As the kerfuffle in Syria seems to be dying down (although Russia is still bombing ISIS and NATO member Turkey is still attacking the free Kurds, since 2011 the most consistently effective ground force ranged against ISIS) so the next FUKUS axis war against a third world nation is taking shape. This time it is in Libya, where French, UK and US troops are alread on the ground organising resistance to the ISIS advance on Libyan oilfields. This was posted in January, 205 on Boggart Abroad
FUKUS axis troops (France, UK, USA) Unable To Halt ISIS March Towards Libyan Oil
We expressed the opinion long ago (and at every opportunity since) that having been sponsored and mentored by NATO, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Muslim Arab states, ISIS had become a monster that nobody could control (not that the Saudis and their Sunni allies wanted to control the terror group). A fighting force such as ISIS cannot be beaten by conventional warfare tactics, they are not a state or even a tribal grouping that has homeland territory to defend, nor are they a crusade with the goal of liberating an oppressed minority or liberating an occupied territory. They are an ideologically driven group and this gives them the advantage of geographic and organisational fluidity.
Unfortunately though all this has been common knowledge and the difficulties of beating a guerilla force have been documented since Boudicca gave Roman Legions the runaround until more tactically naive, testicularly driven allies persuaded her to face Rome’s well organised standing army in conventional battle and the Roman phalanxes butchered the Britons, our leaders seem unable to learn from history.
Once Russia and Iran started to engage ISIS forces in Syria the terrorists did what irregulars should always do, they shifted the focus of their operation. While western media gleefully reported that ‘thousands of ISIS fighters are deserting’ under the rain or firecrackers Obama’s air strikes were dropping on them (nothing to do with Russia’s bombs or Iran’s republican Guard of course), in fact the extremists were heading for Libya.
Our reports of US, French and British troops on the ground in have been online here for a while now, click the headlines below to find out who and where:
The latest news coming out of Tripoli is that The Islamic State (ISIS) force in Libya is taking on extra personnel faster than anyone can keep up with, some of these are raw recruits from north and sub Saharan Africa but many are experienced fighters (i.e, they know which end of a gun is dangerous) and is advancing towards Libya’s oil crescent, eyeing billions of barrels that lie under the country that was Africa’s most prosperous and civilized nation until western intervention led by Barack Hussein Obama overthrew the local dictator and left in his place a failed state. Now three rival groups claiming to be the government. Needless to say Libya is not in a position to protect its oilfields, even with the help of U.S. air strikes and British, French and US troops on the ground.
In mid-December, the United Nations brokered a power-sharing agreement between Libya’s rival factions, but there is no chance of implementing this, you can’t broker deals between gangsters and terrorists and expect them to succeed. That means there is no chance of Libyan government halting the advance of ISIS.
Things are getting very messy there, U.S. air strikes will put only a small dent in a big problem and all in all it is starting to look like another Syria is brewing in the Sahara..
According to U.S. intelligence figures, there are an estimated 6,000 ISIS fighters now in Libya, headquartered in the town of Sirte, as Oilprice.com has reported in the past. From here, they control hundreds of miles of coastline. There is nothing in Sirte they want; this is simply a strategic base.
Other reports say the terrorists are centred on Benghazi. Hat Tip from ISIS to Hillary Clinton for allowing Islamic Extremists to neutralise the west’s last toe hold in eastern Libya. It is not just oil that attacts ISIS to Libya of course. Having lost many men to Assad’s fairly well organised military they must like the total lack of effective government. And the European migrant crisis of last year has established Libyan seaports as the embarcation point of choice for jihadists en route to Europe. Another plus is a strong position in Libya opens the door to Africa via some of the weakest and most chaotic African states. Only third is to get their thieving mitts on more oil revenues to fill quickly depleting coffers in Syria and northern Iraq.
