America's Client Paralysis (by CP)

Al Qaeda flag	Twin Towers	US SF in Afghanistan	Iraqi state, toppled
Mission accomplished!	Al Qaeda in Iraq flag	Saddam hanged	Petraeus, surging
Riding the Arab Spring I, Libya	Ghaddafi lynched	al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb flag	Al Qaeda in Mali demolishing Sufi Shrines in Timbuktu
... in the meanwhile: The Caucasus Emirate flag	... in the meanwhile: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula flag	Al Qaeda in Yemen	Riding the Arab Spring II, Syria
Jabhad al-Nusra flag	Jabhat al-Nusra at work	ISIS Flag	ISIS at work

I'll start with a brief, naturally abbreviated and selective, narrative of some of America's late and ongoing misadventures in the Middle East since 9/11 and the GWOT:

♦ The GWOT

The US started the GWOT after 9/11 to go after Al Qaeda into Afghanistan, then took a detour to Iraq, witnessed, gleefully, how Saddam was executed, even though he was a mere bystansder to 9/11, but why bother. Victory! To make a long, sad story short, the US messed the place up for good, and then had to have Grand Captain David Petraeus 'do the surge' and preside over the US 'victory' over Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). In the meanwhile, Afghanistan drags on, and on May 2, 2011, Bin Laden is killed in Abottabad. Victory!

♦ The US trying to ride the Tiger Arab Spring

The idea must been to end up at the 'right side of history' and not wanting to be seen as propping up authoritarians in the Middle East. One could also say the US mistook mobs on the streets for protest, and elections for democracy. Make your pick.

In any event, during the Arab spring the US eventually intervened in Libya, with US allies UAE and Qatar providing Jihadi shock troops, and European allies sending special forces and providing  close air support. In October 2011 Ghaddafi is lynched, leaving HC excited with glee. Victory! Well, not really, if a stable country was the goal.

♦ ... just one more dictator and surely Freedom™ will reign!

Not content with just that, the US took aim at Syria and the US and their allies then funneled arms and Jihadis from Libya to Syria to continue the fight. They seriously underestimated Assad's staying power. As a result the US, incapable of a to reset once 'regime change' has been uttered, habitually doubled down on support and diatribe as the civil war escalated under a continuous influx of foreign money, arms and fighters - courtesy of Turkey, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia and the US.

Because of serious rebel setbacks, and the disturbing emergence of ISIS, an offspring of that very same Al Qaeda in Iraq that was suppoosedly defeated by Petraeus in the 2007 surge, Petraeus in 2015, straight faced, suggested arming Al Qaeda to fight Assad ISIS, irrespective of the fact that many of these folks had sworn allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri (the butcher of New York and that other guy behind 9/11) and who would probably, if one dared to ask, say that Osama Bin Laden was a martyr and a hero.

♦ Strategic Incoherence

So, Al Qaeda, the killers of 9/11, made it from nemesis to ally in just a decade, with the general fighting their offspring in 2008 proposing to arm their successors in 2015.

How to better capture the utter strategic incoherence that afflicts US policy at the moment?

Because the guys who killed a couple thousand Americans during 9/11 and afterwards, and a couple thousand Iraqi Shia (no saints either but immaterial to this point) are good guys now that they have started killing Syrian soldiers and civilians, in scores? They have changed their target but surely retained their attitudes. And the general who fought Al Qaeda in Iraq wants to arm them in Syria so they can kill Syrian Army and ISIS fighters? Can the US, after that, seriously claim to have won the GWOT?

And the Russians (Putin, bad!) are evil for fighting the same sort of Jihadis, who have, by the way, killed a couple thousand Russians since the First Chechen War and have created a Caucasus Emirate, (to neocons: freedom) fighters of which have sworn allegiance to ISIS and went to Syria. The Russians are fighting the Jihadis of the various stripes which every sane person would describe as a common enemy, and in fact do the US a favour by going after people who still think that 9/11 was a great idea - only to be petulantly scorned by the US.

