- Spitfire List - http://spitfirelist.com -

More Turkish Taffy: Germany, the U.S. and the Neo-Ottoman Empire (Doin’ the Earth Island Boogie, Part 2)

[1]

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained here. [2] (The flash dri­ve includes the anti-fas­cist books avail­able on this site.)

Updat­ed on 5/31/2013.

COMMENT: “Van­field” gives us a very impor­tant post that dis­tills a line of inquiry we’ve been pur­su­ing for years. Cor­nell Uni­ver­si­ty pro­fes­sor Robert Kaplan notes that U.S. mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion in the Mus­lim world occurs in for­mer ter­ri­to­ries of the Ottoman Empire and results in Islamists com­ing to pow­er for the ulti­mate ben­e­fit of–Germany! [3]

In FTR #‘s 710 [4], 720 [5], 723 [6] we not­ed that the GOP/Underground Reich fac­tion of the U.S. intel­li­gence estab­lish­ment was pur­su­ing covert oper­a­tions in the Earth Island, par­tic­u­lar­ly in parts of Rus­sia and Chi­na. Part­nered in this is the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and irre­den­tist Turk­ish ele­ments [7] seek­ing a return to the glo­ry days of the Ottoman Empire.

Fol­low­ing the turn to the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood [8] (for­mal­ized dur­ing Bush’s sec­ond admin­is­tra­tion grow­ing out of the pro­found GOP links [9] to the Broth­er­hood and the al-Taqwa milieu) we wit­nessed the cen­ter piece of this oper­a­tion–the so-called Arab Spring [10]. The Boston Marathon bomb­ing [11] appears to be “blow­back” from this oper­a­tion, with FBI appar­ent­ly hav­ing cut across ele­ments of the covert oper­a­tion [12] men­tioned above. 

The Fetul­lah Gulen orga­ni­za­tion [13] appears to be an out­crop­ping of this mas­sive Earth Island “op.”

Before return­ing to the sub­ject of the “Mus­lim Broth­er­hood Spring,” let’s high­light a key para­graph of the Kaplan essay, sum­ming up an all-too famil­iar pat­tern in the oper­a­tions that are bring­ing to pow­er the Ger­man Hand in the Ottoman/Islamist glove:

. . . . Each U. S. mil­i­tary action in Europe and the Mid­dle East since 1990, how­ev­er, with the excep­tion of Iraq, has fol­lowed an overt pat­tern: First there is an armed con­flict with­in the coun­try where the inter­ven­tion will take place. Amer­i­can news media heav­i­ly report this con­flict. The “good guys” in the sto­ry are the rebels. The “bad guys,” to be attacked by Amer­i­can mil­i­tary force, are bru­tal­ly anti-demo­c­ra­t­ic, and com­mit­ters of war crimes, crimes against human­i­ty, and geno­cide. Pres­ti­gious pub­lic fig­ures, NGOs, judi­cial and qua­si-judi­cial bod­ies and inter­na­tion­al orga­ni­za­tions call for sup­port­ing the rebels and attack­ing the regime. Next, the Amer­i­can pres­i­dent orders Amer­i­can logis­ti­cal sup­port and arms sup­plies for the rebels. Final­ly the Amer­i­can pres­i­dent orders mil­i­tary attack under the aus­pices of NATO in sup­port of the rebels. The attack usu­al­ly con­sists of aer­i­al bomb­ing, today’s equiv­a­lent of the nine­teenth and twen­ti­eth cen­turies’ gun­boat which could attack coastal cities of mil­i­tar­i­ly weak coun­tries with­out fear of retal­i­a­tion. The ulti­mate out­come of each Amer­i­can inter­ven­tion is the replace­ment of a sec­u­lar gov­ern­ment with an Islamist regime in an area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire. . . .

Anoth­er fas­ci­nat­ing and very impor­tant part of the arti­cle con­cerns the ICC, much-bal­ly­hooed by the so-called pro­gres­sive sec­tor in this and oth­er coun­tries:

. . . . From that arti­cle, “A Law­less Glob­al Court” by John Rosen­thal (Pol­i­cy Review Feb. 1. 2004 No.123), one learns that the ICC is a project ini­ti­at­ed, pro­mot­ed and, to a con­sid­er­able extent, fund­ed by Ger­many. Giv­en this, the idea that the ICC serves Ger­many’s pur­pos­es is com­mon sense. Through the ICC con­nec­tion, Ger­many’s pro­mo­tion of the “Arab Spring” is clear. Yet it is nev­er or almost nev­er men­tioned. This silence calls for expla­na­tion. . . .

Amen! That silence does indeed call for an expla­na­tion.

