Third Party Daydream

The latest frontpager about Hillary's email improprieties has to do with the FBI's discovery of 15,000 previously unreleased emails, "As a result, thousands of emails that Mrs. Clinton did not voluntarily turn over to the State Department last year could be released just weeks before the election in November."

No doubt these new emails will reaffirm the Judicial Watch findings that Hillary's State Department was an influence peddling arena for the Clinton Foundation. Foreign governments made substantial donations to the Clinton Foundation, and then Clinton Foundation officials made requests of the State Department on behalf of their donors:

The group [Judicial Watch] said that the 725 pages of documents it released Monday demonstrated efforts by the Clinton family foundation to leverage its influence with Mrs. Clinton. The emails, drawn from Ms. Abedin, included an appeal by Douglas Band, a Clinton Foundation executive, for Mrs. Clinton to meet with Bahrain’s crown prince, whose family had contributed millions of dollars to the foundation. 

“Good friend of ours,” Mr. Band wrote. 

Ms. Abedin, after expressing Mrs. Clinton’s reluctance to schedule a meeting “until she knows how she will feel,” then wrote back to Mr. Band to offer the crown prince an appointment the next morning. She encouraged Mr. Band to let the prince know, “if you see him,” though she said the State Department had also contacted him through official channels.

This is how government works. Businesses, wealthy foreign powers, buy access and influence policy. At this point it should be obvious to anyone that has followed Syria since the Arab Spring uprisings that U.S. foreign policy is dictated by the Gulf monarchies. The same goes for other Western powers. Notice this blurb from this morning's Situation Report:

Yemen

France may be lending military support to the Saudi-led coalition's war in Yemen, according to new satellite imagery. War Is Boring reports that hangars consistent with French designs show up in the latest Google Earth imagery of the United Arab Emirates-run Assab air base in Eritrea, which is used as a transshipment hub to support the war in Yemen against the Houthi movement. Little is known about what's in the hangars, but the distinctly French constructions follow a series of supportive recent statements from French leaders about the country's commitments to its Gulf allies.

One truly positive development that could come out of a steady stream of reporting about Clinton corruption -- now that it is apparent that Trump is headed for a huge loss in November -- is that third party vote totals will increase dramatically. Can we hope for 5-10 percent in the general election for Libertarians and Greens? I am skeptical. It would be the equivalent of the Second Coming. But as August comes to an end why not indulge a daydream?

Spotlight on Repressive Gulf Sheikhdoms and Their Support for ISIS Already Dimming

In the aftermath of the November 13 Paris terror attack there has been a noticeable uptick in coverage of the repressive authoritarian nature of the Gulf monarchies that the U.S. calls its allies. Along with a spotlight on sentencing artists to death, flogging bloggers and torturing activists, The New York Times has also devoted its pages here and there to limning the ideological links between the Islamic State and the fundamentalist Wahhabi version of Islam that is officially endorsed by the royals who rule in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

An excellent example of this was the Gray Lady's publishing of Kamel Daoud's "Saudi Arabia, an ISIS That Has Made It" a week after the Paris attack. Then this past Saturday there was an excellent piece by Joe Cochrane, "From Indonesia, a Muslim Challenge to the Ideology of the Islamic State," contrasting the tolerant form of Sunni Islam practiced in Indonesian, the planet's most populous Muslim nation, with the violent Wahhabism exported by the Sheikhdoms of the Gulf. The Indonesian Muslim organization Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) is stepping into the fray to counter the jihadist propaganda of ISIS:

"The spread of a shallow understanding of Islam renders this situation critical, as highly vocal elements within the Muslim population at large — extremist groups — justify their harsh and often savage behavior by claiming to act in accord with God’s commands, although they are grievously mistaken,” said A. Mustofa Bisri, the spiritual leader of the group, Nahdlatul Ulama, an Indonesian Muslim organization that claims more than 50 million members. 

“According to the Sunni view of Islam,” he said, “every aspect and expression of religion should be imbued with love and compassion, and foster the perfection of human nature.”

***

The campaign by Nahdlatul Ulama, known as N.U., for a liberal, pluralistic Islam also comes at a time when Islam is at war with itself over central theological questions of how the faith is defined in the modern era.

In a way, it should not be surprising that this message comes from Indonesia, the home of Islam Nusantara, widely seen as one of the most progressive Islamic movements in the world. The movement — its name is Indonesian for “East Indies Islam” — dates back more than 500 years and promotes a spiritual interpretation of Islam that stresses nonviolence, inclusiveness and acceptance of other religions.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Analysts say the theology developed organically in a place where Hinduism and Buddhism were the primary religions before Islam arrived around the 13th century. Indonesian Islam blended with local religious beliefs and traditions, creating a pluralistic society despite having a Muslim majority.

