Our belief that we are capable of “managing conflicts,” validates our egotistic notions of superiority whereby we claim for ourselves the right or the responsibility to force compromise our solutions upon the parties in dispute. These thoughts of superiority further lead us to justify forcing solutions upon others which also benefit us.
By Peter Chamberlin
If arrogance and over-confidence had any real power or actual value, then Hillary Clinton could envision and create a New World Order all by herself (SEE: Washington’s Silk Road Dream). Democrat interventionists like Mrs. Clinton and her neutered husband like to daydream of ideal circumstances, way beyond the realm of human possibility and then do everything in their power to turn those daydreams into government policies. It is idealistic foolishness to believe that these differences could be papered over with enough money in places like Bosnia and Kosovo, or in Somalia, where real divisions were compounded by pent-up anger over great historical wrongs or injustices.
Our belief that we are capable of “managing conflicts,” validates our egotistic notions of superiority whereby we claim for ourselves the right or the responsibility to force compromise our solutions upon the parties in dispute. These thoughts of superiority further lead us to justify forcing solutions upon others which also benefit us. When the guile of our serpents’ tongues or the sparkling appeal of our suitcases full of greenbacks and gold are not enough to force our solutions upon the warring factions, then we also feel validated in the decision to use our overwhelming military and technological superiority to literally force a favorable resolution.
The “Clintonistas” of the Democratic Party are the worst of the wide-eyed, idealist interventionists. From the Middle East to Central Europe, Clinton has made himself appear as a great “statesman,” by forcing pseudo-peace “accords” which lock-in perpetual wars. The Oslo Accords froze the “peace process” in place upon Israel and Palestine, allowing the war to go on under international monitoring. Similar peace deals dismembered the former Yugoslavia and permanently militarized the Balkans. Somalia has simmered over the years, as Islamic sparks blew off of it, to ignite the surrounding famine and drought-stricken states. But those wars linger-on still (all of them part of the melange of conflicts managed by Mrs. Clinton), some of them merely cooking on a slow boil, awaiting the arrival of the next explosive opportunity.
American delusions wrapped around Hillary’s smoky dreams of reviving the Silk Road are actually a devious euphemism, depicting for the public an alternative narrative to the planned corporate rape of the energy rich region, using all available media to portray the massive military looting operation as a noble act of humanitarian mercy, just like the deception in Libya. Hillary’s idyllic dreams of freeing the people of Central Asia from dictatorship and economic slavery can only be realized through the total American militarization of the region, yet no one dares to speak of this or of the convoys of humvees that will inevitably be patrolling that Silk Road, which coincidentally runs parallel to row after row of gas and oil pipelines. The blissful lines of camel caravans painted in the pretty picture, carrying Hillary’s pipe dream, plying their wares to the outside world, will be run over by racing police cars and army convoys dashing back and forth, making futile efforts to contain the opium traffic, the only commodity that ever really mattered on any previous Silk Road. As long as American and NATO forces refuse to eliminate the Afghan opium crops, or cooperate with Russia and the CIS states to stop the flow of opium, heroin and precursor chemicals for heroin production along the proposed Silk Route, then narco-mafias and narco-terror rings will continue to flourish, and as they do, they will provide the justification for the American militarization plans.
From their duplicitous role-playing games of noble popular revolutions springing-up over at the State Dept. and the ever-popular denials of reality in leaks and at Pentagon press briefings, it seems as though our highest leaders must all be sharing the same pipe dream, perhaps drawing on the same pipe? American “public diplomacy” is a criminal policy, intended to produce criminal results. American diplomats directly lobby foreign populations, by going around the governments of those nations is political subversion of the worst kind. The use of American national technical means to enable Washington political animals to secretly create subversives and manufacture radicalized youth in targeted countries, is a quiet act of war, which no nation has yet called us to account for. Neither have we been called to account for our military actions, such as the bombing of TV transmitter towers in Libya, where our “public diplomacy” of end-running around the Libyan government, by beaming satellite transmissions directly to the Libyan people is not enough–our leaders must also cut-off that legitimate government’s ability to communicate with its own people.
American State Dept. destabilization of the troubled dictatorships of Central Asia, even while American and NATO forces are penetrating those same states, through cooperative anti-terror and anti-narcotics initiatives, reflects a particularly devious arrogance which systematically both attacks and defends a targeted country simultaneously, always careful to keep the level of destabilization one step lower than its power to maintain control. Successful conflict management means that those whom you can’t control, you can predict. The river of cash which makes all of these things possible serves to restrain potential negative reactions by those dictators. Whether these capabilities will withstand the testing that will surely come from Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov, or Turkmenistan’s Berdimuhamedov remains to be seen.
Our ability to both create and limit these new conflicts in the former Soviet satellites through conflict management techniques will be put to the test in the days ahead. I hope that Mrs. Clinton and her staff haven’t “bit-off more than they can chew.”