♦ US allies vs US interests

If all of this doesn't makes sense, that's because it can't, and there is a reason for that:

US clients pursue interests that are diametrically opposed with US goals and the US doesn't have a coherent policy, with the neocon/neoliberal/R2P wings infighting with the residual realists. In continuity with the Bushmen before them, they also fancy the idea of global benevolent hegemony and the American civilising mission to remake the world in its own image. Also, they are limited in their freedom of movement, which the conduct of three key US allies illustrates:

- Turkey - Turkey has successfully leveraged denying the US the use of Incirlic AB in negotiations with the US, and has gained US consent for attacking ISIS targets in Iraq  and Syria. Turkey then proceded to attack Kurds while ignoring ISIS The Kurds in Syria and Iraq are one of the more effective US allies engaged in fighting the ISIS' marauding Islamists. Turkey apparently disaproves, and undermines US efforts best they can.

Specifically, Turkey betrayed the US build Division 30 of the Unicorn army to the Jihadis just to make sure the US won't have an independent force on the ground and made a point of not bombing ISIS or Jabhat al-Nusra or Ansar al-Sham - all three of them Al-Qaedaite Jihadis.

The Turks fight US allies, and support US enemies in Syria and makes sure that the US won't succeed in their counterveiling pursuits.

- Saudi Arabia - The Saudis, habitually eshewing physical exertions, went out of their way to hire Jihadi mercenaries, offering money and arms to pretty much anybody wanting to go fight in Syria under the banner of Jihad. For the war in Yemen, the have hired mercenaries from Africa, and Colombia.

The Saudis are doing much the same thing in Yemen as the Turks do with regard to the Kurds. They bomb the Houthis for rejecting Saudi Arabian viceroy Hadi. Saudi paranoid thinking assumes that, as Shia, they must be allied with Iran to do such a dastardly thing. Be that as it may, the Houthis certainly were allied with the US, against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) - proud scions of the scum that murdered thousands on 9/11 and the folks who bombed the USS Cole. To add injury to insult, the Saudis make a point of not bombing Al Qaeda in the Arabian Penuinsula.

Just like Turkey, the Saudis fight US allies, and support US enemies. The US facilitate the Saudi onslaught against Yemen anyway, likely because if they objected, that would, given Saudi Arabia's temperament of late, probably carry the risk of the Saudis disallowing US the use of bases in the kingdom.

- Qatar - The Qataris have distinguished themselves as one of the most active funders of Jihadi groups worldwide, right with the Saudis. They are not happy with the Russians going after the groups they sponsored to fight Assad, and have threatened to escalate their support, send troops, probably in an attempt to gain leverage over the US.

The Israelis have demonstrated how this gambit might work: I'm going to really bomb Iran! Hold me back, hold me back! I will only stop to do so when you give me a, b and c ... that'd be my hunch at least.

♦ US dependence on bases for empire

And so, the ironic result is that the guys who are funding, training and arming the common, headchopping, atrocity-comitting and opportunistically cannibalistic Jihadi enemy - the Turks, Saudis, UAE and Qataris - are allies, while the folks  (Putin, you devil!) who are fighting America's enemies are enemies.

Judging by their assent to their client's excess at US expense, the US apparently feel that they have no choice but to endure such policies because their nominal allies, even when they pursue diametrically opposed policy goals, threaten the US with denial of the one thing the US empire relies on - and that is the use of overseas bases in these allied countries to 'project US power'.

That is a sharp sword, and it underlines one peculiar aspect of the US empire - that it is in part about voluntary client participation. In return for protection, the US adopt as their own political goals of its clients, and exercises hegemony in return, providing stability. In a sense, US empire is, certainly in its self-image, is providing an international public service - national security.

With forward presences denied, US influence (to a large extent relying in military to military relations and US military proconsuls enjoying greater influence than ambassadors) is reduced, and US reach and leverage will be diminished.

♦ US dilemmas

At the roots of it, it has nothing to do with US or alleged Obamaite fecklessness, and everything to do with the US having to cope with the effects of the destruction of Iraq that Bush inflicted on the rest of the world. It is, so to speak, America's cardinal sin and we will suffer the baleful consequences for a long time.^*

It has also meant that US allies no longer need their protection against Iraq, even though they have now set their sights on Iraq as the next big threat and want the US to continue its isolation. But the US, is unwilling to adopt that client policy as their own, seeking instead an accomodation of and with Iran. The reason for that is obvious:

The disappearance of Iraq has led to Iran gaining freedom of action which in turn has compelled the US to recognise that fact and to come to terms with them. The US had to do this, since the alternative, waging war against Iran, would have been a blunder even dumber than destroying Iraq and would likely have led to lawlessness raging from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean (not to mention a serious overextension of US forces). Only moon howling lunatics like Bomber McCain or the Neanyahoo may relish that thought.

