse after we just pulled out? REALLY?
So the father of the writer of the Daily Beast article mentioned further down in the thread is Peter Ackerman? That thing was linked right and left and rarely saw that mentioned. Is that correct?
From Source Watch:
Or you could open up Pandora’s box, unleash greater violence than that already present.
At Tufts too? Interesting.
A (possible) overall perspective — not limited to the Middle East:
When great nations, such as the United States during the Cold War and Russia today, seek to “contain” the power and influence of rival great nations, then we often see these “containing”/”obstructing” great nations (1) viewing the more-conservative elements of the various states and societies as their “natural allies” and (2) seeking to recruit and utilize these more-conservative elements in their containment cause.
Thus, during the Cold War, with the United States seeking to contain the power and influence of the former USSR, we often saw the more-conservative elements of various states and societies as our natural allies and sought to recruit and “weaponize” these more-conservative elements to help contain communism/the former Soviet Union.
Likewise today — with Russia seeking to contain the power and influence of the United States — we see Russia (1) touting itself as the champion of conservative values and conservative causes and (2) seeking to actively recruit and utilize the more-conservative/entrenched elements of various states and societies in its efforts to contain the United States.
(With regard to the former USSR then and the United States today, the Achilles heel of both of these entities would seem to be [1] their expansionist nature and [2] the radically different way of life and way of governance that they seek to install in other nations. This, tending to drive the conservative elements of various states and societies into their rival’s arms.)
One additional thought: Given that Russian prosperity is heavily dependent upon the sale of Russian oil and gas, then does it (Russia) not benefit — both with regards to markets and with regard to price — from difficulties which present themselves (or are manufactured/aggravated) in the Middle East?