THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013


Neocons and conservatives throughout the West have made much of the numbers of dead in the Syrian civil war as they tell us loudly and often that figures are rising rapidly as a result of al-Assad’s brutal war against his own people; some 70,000 dead after two years of fighting is about the latest number being quoted with more than three-quarters of that number having been killed in the last year alone as the war escalated. That’s more than 50,000 killed in one year alone. These are terrible numbers indeed.

One can only imagine how many died in the even more vicious conflict that was the Iraq War. Yet, if we were to believe the Western allies propaganda about the casualties of the Iraq War which has been going on for nigh on ten years, we are asked to accept numbers of only around 120,000 dead. And when the UK medical journal Lancet came up with a figure of more than 600,000 dead, the Western world’s right-wing decried the figures as baseless even implying that the long-respected medical journal had some kind of left-wing agenda in publishing these figures.

War dead and war dead numbers have always been used for propaganda purposes but in this day and age of almost instant communication it’s becoming increasingly difficult to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Today we are bombarded daily with pictures of the dead. Does it make any difference if they’re ‘our’ dead or ‘their’ dead? Just one dead is one dead too many.

If the numbers for the Syrian war are correct then we need to seriously reconsider the numbers for the Iraq war; they’re clearly just the propagandist’s numbers. Going pro-rata on the Syrian numbers, the Lancet numbers for Iraq are probably about right.

We also need to think seriously about the dead themselves in terms of the horror rather than their usefulness for propaganda.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013


Neoconservatives are grasping at the finest of straws in their search for links between the Boston Marathon bombers and al-Qaeda and, more importantly for the neocons, the two Canadian Muslims accused of plotting to destroy a train on orders from al-Qaeda in Iran.

The reality is that no matter how hard the various intelligence authorities look, there is no evidence at all linking the Boston Marathon bombers to al-Qaeda or an al-Qaeda linked group. And, while most clear thinking analysts have agreed that the notion of Iran hosting al-Qaeda is far-fetched, senior neocon warmonger “Mad Max” Boot writing in Commentary claims that there are some obscure links between the Taliban and Iran and that, therefore, there can be no reason why there can’t be a link between Iran and al-Qaeda despite al-Qaeda being Sunni and Iran being Shia. What Mad Max forgets, however, (he doesn’t actually forget, he just hopes his readers don’t know) is that any association Iran has with the Taliban is purely for geo-political expediency reasons whereas an alliance between Iran and al-Qaeda would require an ideological association – an association that would be out of bounds for both entities especially considering the current state of play in Syria.

The reason a link between Iran and al-Qaeda is important to the neocons is because any link, if it actually resulted in a terrorist act inside the US as the Canadian so-called plot may have if the train was derailed or destroyed while inside the US or even New York where it was bound, could well become a trigger for a US attack against Iran.

Any link at all to al-Qaeda is also important to the neocons. It drives their obsessive anti-Islam propaganda which, in turn, feeds the Israeli Zionist cause of a Greater Israel which the neocons support and are a part of.

Monday, April 22, 2013


What’s the difference between delivering a bomb via backpack that kills innocent civilians and delivering a bomb via drone that kills innocent civilians? Well, if it’s a bomb delivered by backpack that kills innocent civilians in the West then it’s an act of ‘terrorism’, but if it’s a bomb delivered by drone that kills innocent civilians in Yemen or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Somalia or the Gaza Strip or the West Bank then it’s part of the ongoing ‘war on terrorism’ and the deaths of innocent civilians is simply ‘collateral damage’. The bottom line, however, is exactly the same – innocent civilians have died and been injured, families are torn apart and the lives of survivors shattered forever. In short, all have been terrorised.

But here’s the difference. In the West, each and every one of the innocent civilian casualties of a bomb blast will be eulogised throughout the Western world via the mainstream media. Faces will be given to the names of the victims as they become known, film of mourning loved ones will be shown to the world while, at the same time, the perpetrators are hunted down and treated mercilessly once cornered or captured.