Beyond the madness, the neocon opposition to getting friendly with Iran is largely rooted in the understanding that this will lead to US loss of influence and leadership with America's traditional allies in the region, but they avoid adressing the question whether adopting these particular political goals of the allies is actually worth it. Is it? Is aiding Saudi Wahhabi supremacist and hegemonic designs worth it? Is aiding Erdogan's Islamist-Panturkish designs worth it? Is it?

American independence from its volatile clients comes at a price the Obama administration is not yet willing to pay: The simple fact is that the US as an empire is dependent on the consent of its local allies for the use of the overseas bases that the US relies on for power protection. The Turks have played and fully leveraged that with the denial of use of Incirlic Air Base until Turkish demands were met, and likely, the Saudis and Qataris play the same card, or threaten to.

♦ Client paralysis

The US as a result finds itself in the unpleasant situation to have to cling traditional clients like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and last but not least Israel - for lack of a better idea. Successive administrations have maneuvered the US in a position where she is barely able to extricate herself from even those client policy goals that the US leadership has understood very clearly to be detrimental to US interests.

These alliances have, for all practical purposes, put the US into foreign policy straightjacket. Obama is trying to wriggle himself free, at great difficulty. He tries to accept the changes in the regional balance of power that emerged as a result of the destruction of Iraq, and her allies resent and oppose it. Alas, that genie is out of the bottle, deal with it.

Perhaps it is time to cut through that knot?

by confusedponderer

^* The destruction of Libya has already spread chaos in West Saharan Africa, which will also be a problem that is to stay with us for some time.

Comments

[Bill Herschel]

Ponderer, yes. Confused, no. Amen.

[Deray]

Hello CP,

Your series of photos are phenomenal in laying out the post 9/11 history.

Do you think that knot you alluded to at the end should be named Campaign Finance? Is the US Congress a policy enabler, or a neutralized party (where policy is set in think tanks/bureaucracy ?

[Babak Makkinejad]

CP:

You might find this worth reading:

http://csis.org/publication/king-stork-king-log-americas-negative-message-overseas

[burton50]

Babak:
Same old, same old. Here's a more accurate reading:
https://www.cigionline.org/events/travails-of-empire

[Valissa]

Great overview CP! The pictorial timeline is brilliant!

Here are some interesting article about Turkey I read recently...

Old Demons in New Faces? The 'Deep State' Meets Erdoğan's 'New Turkey' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karabekir-akkoyunlu/old-demons-in-new-faces-t_1_b_8383086.html

Alastair Crooke… Russia Forecloses Erdogan’s Gambit To ‘Re-Ottomanise’ Northern Syria & Iraq http://valdaiclub.com/news/russia-forecloses-erdogan-s-gambit-to-re-ottomanise-northern-syria-iraq/
So what is the point of all this? Firstly, whilst the Gulf Wahhabisation of northern Syria is broadly recognised, the Turkisation of northern Syria and its neo-Ottoman connotations have received scant attention. This represents a real lacunae since the connection between the Turkish no-fly demands (and their geographic spread) – couched solely in terms of humanitarian needs – set against the legacy of Ataturk’s expansionist vision of Turkey as the motherland of all Turkic-speaking races, has never been adequately squared.

[The Twisted Genius]

confused ponderer,

That's some brilliant analysis and writing. The pictures and prose work well together to explain the terrible affliction of client paralysis. I hope this gets a wide reading.

[Babak Makkinejad]

20 pictures are posted of which 7 (more than 30%) are flags with the profession of Muslim Faith on them.

I maintain again that this is a religious war.

[pj]

Trump weighs in -

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/26/why-donald-trump-is-mostly-right-about-the-middle-east/

[confusedponderer]

Babak,
a religious war for whom?

