The Podesta Emails: The outrageous US obsession to adjust the Middle East chaos according to the US interests
WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.
An email sent by John Podesta to Hillary Clinton in late September of 2014, shows characteristically the degree of US obsession to adjust things in Middle East perfectly according to their interests.
Even in an environment of absolute mess, for which the US intervention was highly responsible, the key associate of the Clintons, is an authentic example of how the US officials are thinking. How they insist, after all this chaos, to play the same games on the expense of millions of people who lose their lives, their homes.
The most characteristic part of this email, is that Podesta is still considering that the US should fight ISIS under specific terms and conditions, as if the US have the time and the luxury to do so.
As he writes characteristically: “… we will be able to work with the Peshmerga as they pursue ISIL into disputed areas of Eastern Syria, coordinating with FSA troops who can move against ISIL from the North. This will make certain Basher al Assad does not gain an advantage from these operations.” This shows that even after ISIS went out of control, the biggest concern of the US was to prevent Assad of taking advantage.
At the same time, Podesta admits that the US allies, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are helping ISIS: “… we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”
The plans for a kind of Kurdish autonomous state also confirmed: “With advisors in the Peshmerga command we can reassure the concerned parties that, in return for increase autonomy, the KRG will not exclude the Iraqi Government from participation in the management of the oil fields around Kirkuk, and the Mosel Dam hydroelectric facility.”, as well as, the subsequent worsening of the US-Turkish relations: “In the past the USG, in an agreement with the Turkish General Staff, did not provide such heavy weapons to the Peshmerga, out of a concern that they would end up in the hands of Kurdish rebels inside of Turkey. The current situation in Iraq, not to mention the political environment in Turkey, makes this policy obsolete. […] as Turkey moves toward a new, more serious Islamic reality, it will be important for them to realize that we are willing to take serious actions, which can be sustained to protect our national interests.”
As, indeed, described in previous analysis: “Turkey also exploits the current chaos and tries to crush Kurdish resistance. One of the reasons that supports ISIS is to use it against the Kurds. It is a sub-proxy war by Turkey in the area according to its own agenda. The US are probably not very happy with that, because they want to use ISIS in full force against Assad and consider Kurds as allies.”
As also has been estimated in the same analysis: “War probably needs to be redefined in a sense that either it is not conducted directly by nations, or, nations themselves simulate methods more familiar to paramilitary groups, avoiding a full force conflict in open front. Moreover, the line between victory and defeat is not clear at all, and in most cases it is of less importance. […] It appears that direct wars between nations are extremely costly and inefficient in our days. The increasingly complex environment in the multi-polar world is not suitable for full-scale conflicts. The continuous armament even of less important regional powers, is another preventing factor towards this perspective.”
Through this letter, Podesta actually confirms this estimation too: “The most important factor in this matter is to make use of intelligence resources and Special Operations troops in an aggressive manner, while avoiding the old school solution, which calls for more traditional military operations. […] This entire effort should be done with a low profile, avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best temporary solutions. […] This course of action offers the potential for success, as opposed to large scale, traditional military campaigns, that are too expensive and awkward to maintain over time.”
More parts of the letter prove that the US officials are interested only to satisfy the US ambitions, not to deal with the chaos.
In the beginning of the letter Podesta admits that there is a “chaotic security situation in North Africa and the Middle East.” In another part of the letter, he clearly acknowledges the danger of further uncontrolled chaos: “In the end the situation in Iraq is merely the latest and most dangerous example of the regional restructuring that is taking place across North Africa, all the way to the Turkish border. […] If we do not take the changes needed to make our security policy in the region more realistic, there is a real danger of ISIL veterans moving on to other countries to facilitate operations by Islamist forces. This is already happening in Libya and Egypt, where fighters are returning from Syria to work with local forces. ISIL is only the latest and most violent example of this process. If we don’t act to defeat them in Iraq something even more violent and dangerous will develop.”
Yet, in other parts of the letter, he exposes the impossible ambition of the US to manage the chaos, or at least exploit it, for the benefit of the US interests:
“It is important that once we engage ISIL, as we have now done in a limited manner, we and our allies should carry on until they are driven back suffering a tangible defeat. Anything short of this will be seen by other fighters in the region, Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, as an American defeat.”
“At the same time we should return to plans to provide the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against the Syrian regime.”
“These developments are important to the U.S. for reasons that often differ from country to country: energy and moral commitment to Iraq, energy issues in Libya, and strategic commitments in Jordan.”
It’s interesting that Podesta, indirectly (but cynically) admits that concerning Libya, there are only “energy issues” for which the United States are interested. This is actually another admission that the US are not interested to deal with the chaos, while also confirms the neo-colonial race of the Western powersfor the Libyan resources, as has been revealed through another series of the Clinton email archive.
Finally, it would be worth to pay attention to the manner that Podesta starts his letter. He actually sees the “advance of ISIL through Iraq” as an “opportunity” for the US government “to change the way it deals with the chaotic security situation in North Africa and the Middle East”, and this tells us a lot on the way which the US officials are thinking.
Posted in: Uncategorized