Meanwhile, for most of the people of the West, those innocent victims blown to pieces and maimed for life by a bomb delivered by a drone will remain anonymous and the perpetrators that delivered the bomb will be protected and remain just as anonymous as their victims. The mainstream media will barely give the event a mention other than to perhaps say that the administration has officially apologised – yet again – for the ‘collateral damage’ caused.

And then there are those others that are killed elsewhere via backpacks (or car bombs or truck bombs or whatever). They are the ones in Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan or in other far off places that most in the West really couldn’t care less about. The Western mainstream press won’t give them same cover as they do the victims in the West. Only the Western victims, or so it seems, are important enough to have so much media attention lavished on them. But do they really? Is the media really interested in the Western victims? Or are they simply fodder for the governments propaganda machine that feeds the continuing ‘war on terrorism’?

Does anyone remember the names of the three victims of the Boston Marathon bombings? No? But I’d be willing to bet that, if you didn’t actually know the names of the two accused of being the perpetrators on account of them being too difficult to pronounce, then you’d certainly recognise their names if you read them. And you’ll know where they came from. And I can all but guarantee that most of the Western world by now knows that they were Muslims.

Terrorism, contrary to Western media opinion, isn’t committed just by Muslims against the West; it is committed by Westerners against Muslims, it is committed by Muslims against Muslims, and it is even committed by Westerners against Westerners. The survivors of the Sandy Hook School massacre will attest to the fact that they were terrorised by what happened just as those that survived the Boston Marathon bombing were terrorised or, indeed, anyone else that has survived bombings and shootings.

The West doesn’t have a monopoly on victimhood by terrorists – though you’d think so judging by the way the media handles it. But it does suit the propagandists who are keen to perpetuate the ‘war against terrorism’ even if it does mean terrorising other people around the world.  

Saturday, April 13, 2013


When the rebels began their revolution the neocons backed them and called for the US to support the rebels just as happened in Libya. But from the very start of the revolution it was destined to turn into a civil war – a war that would attract foreign fighters, including jihadists and other assorted Islamic fighters. They came with their years of fighting experience and weapons scored from earlier ‘Spring Revolutions’ across North Africa as well as from Iraq and elsewhere. They also came with financial support from various Middle East nations including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. As a result, they soon dominated command of the battlefront leaving the locally grown rebels to follow rather than lead the fight.

This has now thrown the neocons into a quandary with one, Daniel Pipes, even suggesting that the situation on the ground has become so detrimental to US, Israeli and Western interests that support should now be switched to maintain Syrian President Bashir al-Assad in power. Meanwhile, neocons Marco Rubio and Bob Casey, both Senators, want to continue the fight against al-Assad and are calling on the US to support the rebels – but only the rebel groups that are secular and representative of Western interests. It all leaves neocon Commentary propagandist Jonathan Tobin not knowing quite which way to turn.

I said more than a year ago that it’ll all end in tears for the neocons.


In life, Margaret Thatcher succeeded in dividing a nation, and it seems in death, decades after leaving politics, she divides a nation yet again.

Some say that the fact that she is so divisive is what makes her great. That may be so, but is that really accolade? Being ‘great’ because one is divisive is hardly a plus. As for being called a ‘stateswoman’, I think not. Great statesman/women bring their peoples together; not polarise them as Thatcher did. Great statespeople don’t drag their country into knee-jerk wars overseas and nor do they abuse the working classes and the impoverished at home.

And were Reagan and Thatcher really responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union as so many commentators claim? Hardly. They just happened to be the Western leaders that were around at the time. The fact is; the Soviet Union imploded on itself, it would have happened regardless of who the Western leaders were.