6 of the 7 professions of Muslim Faith are in that mix simply because they happen to grace the flags of the 6 Wahhabi-esque Jihadi movements that emerged as actors in Iraq, Libya, Syria and (to a lesser extent) Yemen in the wake of US intervention - as unexpected and undesired consequences, no doubt - and I included them simply to illustrate who the US is opposing, or not, at a given time in that period, and which groups US allies are supporting.

The Caucasus Emirate as Russia's Islamist enemy is an outlier, but has lost fighters which have joined the fighting in Syria.

These groups fight for their own ends - which have a lot to do with religion - but are at times instrumentalised, and allow themselves to be, by powers like Turkey, the various Gulfies and - if Petraeus had his way - by the US.

Another purpose was to illustrate the point that between the various flavours of Wahhabi-esque Jihadism there is a similarity in style, the bottom row underlines that starkly.

Pirates flew the Jolly Roger, Jihadis use the professions of Muslim Faith, even if their conduct perhaps profanes it. Whether or not that is the case I am in no position to judge, and the consent-group character of Islam makes the point moot anyway.

Anyway, methinks that whether the Al Qaeda style or the ISIS style is en vogue largely depedes on the fashion of the given day, which is in turn driven by the respective success of the movemement.

ISIS has, to Al Qaeda's chagrin, been stealing a lot of their thunder of late. It would explain why Al Qaeda in Yemen flies a flag resembling that of ISIS.

Seen in that light, Jabhat al-Nusra and sticking with something visually similar to the style of Al Qaeda speaks for itself, casting doubt on Turkish and Gulfie suggestions that they constitute a moderate force.

PS: I could have also thrown in the Taleban flag for an 8th profession of Muslim Faith but was out of space. It would have also ruined the Jolly Roger angle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

[Medicine Man]

Confused Ponderer: Thank you for writing this. Very sharp observations all and also very enlightening on why the US's clients in the region seem to have so much influence over the country.

[Babak Makkinejad]

We have, in my opinion, a multi-faceted religious war in which Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Judaism, Shia and multitudes of Sunni Muslims are slugging it out.

Significantly, the Shia and the Orthodox are saying the same thing: "We are fighting them there (in Syria) so that we would not have to fight them here (Iran and Russia).

The Catholic Church, like our Chinese friends, has stayed out of it even though Catholic communities are disappearing - perhaps the Church has determined that there is no future for Christians in there in the Middle East and why get excited.

Protestant Christians seem to think that they can prevail against Islam - they are enemies of both Shia and Sunni - all the while helping Israelis maintain the results of their conquests against incompetent Arabs.

And then you have the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister stating today that she dreams of the Israeli flag flying over the Al Haram Al Sharif; all the while Palestinian Muslims attacking Jews.

And of course, then there is the constant attacks against the Shia in Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

This is not a problem of client intractability, client intractability is a consequence of religious passions and the concomitant wars - in my opinion.

[RogerSpenser]

To express my impression of US policy I can only use concepts like lunacy, incoherence, recklessness, US exceptionalism = uber alles, cognitive dissonance, irrational, Empire of Evil, etc.

It is obvious that the East will not bend its knee to the West. The East has drawn a line in Syria that the West must not cross.

The East has been preparing for war with the West. The West cannot defeat the East. For the East defeat is not an option.

Unless the US pulls back from its policy of exceptionalism there will be a world war. This is obvious to very few as most are dissolved into the drama from one day to the next.

This is the late 1930's all over again but the roles have shifted. The US is fascist and trying to stillbirth the new world trying to be born in the East.

[William R. Cumming]

Great post! And MSM now reporting KURDS control 50% of Turkey's border with Syria and about to shut down last Turkish border crossing controlled by ISIS.

Convince me why the Great Powers in Paris in 1919 did not properly decide to allow the KURDS and Ukrainians to become nation-states?

Would the world be better off if NO Desert Storm/ Desert shield?

Besides India how does Pakistan target its nuclear tipped missiles? Qurttar?

[William R. Cumming]

As to Israel both the US and Russia protect that entity.

[confusedponderer]

Babak,
'This is not a problem of client intractability, client intractability is a consequence of religious passions and the concomitant wars - in my opinion.'

Fair point, but it is the client intractability that hobbles the US.

Whether it is symptom or desease is secondary at this point because there is little the US can do to about the underlying cause if it is indeed just a symptom.