On top of that our colleague Raedwald posted the real agenta behind the British Prime Minister’s eagerness to involve Barack Hussein Obama in the campaign to keep Britain in the EU
There’s a very funny smell hanging around Cameron, Obama, Libya and the ‘stay’ campaign right now. Firstly, the US President, whose every public word is guarded by a phalanx of PR experts, blames Cameron for leaving business unfinished in Libya. Then it’s revealed that Obama will strongly support the ‘stay’ campaign. And now the leaks are starting that Obama wants boots on the ground in Libya before the end of his presidential term – that means this year. And Cameron has nothing left to lose.
So one has to wonder if Cameron, like Blair, has already promised the US President that UK troops will fight in Libya alongside a US contingent – and whether Obama’s support for the ‘stay’ campaign is the price for this.
We won’t know, of course, until Cameron feels compelled to tell the House of ‘urgent’ matters that have just arisen regarding Libya and seeking support for an expeditionary force. No doubt the Cabinet Secretary is already writing the mandatory Dodgy Dossier. Or perhaps a Libyan ‘incident’ is already being contrived or allowed to develop.
We’ve got nine months of 2016 left to find out.
Does War Have To Be Inevitable
by Ian R Thorpe
I recently entered a comment thread under a post that asked “Does War Have To Be Inevitable” on a Liberal blog. I should have known better of course, on a liberal blog people who think for themselves asnd express opinions of their own rather than parroting the usual knee jerk response prescribed by the academic – political elite are about as welcome as a fart in a space capsule.
The person who posted the question was merely reproducing the transcript of an interview and began like this:
In “The End of War”, veteran science journalist John Horgan applies the scientific method to reach a unique conclusion: biologically speaking, we are just as likely to be peaceful as we are to be violent. So what keeps humans bound by a seemingly never-ending cycle of … ?”
Read full article
In the interview Horgan reveals himself as a pompous windbag who never uses one word when a hundred will do. He also repeats many “progressive liberal” dogmas as if he has learned them by rote. The scientific method? In the end he says very little, in fact his whole case can be summed up as “War can become a thing of the past if everybody in the world will just change their consciouness.” Here is his final paragraph:
“I mention somewhere in the book and would like this to be discussed among progressive activists: What should your priorities be? You know, do you work on environmental issues, against global warming? Against poverty and world hunger? Do you work on the advancement of women’s rights? I mean all those are worthy causes. But I actually think that in terms of leverage, of focusing on one thing that can then have a cascade of other positive effects, focusing on militarism and war should be the priority. Because if we can really reduce the militarism of this country, really cut back on our military budget, get rid of nuclear weapons and create a more rational international policy, then I think that a lot of these other things will be much easier to address. Environmental issues, economic injustice issues, female inequality, all those sorts of things. “
The conclusion then is unbrelievably naive as are all those hippy dippy sacred cows that include the notion, either implied or spelled out, “If only everybody would just …”
It’s a pipe drem and few people will have much trouble guessing what the pipe these people suck on is filled with.
Is war inevitable, given the human condition? What causes human agression? For Socrates, according to Plato, it comes from innate tendencies present in all of us but nurtured in the wrong way.
So must we think then that war is inevitable and perpetual peace a utopian pipedream? This subject has been the centre of debates about international relations for centuries. Do those of us who take a realist’s view submit to being accused of relishing and glorifying war and being vilified for being right? And do those who claim war can be abolished have any rational arguements to suport their case or are they as full of crap as the guy above?
Political theorists, constructivists and social scientists hasve given us some insights, but we see the issue more clearly if we concentrate on the great debate between Utopianism and Realism and of course we should first equip ourselves with an understanding of human nature.
But before we even do that we ought to be aware of how profound the folly of those airy idealists who believe war can be abolished “if only everybody would just …”
Here’s a snipet from an article by Alice L Mayer
Einstein’s letter contained a statement that I kept reading over and over throughout the course of the day. He wrote, “Is it possible to control man’s mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychosis of hate and destructiveness? Here I am thinking by no means only of the so-called uncultured masses. Experience proves that it is rather the so-called ‘intelligentsia’ that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions, since the intellectual has no direct contact with life in the raw but encounters it in its easiest, synthetic form – upon the printed page.”