Far from being a stateswomen and a great British leader, Maggie Thatcher was nothing less than a neo-fascist extremist right-wing warmongering nationalist and racist who despised anything that smacked remotely of social decency, admired the likes of General Augustus Pinochet, the fascist Chilean dictator and hated the very notion of workers being organised to protect their interests. She caused hundreds to die in an unnecessary war against Argentina in 1982 simply to boost her flagging popularity due to inflation and high unemployment prior to the elections in 1983 at home which she won as a direct result of the war.

Loved by ultra-conservatives and neo-fascists the world over, Thatcher brought nothing to the world except death, heartache and misery whilst enriching the moneyed elitists and giving succour and empowerment to fascists everywhere.

Monday, April 08, 2013


I mentioned over a year ago that the civil war in Syria was likely to spill into the Golan Heights, Syrian territory seized by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967, and now it seems that the prospect of that is fast becoming a reality.

The question, then, is: Why do the Israelis support the Syrian opposition in their fight against Syrian President Bashir al-Assad when it has been al-Assad that has continued to provide some semblance of security to Israel in the Golan Heights? Sure, it can be argued that Israel is dead set against al-Assad because of his support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, but the reality is that Hezbollah would still be force to be reckoned with even with al-Assad out of the equation; with al-Assad gone, Iran will still provide significant support to Hezbollah.

If and when al-Assad is defeated, it will likely be by forces that are not at all friendly toward Israel or the US and their Western allies. Clearly, the jihadist elements, consisting mainly of foreign fighters, are gaining control of the forces opposed to al-Assad – and they are more of a threat to Israeli security than al-Assad ever was.

And it’s not as though the Israelis, the US and their allies couldn’t have seen it coming; afterall, just about all of the Arab Spring uprisings experienced the same phenomenon where the ordinary people rose up in popular revolt against their rulers only to find that Islamists would eventually dominate the fight.

So, what’s it all about for the Israelis?

Naturally, the Israelis want to hang on to the Golan Heights but this new front line is not so much against Israel but, rather, for Israeli in its battle against all-comers that prevent Israel from realising its dream of a Greater Israel.

As we have seen over the years, Israel has provoked many fights against Palestinians and Arabs with incursions, invasions and occupations, but none yet have led to the all-out war the Israelis need in order to justify the eventual creation of their Greater Israel dream – though the Six Day War of 1967 came very close and another attempt at it while George W. Bush was still President in 2006 also was a blatant attempt at starting just such a war. This time, however, the Israelis are relying on an all-out catastrophic war against Iran to provide the Zionists in Israel with the justification of invading the Gaza Strip, south Lebanon and fully occupying the West Bank – and, of course, consolidating their grip on the Golan Heights. Fuelling the war against Syria’s al-Assad is just another step toward provoking the catastrophic war against Iran.

A fight with Syria’s foreign jihadists over the Golan Heights is just another facet of Israeli provocation that they’d welcome since Sunni fighters are as much an enemy to Israel as Shia fighters are.

Israel will complain that once again they are being attacked by their enemies but the fact is, if push comes to shove over the Golan Heights, Israel will easily defeat their enemies there, and for that reason alone the Israelis are not really worried about the jihadi fighters at their Golan Height borders. For the Israelis, a fight there is a plus, not a minus.

Saturday, April 06, 2013


Yesterday the White House said that North Korea ‘should stop making provocative threats’ but, when one examines the extent of the threats and counter-threats that have been made over the last few weeks, one finds that it is the US and their allies that have by far been the most provocative.

All the North Korean leader has done is wave his hands around a lot and been a bit noisy with his rhetoric threatening to do things he can’t possibly do with stuff which in all likelihood he hasn’t even got while, at the same time, parading around his massive toothless army whose primary skills seem to be an ability to goosestep en masse and in unison. In short, apart from shifting a bit of outdated armour up to the border and a couple of barely tested rockets over to the east coast of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un has really done nothing of any real consequence accept shout angrily in response to America’s continued attempts to further isolate North Korea through sanctions and demeaning and nonsensical propaganda. While Kim Jong-Un has loudly voiced empty threats, the US has silently threatened North Korea by flying very real B2 bombers close by, sending powerful and very real US warships to seas off Korea and shipping anti-missile defence systems to the region while shipping men and F-22 stealth fighter jets to South Korea. All of these things are not going to do a thing to help the North Korean people. All they succeed in doing is creating more reasons why the North Korean people should loathe and detest the West which, in turn, gives succour to the likes of Kim Jong-Un.