They can hardly tell the Wahhabi nuts that run Saudi Arabia that they just should stop worrying about Iran. If anything, that alarmed the Saudis even more, and one of the results is the war in Yemen since the Saudis feared imminent encirclement by the Shia or something silly like that.

The Saudis and Turks also pursue their own plans for regional spheres of dominance, which the former justify with Wahhabi supremacism, and the latter with their own Islamic panturkism. At that point we're speaking of quite worldly politics that are deeply imbued with religion.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Yes, US cannot do anything in Nigeria either but in the Middle East she can cut and run - as I suggested in response to TTG's earlier post.

Amusingly, here is what the Quran says about Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula:

"The Arabs of the desert are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and are least inclined to acknowledge the limits that God has revealed to his Messenger. God is All-Knowledgeable, All-Wise."

Surah 9. At-Tauba, Ayah 97

الْأَعْرَابُ أَشَدُّ كُفْرًا وَنِفَاقًا وَأَجْدَرُ أَلَّا يَعْلَمُوا حُدُودَ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

[walrus]

And SST seems to be the only space where the weird, self absorbed, crazy, American world view does not intrude. Great post CP.

[Kunuri]

"Legacy of Ataturk’s expansionist vision of Turkey as the motherland of all Turkic-speaking races", sorry but you are confusing Enver Pasha with Ataturk.

Ataturk, at the onset of the Republic, coined the motto for Turkey then, and the future "Peace within the homeland, peace in the world". He had no visions of a pan-Turkic empire, or any dreams of expansion otherwise, he had had too much of that, and knew exactly where it lead. For goodness sake, after the revolutionary war, he shook hands with Venizelos of Greece, General Hamilton wrote an entire book on him, and he let go of the Ottoman past and its claims entirely. Please read up, and not for a moment, confuse current Turkish high jacked regime with Ataturk and his ideals.

[Kunuri]

Again, a normal Turkey will have no demands on any country's head of state to be removed, or parts of another country being Turkishised, and to top it all, be in the same league as Saudis and Qataris in the world opinion, and even worse, Islamic fundamentalists. Not to mention any revival of Ottoman neo-imperialism, after having been effectively ended by putting the last Sultan on a fast boat to Nice and firing the last Halife.

Turkey, and those who rule it, no matter what demands they make on anyone, are not representing the Republic of Turkey. Its the demands of a criminal Mafia cabal that took over over here, why should Turkey have demands for a no fly zone, Syrian Republic never attacked Turkey, there should be and never was any reason to do so.

[David Habakkuk]

CP,

Tails wag dogs.

[Thomas]

The Great Powers should have called the conflict to a close four years earlier, but human vanity of the select few prevented it, as it does today.

As for Israel being protected by Russia and the US, then it is time to tell them whether One State or Two have the plan ready on 2 Jan 2016 to be implemented.

[Jonathan]

Movement in a rational direction?
Syria conflict: Iran to be invited to key talks, US says
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34647193

[Valissa]

Kunuri, I was hoping you would comment (also anyone else from Turkey or environs). I know very little about Turkish history other than very broad historic brushstrokes and some dribs and drabs I've learned here. CP's recent posts on Turkey have prodded me to pay more attention to Turkey, so I'm making the effort to read articles about the current state of Turkey today such as the two I linked above, which include some historical analysis. However I have no way of evaluation the quality of their information. Thanks for taking the time to educate me, and feel free to suggest better articles on Turkey.

Until your comment I was unaware of any details about Enver Pasha vs Ataturk. Appreciate the heads up, and for anyone else who is interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Pasha

[Matthew]

Jonathan: Kerry wants the talks before the replay of Bannockburn.

See http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-kurdish-forces-seize-control-border-post-jihadists-162742467.html

[Joe100]

CP (Great post!) & others

"With forward presences denied, US influence (to a large extent relying in military to military relations and US military proconsuls enjoying greater influence than ambassadors) is reduced, and US reach and leverage will be diminished."

Can someone explain why projection of our military power through land bases in these client states is so important that to keep them drives our policies to madness and devastates much of the region?

What vital interests cannot be met by our carrier groups, etc.? Or is this more sheer momentum - mindless holding onto basing rights because "we have them"??