Online: | |
Visits: | |
Stories: |
Story Views | |
Now: | |
Last Hour: | |
Last 24 Hours: | |
Total: |
TND Exclusive: By Eric Dubin |
The Washington Post’s relatively new “PostEveryting” offering occasionally prints stories and op-ed’s that normally wouldn’t make it through their mainstream gate. Case in point: Souad Mekhennet authored a rather refreshing article about the ill-advised American foreign policy tendency of embracing enemies of our enemies as friends. Excerpt:
In recent years, President Obama, his European friends, and even some Middle Eastern allies, have supported “rebel groups” in Libya and Syria. Some received training, financial and military support to overthrow Muammar Gadhafi and battle Bashar al Assad. It’s a strategy that follows the old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and it has been the American and allied approach for decades in deciding whether to support opposition groups and movements.
The problem is that it is completely unreliable — and often far worse than other strategies. Every year there are more cases in which this approach backfires. The most glaring and famous failure was in Afghanistan, where some of the groups taught (and supplied) to fight the Soviet Army later became stridently anti-Western. In that environment, Al Qaeda flourished and established the camps where perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were trained. Yet instead of learning from its mistakes, the United States keeps making them.
Click here to read the article.
There’s a deeper level of analysis that Mekhennet probably would reject outright as “conspiratorial.” Nevertheless, there are times when the dots connect, and a strong argument can be made that fomenting sectarian or other forms of conflict lead to countries falling apart pursuant to “great power” objectives. This is the divide and conquer formula and it’s far more nefarious than “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
A strong argument can be made that NATO interests executed this off-the-shelf formula in Yugoslavia. The formula is partially applicable with what we see going on in the Ukraine. Iraq? Maybe. You be the judge. Professor Michel Chossudovsky and Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya advance this thesis, and they’re not alone.