Read full article
It is worth noting that the article can be found on a website called changing our consciousness. I am entirely comfortable with the idea that individuals can change their consciousness, some individuals at least, we must not forget the old joke that goes …
Q:”How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Only one but first the lightbulb must want to change.
For an individual to change their consciousness is relatively simple once the mind is set on doing so. To abolish war however would require everybody in the world to change their consciousness, to set aside self interest and start living for the wider community and that is a very different matter. An old management maxim says “Managing people is like herding cats.” The difficult part of abolishing war is getting everybody to want to do it.
Sheeple are the most easy to manage but the least likely to change their consciousness. They rely on the feeling of security that comes from being part of the crowd thus they are easily manipulated by media campaigns orchestrated by charismatic leaders and extremist political groups. Again there is a problem of comprehension for hippy thinkers here. For no good reason they have managed to go through life without ever gaining any understand of the phrase “If voting changed anything, they’d abolish it.”
Realist assumptions about humans, from Hobbes to Spinoza to Machiavelli share one common trait: that humans are by nature bad, that human nature is base. According to Spinoza, people are led not by precepts of pure reason but by their passions. He was right as recent scientific research has shown, we are animals and while we have a veneer of reason and objectivity, emotions play a bigger part in our decision making. Emotion leads to irrationality, to selfishness, fear and panic, mob mentality (don’t ever pay any attention to talk of the wisdom of the crowd, mobs are mindless) and the raw aggression that draws men and nations into conflict.
In Politics Among NationsHans Morganthausays “it is man’s ‘ineradicable’ lust for power that results in frictions and wars among states.” If man’s nature is the primary cause of war, does it imply war could only be abolished through the enlightenment of man? And if so how? There has been talk in the meetings of the G20 nations of global government and the creation of a common culture but at what price could that be attempted? And who is fit to arbitrate as to what is good consciousness and what is bad. Orwell and Huxley took different views of this, Orwell’s brutal tyranny embraced the idea that “Freedom is slavery, war is peace, Ignorance is strength,” while the regime that controlled Huxley’s Brave New World was a suffocatingly matriarchal Nanny State that nurtured her subjects from cradle to grave and demanded in return only absolute, unthinking obedience.
Power, the most addictive and potent drug of all then is what motivates those who rise to leadership. Now we are getting somewhere in our effort to understand the impulse to war. Morganthau nails it with that phrase about ineradicable lust for power. Voter don’t vote for war, the masses don’t clamour for war unless they are manipulated into doing so by an elite. And the elite, being educated and steeped in a sense of supereiority that eliteism breeds, are not going to be manipulated by fools and dreamers. If anything threatens their grip on power they will start beating the war drum and use fear and panic to whip the masses into line. The technique is as old as civilisation itself.
Unlike realists, idealists believe in the optimistic definition of man being naturally good. Conflicts and war break out because of a few malicious or misguided people. Peace would prevail were a superior authority able to seek out such renegades and reform them in the etiquettes of politically correct conduct, a kind of cuddly Maoism. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow once said, “Were half the power that fills the world with terror, were half the wealth bestowed on camps and courts, given to redeem the human mind from error, there was no need of arsenals or forts.” As with all the glib solutions to problems that perpetually trouble humankind, it is much easier to say it than to make it happen. Ah well, as someone more famous than me once said, poets are fools and dreamers.
Based on the logic of education, several approaches within the behavioural sciences have attempted to address the problems of wars and their causes in international politics. According to psychologists like James Miller, Allport and Cohen, these all assumed that improved social adjustment of individuals would decrease feelings of frustration and insecurity thus reducing the likelyhood of war. Similarly, increased understanding amongst the people of the world meant increased peace. This has become the basis of the global government, global nation solution first proposed in the hippy dippy songs of the 1960s. Lovely idea but it is just not going to happen. We in the developed world might think of war in terms of global or multi – national conflicts like World Wars One and Two or localised bloodbaths like Korea or Vietnam but really war starts much smaller, tribal conflicts of which there are many currently going on in African despite all the money the west has pumped into that continent, the kind of low level war or terror campaign the IRA waged against Britain from the 1960s to 1990s or the Basque separatists have contucted in Spain, turf wars between street gangs. Get down to this level and we see why war is inevitable.
