The American one-party oligarchy and its outlet "Council on Foreign Relations" in praise of "Front for the Protection of the Levantine People" aka al-Qaeda

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Aug 29, 2012 at 18:05

Dear Ismael ,

Thanks for your kind comment ! You wrote :

> The USA attitudes in Syria are shameful. Until one year ago, I thought that this was a Obama agenda, since Obama is a muslim at the same time that he is a leftist communist. But since that a year ago, i'm more and more convinced that this pattern of attitude of USA politics in the Middle East - favoring islamists takeovers of countries - is not only a agenda of the Left and the Democrats, but that the political establishment of America is totally agree with this state of affairs.

Is a common agenda of both parties and the vast majority of politicians that the things occur in this way in Syria, Libya and so forth.<

I think that we will agree that it is very naive to believe in the official narrative of the American political system. We are told that it is a two-party system. There are two parties -Republican and Democratic - that battle each other for power and votes. They essentially differ as parties in Europe do due to profound contrasting tenets of worldview and principles -like Right and Left should.

Yet, there is nothing more misleading and deceptive than that ! America's is essentially a one-party system with two wings or factions of just one and the same hidden party that supports both factions, provides cadres and money for election campaigns for both of them and invariably achieves its own goals by dint of both.

The real party is the oligrachy , banks and corporations - especially the 1% or even less , the 400 people who control more wealth than the wealth of 155 000 000 Americans combined - that has most financial and other resources and influence in its hands and controls the two factions that wrangle over minor, decorative and personal issues and never ever differ on or question the real matters of importance like the right of the financial oligarchy or corporatocracy to rule and exploit the country in its interests, let alone offering an alternative to it. As one renowned historian put it bluntly : "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

Outwardly the American oligarchy , well-connected to the Government it appoints and controls - exerts power and voices its wishes and ideas through such outlets as the Council on Foreign Relation(4500 members), the Trilateral Commission ( 87 Americans + 337 from other countries) and the Bilderberg Club (120-140 "guests") and various tax-exempt foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation where key representatives and retainers of the oligarchy and its interests are present and global plans and agendas are discussed, refined and then implemented by the subservient political stooges.

I am not in a position or mood to write an essay on these three key orgnizations but let's just note that e.g. many a political career miraculously soared after attending their first Bilderberg meeting, including Margaret Thatcher, Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair. Obama appointed eleven members of the Trilateral Commission (i.e. more than 10%) to top-level and key positions in his administration within his first ten days in office. In 1976, the founder of the Trilateral Commission and America's king-maker David Rockefeller brought an unknown fellow called Jimmy Carter to the White House. "Between 1945 and 1972, roughly 45% of the top foreign policy officials who served in the United States government were also members of the Council, leading one prominent member to once state that membership in the Council is essentially a "rite of passage" for being a member of the foreign policy establishment...Roughly 42% of the top foreign policy positions in the Truman administration were filled by Council members, with 40% in the Eisenhower administration, 51% of the Kennedy administration, and 57% of the Johnson administration...The Council has had and continues to have enormous influence in the mainstream media, through which it is able to propagate its ideology, advance its agendas, and conceal its influence... The CIA ... is also no stranger to this network, since more often than not in the first several decades of the existence of the Agency, its leaders were drawn from Council membership, such as Allen Dulles, John A. McCone, Richard Helms, William Colby, and George H.W. Bush."

A longer , even though a bit outdated -list of prominent personalities belonging the Council on Foreign Relations and/or the Trilateral Commission from the world of politics, business, industry, academia,mass media, the military,and CIA can be inspected here . Small wonder therefore that Hillary Clinton admitted in a moment of weakness with disarming openness : "We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won't have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future."

But how does all of that touch on Syria ? Well, it does because if the Council tells the secretary of State what to do and what to think about the future (and I suspect not only about teh future), then it is worthwhile taking a glance first at what it says in order to learn what she will do.

Ed Husain is senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and he has penned an interesting article "Al-Qaeda's Specter in Syria" which depicts a rather innocent and heroic version of al-Qaeda from what we have been taught to hate and associate with pepole jumping out of the burning towers on September 11th 2001 and with other victims filmed while their throats are being sliced by thugs with thick beards shouting in laryngeal voices "Allahu Akbar". But no! Now we learn from him that :

"The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime's superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now...

In Syria, al-Qaeda's foot soldiers call themselves Jabhat al-Nusrah li-Ahli al-Sham (Front for the Protection of the Levantine People). The group's strength and acceptance by the FSA are demonstrated by their increasing activity on the ground (BBC)--from seven attacks in March to sixty-six "operations" in June. In particular, the Jabhat has helped take the fight to Syria's two largest cities: the capital of Damascus, where 54 percent of its activities have been, and Aleppo. Indeed, al-Qaeda could become the most effective fighting force in Syria".

So here we are - a direct call upon Hillary not to hurry and condemn the beasts that organized the 9/11 massacre but rather share the CFR author's admiration for " deadly results" of such a fine force as that Al-Qaeda. We must apaprently understand and learn to appreciate the fact that al-Qaeda is now the main asset and hope in the covert US war in Syria. Ed Husain goes on to tell us that

"Al-Qaeda is not sacrificing its "martyrs" in Syria merely to overthrow Assad. Liberation of the Syrian people is a bonus, but the main aim is to create an Islamist state in all or part of the country. Failing that, they hope to at least establish a strategic base for the organization's remnants across the border in Iraq, and create a regional headquarters where mujahideen can enjoy a safe haven. If al-Qaeda continues to play an increasingly important role in the rebellion, then a post-Assad government will be indebted to the tribes and regions allied to the Jabhat. Failing to honor the Jabhat's future requests, assuming Assad falls, could see a continuation of conflict in Syria."

In other words, a creation of a shariah-ruled jihadist state in or near Syria would be in the best interests of "peace and stability" in the region because if al-Qaeda , now nicknamed "the Jabhat" or "Front for the Protection of the Levantine People", doesn't get what it wants, it will continue its mayhem slaughtering children, blowing up buses and schools, kidnapping men and women and beheading anyone its "heroic" members classify as kafir or heretic.

Well, it seems that both Ed Husain , Hilary Clinton and the "Front for the Protection of the Levantine People" aka al-Qaeda have at least one thing in common - the Macchiavelian belief that the end justifies the means. The only problem about this belief is what other end can be achieved using such means as al-Qaeda ? Another 9/11?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".