The West – indeed, any one of the world’s well-armed nations – could destroy North Korea in a blink of an eye, and North Korea knows it. Threatening to do so, however, is not the way to free the North Koreas people from a tyrannical dictator. The rest of the world needs to find another way.   

Thursday, April 04, 2013


It’s not really a historians function to delve into the ‘what ifs’ of history but it’s not unreasonable to ponder what may have happened had the USSR turned up to that UN Security Council meeting in June 1950 and vetoed the decision to militarily intervene in the invasion of South Korea by the North. Instead, the USSR chose to boycott the UN meeting in protest against the UN allowing the Chinese Nationalist government based in Taiwan to represent the Chinese people and the UN voted to intervene and we ended up with the Korean War that resulted in millions of casualties and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

Of course, had there been a veto instead of a boycott anything may have happened. On the one hand, the UN would concede that, in the face of a USSR veto, its hands would be tied and there would have been no intervention by the UN thus allowing the North Koreans to over-run and take over the South. If that would have happened and it had been left at that, Korea more than likely would have fallen into the Communist Chinese sphere of influence and, by now, would more than likely be in the same economic and political state that China is now in and we wouldn’t be having the problems we’re having now 63 years later.

On the other hand, the US most likely would have intervened even without UN authorisation and the result would have been about the same as it actually turned out given that the US was by far the most dominant military player in the war anyway.

Today it’s a different story. North Korea is an isolated state with virtually no friends. China certainly feels a certain kinship with the Korean people of the North after having sacrificed so many of its own people to help the North against the Western allies that invaded the North; but China has moved on from there. It has become the world’s leading economic powerhouse and a military power that even the US dare not mess with. However, unlike the US, China rarely threatens and has constantly demonstrated that its might is used only to defend what they believe is theirs (as against the US who constantly demonstrate that they believe they have the right to dominate that which is not theirs) – which brings us full circle because that’s about America’s stance right now over Korea.

To answer the question: What are the chances of another war; the short answer is: probably no chance. (I add ‘probably’ as a let-out in case I’m wrong.)

The simple fact is that nobody wants to go to war. The US would like to invade North Korea but is kept from doing so by the Chinese and the Russians. Instead, the US will provide a massive show of force off Korean shores and growl a lot while the Chinese and the Russians show maturity by insisting that the North and South Koreans, as well as the US, calm down before it really does get out of hand.

The reality is that the North would stand no chance in an all out war; it would be obliterated in an instant if it used any kind of WMD (not just a nuclear weapon) against the South, Japan, the US or any other Western ally.

The best hope for a peaceful resolution is for the US to talk with the Chinese and the Russians about a joint effort to help North Korea advance to economic prosperity; not by patronising them with gifts of aid, but by offering to trade with them by providing supplies to them in return for the one asset the North Koreans do have; a disciplined population eager to work in exchange for the things they don’t have now and a better life for the future. A decade or two of open trading with the entire world will soon see the two Koreas reunified.

North Korea’s leaders are not in the slightest bit intimidated by the West. They know the West will not attack them – and the West equally knows that the North Koreans will not attack them. At worst, the North Koreans may lob a few shells on to some disputed island in the China Sea but that’s as likely as far as it’ll go.

America’s military moves do nothing except provoke North Korea. North Korea’s empty threats do nothing except provide America with an excuse to sabre rattle. It’s a vicious cycle that’s been going on for decades. Now might be a good time to end it by the whole world offering help to the North Korean people regardless of who their leaders are.

The North Korean leaders aren’t suffering; it’s the Korean people. Time to put an end to this nonsense of endless threats of war.