James Millar remarked that ignorance of the desires, aims and characteristics of other people leads to fear and is consequently one of the primary causes of aggression. Does a better understanding someone else’s culture translate to increased levels of peace? Can familiarity with a culture or religious tradition reduce envy and mistrust? Gaining a clearer picture of how communist societies worked did not bring the Cold War to a halt not did communism, for all its inclusive, egalitarian, touchy – feely ideology create the utopian society it promised. Even nations with close cultural affinities have gone to wars in the past, Britain and France have more in common than citizens of each care to admit and yet for almost a thousand years were at war at least once every century. This pattern is repeated throughout the history of Western Europe since the fall of Rome’s western empire. Realists argue this is so because the assumption a bouthuman nature is fixed. It is a given constant. No amount of idealistic notions about education, establishing a common culture and the peace bringing effects of everybody joining hands and singing Kumbiya being able to change consciosness a is going to change this fact. War is inevitable.
Idealists argue that if war was inevitable, why were there long periods among the natives of peace? As I said above, war is more than global conflict. In the period known as the Pax Romana the Roman Emire was always involved in putting down uprisings, quelling unrest and defending the borders of the empire. A hundred miles north of where I live the Scots spent almost 400 years snapping like bad tempered little terriers at the Imperial ankles. The same applied in the shorter period dubbed the Pax Britannica, British naval power many have prevented major conflicts but the Empire was always busy defending it’s interests with military force.
The Pax Americana has given war a different face. It is no longer practical for vast armies to confront each other on the field of battle. Modern military technology can reach deep into the heart of an enemy’s homeland. This would suggest even bloodier wars that ever but the certainty of mutually assured destruction in such a war dictates other ways are found to fight for supremacy. Major powers sponsor terrorist groups, guerrilla armies, dissidents and malcontents covertly back by rival governments conduct wars by proxy against unpopular or histile regimes and technological warfare in cyberspace threatens to bring to a halt the national economies of developed nations that have foolishly put all their eggs in one basdket by making themselves dependent on a single, deeply flawed technology.
Appeasement, the foreign policy of caving in to the demands of hostile powers is no more likely to bring peace now than it was in 1939 when the fools and dreamers deluded themselves that Adolf Hitler was a reasonable man. War is not just inevitable, aided and abetted by the dippy hippys who think we can all be persuaded to don diaphanous kaftans made from tie dyed cheesecloth and build a brave new, conflict free world, it is evolving from a dinosaur into a sophisticated, supernatural shapeshifter that will envelope everything within its aura.
Norway’s Biggest Bank Joins Push To Abolish Cash
The move by governments to eliminate cash as a means of trading goods and services is moving faster than we imagined. With another global financial crisis looming according to financial journalists and investment experts this is as understandable as it is undesirable for us ordinary punters.
Kissinger, The Original Dr. Evil
I do not totally agree that Kissinger is the sole architect of the New World Order. The recently deceased super – bureaucrat Maurice Strong must have been a contender, likewise David Rockefeller and Jacob Rothschild. Soros was a late arrival on the scene but there are a few other geriatric Bilderberg Group regulars who are on record as saying the only way forward for humanity (i.e. their personal advantage) was a global totalitarian government of elitists …
The New World order Pope Wants You To Pray For One World Religion
The Marxist, globalist, Soros apparatchik currently posing as head of the Catholic faith wants to scrap the Catholic Church. He didn’t say that in so many words but he has called on Catholics to pray for the creation of a world religion (because love and peace) which would embrace
Democracy Murdered In France
I’m hearing very disturbing news from the French regional elections, predicting that the Front National, comfortable winners in last week’s first round of regional elections, hasve been routed in all regions. For that to happen, and to happen through a massive increase in turnout, suggests electoral fraud on a hughe scale. Or has France joined Britain in adopting the Islamic version of democracy, which is one man one vote, one Imam one thousand votes.
