For more proof that the neocons love ISIS long time, check out
what John Bolton has to say in the NYT...
If, in this context, defeating the Islamic State means restoring to power Mr. Assad in Syria and Iran’s puppets in Iraq, that outcome is neither feasible nor desirable.
Of
course that outcome is feasible. If it is feasible for the Gulf States to be run by brutal Sunni dictators, why isn't it feasible for Syria to be run by a secular leader who has always respected the rights of Christians and other minorities? A leader who has never done anything to harm American interests? Bolton considers this outcome undesirable only because the increasingly fascistic leaders of Israel long ago pegged Assad for removal.
And please note: If defeating ISIS means that Assad stays, then Bolton would rather not defeat ISIS. He
says this.
Bolton's big idea: Carve a Sunni state out of Syria and Iraq. In other words, he wants to codify the Islamic State -- to change its status from
de facto state to
de jure. This guy thinks that the way to defeat ISIS is to give 'em exactly what they want.
Before America blundered into
Iraq, Sunnis and Shi'ites lived in peace in that country. There was intermarriage and fellowship. The neocons deliberately created religious tensions, and now they are asking for national segregation along theocratic lines.
Bolton's next idea is a corker:
The Arab monarchies like Saudi Arabia must not only fund much of the new state’s early needs, but also ensure its stability and resistance to radical forces.
Saudi Arabia is a radical force.
Saudi Arabia is the Islamic State. Continuing with Bolton:
This Sunni state proposal differs sharply from the vision of the Russian-Iranian axis and its proxies (Hezbollah, Mr. Assad and Tehran-backed Baghdad). Their aim of restoring Iraqi and Syrian governments to their former borders is a goal fundamentally contrary to American, Israeli and friendly Arab state interests.
Bolton here comes close to admitting the truth: America, Israel and the Gulf states instigated this civil war -- a war that has created misery for millions.
Notions, therefore, of an American-Russian coalition against the Islamic State are as undesirable as they are glib.
There's that word again: "undesirable." The use of the passive voice allows Bolton to avoid stating
who is doing the desiring.
We average Americans sure as hell did not desire this war. Most Americans do not have ludicrous dreams of empire. Bolton does not speak for us; he speaks only for a small clique of conspirators.
The Syrian civil war was instigated by the Machiavellian monsters who call themselves neoconservatives. The same monsters brought us the Iraq debacle (which Bolton
still defends). The same monsters brought Nazis to power in Ukraine. The same monsters
funded ISIS. The same monsters formulated the Plan for a New American Century. The same monsters wrote the truly diabolical "Clean Break" document, which talked about the need for waging a proxy war against Syria.
The best argument for an American-Russian coalition is the fact that beasts like Bolton hate the very idea.
John Bolton is as
undesirable as he is criminal. In a sane world, he and his fellow war-lovers would have faced justice at a Nuremberg-style trial.
By the way: Bolton is
Donald Trump's chief foreign policy adviser. Trump may talk the anti-neocon talk to win over the libertarian-minded -- but if he is elected, don't expect improvement.
