— Posted in Main
A Query, Gentle Reader
I’d like to ask a question, but first, I must set the tone:
About a year ago, during the aborted run-up to an attack on the Syrian regime, I presented information in these spaces about evidence being presented in the Hague from Canadian and US special forces, outlining the nature of false-flag events (specifically, the Markale market mortar attacks in Bosnia), which were specifically used to draw NATO in on the side of a particular side.
I felt this was extraordinarily pertinent, based on the Administration’s adamant statements that the delivery methods used to rain chemical weapons down on the Syrian population, as well as it’s military, were “too advanced” for the al Qaeda-backed rebels. You will recall that a number of UN inspectors disagreed with that assessment. And time, as is its way, proved the lie: repeated usage of said weapons have shown beyond a shadow of the doubt that the “rebels” have employed them.
Which brings us to today:
al-Assad has offered his support- militarily, to the Iraqi government.
(From the Telegraph UK)
Now, understand- this is a PR move, plain as day. Bashar al-Assad doesn’t have the manpower, as his people are a little bit busy right now.
All of that said, given that we can draw a direct line between the al Qaeda-backed Syrian “rebels”, and the al Qaeda-backed militants for whom Mosul fell to yesterday, and Tikrit fell to today, it begs my question:
What kind of Bizzaro World did we wake up in, and how did we get here? Did we collectively bang our noggins on the headboard, and we are currently involved in some mass hallucination as we work through the concussion-induced REM cycles?
Seriously- a two year old could connect the dots between these people, and not one year ago we were prepared to send our sons and daughters to play air support, if not pseudo-occupiers/”peacekeepers” on behalf of these sons of bitches?
Somebody wake me up. Please. Or turn off the life support. I’m tired of watching this train wreck in slow motion. The conductor and his engineers have no clue or concern, and my time would be better served as a cadaver in the name of science.
Edit: a wise friend (RJ Lee, from over at Estimative Error Probable) put it best:
By and large, the policy class has an aversion to simple and/or intuitive explanations. They generally would prefer nuanced and wrong to simple and right, because the theories don’t serve predictive purposes. They are used as status markers and ego adornments. So the fatal flaw in connecting these dots was exactly that a two year old could do it. It used to be that experts worried about saying wrong things. Now they worry about saying common things. This has predictable effects in those corners of policy where reality provides immediate feedback.