Who Runs America, The White House Or The Shadow Government?
Reports of President Barack Obama’s meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit over the weekend do not look right in the context of yet another blitz of provocative rhetoric from The Pentagon and the Department of Defence towards Moscow. In view of the USA’s constant push towards all out war with Russia, one has to ask who is in control: Obama or the generals?
Donald Trump is portrayed as a clown by mainstream media and his combover is the silliest I have ever seen. Still, he’s a billionaie so I don’t suppose he gives a flying fuck what The Daily Stirrer thinks of him. Not that we think he is all bad, anyone who attacks Obama’s global naziism trade deals, TTIP and TPP mush have some good points.
Prepare For The Worst Case Scenario
An article on the cashless society our political and corporate overlords are pushing for proposes that as far as privacy and individual liberty are concerned, what is being planned right now in the political capitals and financial centres of the world is the worst case scenarion. An all digital financial system would mean the end of privacy, nothing you bought or traded would be your own business any more …
How Mainstream Media And The Major Political Parties Are Making Sure Voters Do not Hear The Voices Of Politics’ Most Powerful Critics
As the General Election campaign starts to heat up, we try to shift focus away from the squabbling between Conservative and Labour about who can make the most promises they have no intention of keeping and to the real issues concerning jobs, social breakdown , mass immigration, and loss of national sovereignty.
US Presidents Of The Past warned Against Secret, Shadow Government.
By now it should be obvious that peacemake, joybringer and putative aquatic pedestrian Barack Hussein Obama was never really in charge of the US Government. Whatever Obama said would happen, all the American government’s policies ensured the opposit would happen. The embedded article thows some light on how the US government really works
The American Political System Is “Not A Democracy Or Constitutional Republic” – Thiel
The state of democracy in the USA has become a hot topic of conversation in American business circles in recent years. While President Barack Hussein Obama, not so much a man as an ego on long skinny legs, has increasingly been inclined to rule by executive order in the manner of a despot or tyrant, even Obama’s fiercest critics have to admit the American electoral system seems increasingly capable of delivering only political paralysis …
U.S. versus Russia War: Top Russian Politics Scolar Stephen Cohen Tells The Truth
We have been blogging for four years about the US drive for war, provocation of Russia in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine and elsewhere made it obvious. But I’m just a news junkie with a strong sense of curiosity and have wondered why the US seems set on this course. Good to see experts like Stephen Cohen, a prominent expert on, Russia are coming onside.
Another Reason To Get Out Of EU. UKIP MEP Hits Out At Fishing Policy That Penalises British Fishing Crews
As the General Election campaign starts to heat up, we try to shift focus away from the squabbling between Conservative and Labour about who can make the most promises they have no intention of keeping and to the real issues concerning jobs, social breakdown , mass immigration, and an often overlooked area in which our EU membership has perhaps done more damage than any other, the fishing industry.
Multi-Cultural England: Are You Feeling The Progressive Diversity.
As racial and sectarian tension increase on the streets of britain while politicians gear up for the election campaign, we take a look at the state of Britain today, Imigrant child abuse gangs, Clerics of alient faiths dictating moral strictures, and everywhere we look, foreigners being given provieged status. Is it any wonder the voters are angry?
Another Conspiracy Theory Becomes Fact: Oil Collapse Is All About Obama’s Proxy War With Russia.
While we are distracted with sex scandals at home and terrorists rampaging through the middle east and Africa, the US / EU / NATO confrontation with Russia / China / Iran is geting into a very dangerous state. While the Chinese led move to dump the US dollar as global reserve currency is causing economic chaos, the USA attempts to provoke armed conflict with Russia are getting more reckless and desperate.
Seventy Years Down The Line And We Have Come Back To Appeasement As A Means To Peace.
As a spate of increasingly bloody and violent attacks on civilized values and the democratif freedoms of the western nations (free speech for example) continues to cause revulsion among the general population, our spineless leader are calling on us to be tolerant. The cowardly hypocrites who lead us may be ready to surrender, but anger is mounting in the cities and towns.
Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … Daily Stirrer …[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]