Indonesia today has more than 190 million Muslims, but also has a secular government and influential Christian, Hindu and Buddhist minorities.

Such liberalism poses a counterargument to the Islamic State, analysts said.

“We are directly challenging the idea of ISIS, which wants Islam to be uniform, meaning that if there is any other idea of Islam that is not following their ideas, those people are infidels who must be killed,” said Yahya Cholil Staquf, general secretary to the N.U. supreme council. “We will show that is not the case with Islam.”

***

The Islamic State’s theology, rooted in the fundamentalist Wahhabi movement, takes its cues from medieval Islamic jurisprudence, where slavery and execution of prisoners was accepted. . . .

***

“The problem with Middle East Islam is they have what I call religious racism,” said Azyumardi Azra, an Islamic scholar and former rector of the State Islamic University in Jakarta. “They feel that only the Arabs are real Muslims and the others are not.” 

Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and the main source of financial support for Wahhabism worldwide, has had more success in imposing its interpretation and has even made inroads in Indonesia. Analysts say a steady flow of money from Persian Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, supports an active and growing Wahhabist movement here.

So there you have it. A rare admission of how the global jihadist efflorescence operates. A main U.S. ally in the Middle East waters it, fertilizes it and watches it grow. Then the U.S. military steps in to prune it a little. This is the prescription for perpetual warfare.

Certain U.S. senators in the employ of the Gulf sheikhs make sure there is no end to this process. Note the following blurb that appears in this morning's "Situation Report" by Foreign Policy's Paul McLeary and Adam Rawnsley:

Pounding sand. That air war might have a larger international ground component, if a few influential U.S. Senators have anything to say about it. In a Monday appearance on CNN with Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called for the creation of a 100,000-strong “regional army to go into Syria” to fight the Islamic State, claiming that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were already on board with the plan. And now it looks like you can add the United Arab Emirates to the list.

Speaking with local media on Monday, Emirati State Minister for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash said his country would "participate in any international effort demanding a ground intervention to fight terrorism,” and “regional countries must bear part of the burden” in the Syrian fight. Speaking with reporters on a trip to Baghdad over the weekend, Graham -- who is running for president on the Republican ticket -- also called for more than doubling the number of U.S. troops in Iraq from 3,500 to 10,000.

But after November 13 there are those in government and the Fourth Estate who have decided that the ideological incubator of Wahhabi jihad needs a little daylight. That is why on Monday of last week there were two -- two! -- stories about the backward, violent, medieval nature of the Gulf Sheikhdoms: Ben Hubbard's "Artist’s Death Sentence Follows a String of Harsh Punishments in Saudi Arabia" and Kareem Fahim's "Bahrain Abuses Continue Despite King’s Pledge, Rights Group Says."

This is unusual. If there is any untoward news about U.S. allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Gray Lady usually limits it to a small paragraph nestled among the other Reuters and AP wire reports. It is as if the Islamic State's backers, safely ensconced in Jeddah and Abu Dhabi, are being warned to tether their jihadists; otherwise, the spotlight will grow more intense.

The ballyhooed U.S. airstrikes on Islamic State's black-market oil convoy to Turkey have already largely ceased to exist (from yesterday's Foreign Policy "Situation Report"):

The war on the Islamic State’s oil smuggling operations looks to have slowed down a bit after a series of recent high-profile strikes, however, with only one airstrike having been conducted against the group’s oil operations since Nov. 22, according to figures provided by the U.S.-led coalition. Back on the 22nd, a raid on a convoy of oil trucks in eastern Syria demolished 283 oil trucks, following on a similar raid days before that tore through another 116 oil trucks.

The same can be said of the recent focus on the Gulf Sheikhdoms support for ISIS. It is already dimming. More a temporary warning than a policy change, perpetual war will proceed as before.

Gulf Monarchies In the News + Ferguson Outrage Ongoing

I like to catch up on my reading while watching the Sunday NFL games. What I do is print out stories from Counterpunch, Robert Parry's Consortium News, select articles from the Sunday Gray Lady, etc. -- the type is big, 12-14 pts., with lots of leading -- which I read during the innumerable commercials and penalty delays.

There were two particularly good offerings on the Counterpunch web site over the weekend: Rannie Amiri's "Attack of the Five Monarchies: An Alliance of Dictators and Despots" and Ben Reynolds' "There are No Moderate Syrian Rebels: We've Seen This Play Before." The Reynolds piece is refreshing because he reminds us of something we don't hear very often: U.S. deep state intelligence agencies are actually quite good at what they do:

The Obama administration’s new plan hinges on Saudi Arabia’s support for the training effort, including an offer to host training camps on Saudi soil. The Saudis are in no way a reliable partner for the U.S. in the Syrian conflict. Even discounting the fact that Saudi-purchased anti-tank rockets somehow found their way into ISIS’s hands, the Saudis have a notorious history of supporting unsavory groups in the Syrian conflict, including Salafists in the Islamic Front. The greater Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the training program is, the greater pressure there will be for Islamic Front fighters to receive U.S. arms and training. After Congress balked at the Obama Administration’s request for $500 million, the Saudis offered to fund the training and arming of the Syrian rebels. This means that there is a large chance the U.S. will directly support groups who work closely with Jabhat al-Nusra. 

There is no doubt that the Obama administration knows this. Classified U.S. intelligence is simply better than publicly available sources, particularly in the case of an important conflict like Syria. It defies common sense that the administration would somehow be unaware that the “moderate opposition” exists in name only. Contrary to popular belief, the United States does not stumble blindly and hopelessly through the Middle East. It stands to reason that there is an important motive behind choosing to back the non-ISIS Syrian opposition, rather than tacitly supporting the Assad regime, to counter ISIS.

The United States wants the Assad regime to fall because it is the lynchpin of the regional alliance between Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar overwhelmingly desire Assad’s overthrow because they feel significantly more threatened by Iran than they do by any Islamist militant group, even ISIS. Even though the U.S. wants to destroy ISIS, it faces significant pressures to avoid aiding Assad’s regime, and Iran by proxy. While hardline Islamists stand less of a chance of eliminating ISIS than the Syrian Army, they will still certainly weaken Assad and require both Hezbollah and Iran to continue pouring resources into Syria. If this is correct, the United States may rather support al-Qaeda aligned forces than give the Iranian axis a victory in Syria. 

We’ve seen this play before. The U.S. often turns a blind eye to the activities of local “allies” if they seem to provide a means of countering regional adversaries. In the 1980s, the U.S. supported the mujaheddin fighting in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, only to ultimately see the Taliban win the resulting civil war and provide a safe haven for al-Qaeda. During the Libyan civil war, the U.S. and its allies bombed Qaddafi’s forces while providing arms to the opposition. Libya has now descended into a bloody civil war, and arms from Libya have flooded the Syrian conflict for years, oftentimes with the aid of the U.S. and its allies. Once they are dispersed, the use and transfer of arms cannot be controlled. Like those in Libya, arms sent to Syria will ultimately find their way to future conflicts throughout the region. 

American policymakers have been protected from the consequences of these decisions by virtue of the U.S.’s geographic position, but the Middle East has not. Libya is in tatters. Afghanistan is awash in violence and the Taliban will probably make significant gains there when U.S. forces ultimately depart. There is no end in sight for the Syrian civil war, and there is little confidence even in Washington that the administration’s new strategy will bring an end to the conflict. Expanding the arming and training of the Syrian opposition would be a disastrous mistake. Unfortunately, the administration’s plan passed Congress. If the U.S. program goes forward, the blood from a renewed wave of violence in the Middle East will be on America’s hands.

Rannie Amiri highlights the absurdity of the conservative, anti-democratic Arab sheikhdoms bombing their Islamic State offspring:

It is the irony of ironies. A cadre of repressive monarchies is chosen to liberate the captive peoples of Iraq and Syria from the tyranny of ISIS. 

Combating a group known for its violent sectarianism, the five Arab allies ordered by the United States to participate in the bombing campaign against ISIS are themselves the region’s worst sectarian agitators. Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are now at the vanguard of efforts to dismantle an organization that is essentially of their own creation. 

After the downfall of Saddam Hussein, it was King Abdullah II of Jordan who raised the sectarian specter, warning of the emergence of a “Shiite crescent” in the Middle East, sending panic throughout the monarchies of the Gulf and beyond. It was a rallying cry; a call to arms which heralded operations to destabilize Iraq, and in less than ten years time, Syria. 

Bahrain has been a true standout in its brutal crackdown against pro-democracy activists and reformers who hope to see the unchecked powers of the al-Khalifa royal family restrained. For its part, the regime has hidden nothing. Their brazen oppression is very much out in the open for its Western allies to witness: torture, show trials, arbitrary detentions, revocation of citizenship, deportations and media blackouts. All are daily occurrences and come in the backdrop of longstanding socioeconomic and political disenfranchisement. 

Mark Landler reports today that vice president Joe Biden has embarked on an "apology tour" of the Middle East because of remarks made last week in a talk he gave at Harvard. Apparently Biden had the temerity to repeat information that appears in newspapers throughout the world, that Turkey has had an open borders policy for jihadis wanting to enter Syria to battle the Assad government and that jihadi organizations receive funding from the Gulf Arab emirates. This is all basic stuff, common knowledge to anyone who has paid the tiniest bit of attention to what has been going on in the Middle East since the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011. But as Landler makes clear in "Saudis Are Next on Biden’s Mideast Apology List After Harvard Remarks," a vice president is not allowed to speak publicly about what is on the front page of the newspaper:

WASHINGTON — Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has one more stop on what has become a Middle East apology tour in the wake of his impolitic answer to a Harvard student’s question: Saudi Arabia. 

After apologizing to officials from Turkey and the United Arab Emirates over the weekend, Mr. Biden is trying to connect with Saudi leaders, a senior official said, to clarify that he did not mean to suggest that Saudi Arabia backed Al Qaeda or other extremist groups in Syria. 

The vice president’s troubles began Thursday when he declared, in a question-and-answer session at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, that the biggest problem the United States faced in dealing with Syria and the rise of the Islamic State was America’s allies in the region. 

Turkey, Mr. Biden said, has admitted allowing foreign fighters to cross into Syria, while Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia funneled weapons and other aid to Syrian rebels that ended up in the hands of Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and other extremist groups. 

The White House expressed relief on Monday over Mr. Biden’s apologies, with the press secretary, Josh Earnest, noting that “the vice president is somebody who has enough character to admit when he’s made a mistake.” But asked repeatedly about the substance of his remarks, Mr. Earnest did not say the vice president was wrong. 

In fact, neither of Mr. Biden’s claims is inaccurate. The United States has been pressing the Turkish government for months to seal off its border to prevent would-be jihadists from using Turkey as a transit route to join the ranks of the Islamic State. And experts say aid from the Persian Gulf monarchies has wound up with extremist groups in Syria.
President Obama made a similar point in August about Syria’s Arab neighbors fueling extremist organizations in their zeal to oust President Bashar al-Assad, though he did not name the culprits.

“There are factual mistakes, and then there are political mistakes,” said Andrew J. Tabler, an expert on Syria at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “This is a political mistake.”

If it is a political mistake to repeat what is on the front page of the newspaper, and what has been front-page news for years, then I say we've crossed over into unstable, bizarre territory, the territory where U.S. leadership can't even voice basic truth.

The fact that such absurdity is accepted as rational behavior is proof that there is no decency or accountability left in USG. It is free floating. It goes to war without the consent of the governed. Its public elections are post-modern plutocratic charades.

Now that the Umbrella Revolution has sputtered to a close (zero Honk Kong stories in the Gray Lady this morning). it is worthwhile to remember that the Michael Brown, Ferguson-based revolt is ongoing. The Gray Lady publishes a tepid story today by Julie Bosman, "Bruised and Weary, Ferguson Struggles to Heal." Composed of man-on-the-street interviews, Bosman doesn't provide any context in her piece. I would think the main point is that protests have never ended since the August murder of an unarmed teenager. Reporters have moved on but the demand remains to bring to justice the police officer who gunned down Mike Brown. Bosman obliquely inserts this idea that the protests never ended by repeating that Ferguson residents are tired of the unrest and agitation in their city. And to her credit, there are several revealing quotes, including this one:

Some Ferguson residents — most of them white, but not all — insisted that Mr. Brown’s death had revealed racial tensions that they had not realized were there. Last week, Doug Hindle, who is white, paused from mowing his front lawn on a side street in Ferguson, where he has lived for 30 years. Mr. Hindle said that before Mr. Brown was killed, he thought that whites and African-Americans in Ferguson got along just fine. Both of his next-door neighbors are black, he said, and while they all don’t socialize, they always wave and say hello. For years, Mr. Hindle said, he has driven the older woman across the street, who is African-American, to church, the grocery store or wherever she needs to go. 

“Everything was fine before,” Mr. Hindle said. “People are making this look like a bad place to live. We can hear them chanting at night. You can’t leave, you can’t open your windows at night. People are shooting their guns off. It’s never been like that. If they let Wilson go, all hell’s going to break loose. I really hope he goes to jail, just so people can get their justice. This has got to stop.”