Notice, also, the Ger­man method­ol­o­gy here. Under­scor­ing Ger­man pow­er-polit­i­cal method­ol­o­gy pri­or to, and dur­ing, World War I, Kaplan’s analy­sis applies equal­ly well to Nazi Ger­man’s geo-polit­i­cal ori­en­ta­tion. It applies equal­ly well to that of the Fed­er­al Repub­lic, which, like the GOP and a dis­turbing­ly large part of the U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment, is con­trolled by Ger­many:

. . . . In the view of the lead­ers of Ger­many, Turkey was con­trol­lable through a com­bi­na­tion of eco­nom­ic inter­course, gifts of edu­ca­tion­al oppor­tu­ni­ties, pro­vi­sion of tech­ni­cal exper­tise and admin­is­tra­tive aid, as well as bribes to Turk­ish offi­cials. Ger­many saw influ­ence over Turkey as a means of influ­enc­ing Moslems world­wide for its own inter­ests. . . .

Let’s review the bul­let points from the descrip­tion of FTR #737 [10] (record­ed on 4/2/2011.):

The Robert E. Kaplan post epit­o­mizes the argu­ments I’ve been advanc­ing for many years. Please digest it and dis­sem­i­nate the infor­ma­tion to oth­ers. Although he does not men­tion it, vet­er­an lis­ten­ers and read­ers will no doubt rec­og­nize the pres­ence of the Under­ground Reich [32] in the con­cate­na­tion that Kaplan presents. Detail­ing the evo­lu­tion of the Under­ground Reich [33] is beyond the scope of this post.

The wealth of infor­ma­tion con­tained on this web­site will pro­vide the nec­es­sary intel­lec­tu­al under­pin­ning for inter­est­ed and curi­ous readers/listeners.

Suf­fice it to say here, that the proxy war­riors of the neo-Ottoman caliphate will, ulti­mate­ly, be used to destroy the U.S. and the U.K., as well as Israel.

With Oba­ma respond­ing to his long-fore­cast (in these quar­ters) desta­bi­liza­tion by con­tin­u­ing to build bi-par­ti­san bridges [34] and com­mit­ting polit­i­cal sui­cide in the process, this should be rel­a­tive­ly easy to accom­plish. 

We also note that Ger­many is using “soft pow­er” to pro­mote Islamists in Syr­ia (sur­prise, sur­prise).

“The U.S. Helps Recon­struct the Ottoman Empire” by Robert E. Kaplan; The Gate­stone Insti­tute; 5/29/2013. [35]

Since the mid-1990s the Unit­ed States has inter­vened mil­i­tar­i­ly in sev­er­al inter­nal armed con­flicts in Europe and the Mid­dle East: bomb­ing Serbs and Ser­bia in sup­port of Izetbe­gov­ic’s Moslem Regime in Bosnia in 1995, bomb­ing Serbs and Ser­bia in sup­port of KLA Moslems of Koso­vo in 1999, bomb­ing Libya’s Gaddafi regime in sup­port of rebels in 2010. Each inter­ven­tion was jus­ti­fied to Amer­i­cans as moti­vat­ed by human­i­tar­i­an con­cerns: to pro­tect Bosn­ian Moslems from geno­ci­dal Serbs, to pro­tect Koso­vo Moslems from geno­ci­dal Serbs, and to pro­tect Libyans from their mur­der­ous dic­ta­tor Muam­mar Gaddafi.

Oth­er rea­sons for these inter­ven­tions were also offered: to gain for the Unit­ed States a strate­gic foothold in the Balka­ns, to defeat com­mu­nism in Yugoslavia, to demon­strate to the world’s Moslems that the Unit­ed States is not anti-Moslem, to rede­fine the role of NATO in the post-Cold War era, among oth­ers.

Each of these Unit­ed States mil­i­tary inter­ven­tions occurred in an area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire. In each, a sec­u­lar regime was ulti­mate­ly replaced by an Islamist one favor­ing sharia law and the cre­ation of a world-wide Caliphate. The coun­tries that expe­ri­enced the “Arab Spring” of the 2010s with­out the help of Amer­i­can mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion, Tunisia and Egypt, had also been part of the Ottoman Empire, and also end­ed up with Islamist regimes.

In the Unit­ed States most dis­cus­sions of the mil­i­tary con­flicts of the 1990s in the Balka­ns and the “Arab Spring” of the 2010s do not men­tion that the areas involved had been part of the Ottoman Empire; these includ­ed Turkey, the Moslem-pop­u­lat­ed areas around the Mediter­ranean, Iraq, the coastal regions of the Ara­bi­an Penin­su­la and parts of the Balka­ns. In the areas that expe­ri­enced the Arab Spring Turkey’s role in every instance has been to sup­port the rebels and quick­ly rec­og­nize them as the legit­i­mate gov­ern­ment of the coun­try in upheaval.

Turk­ish lead­ers do make the con­nec­tion between the con­flicts in the Bosnia, the “Arab Spring” and the Ottoman Empire. Harold Rhode, an Amer­i­can expert on Turkey, has report­ed:

[Pres­i­dent of Turkey] Erdo­gan’s recent [2011] elec­toral vic­to­ry speech puts his true inten­tions regard­ing Turkey’s for­eign pol­i­cy goals in per­spec­tive. He said that this vic­to­ry is as impor­tant in Ankara as it is in the cap­i­tal of Bosnia-Herze­gov­ina, Sara­je­vo, under Ottoman times, an impor­tant Ottoman city; that his par­ty’s vic­to­ry was as impor­tant in a large Turk­ish city Izmir, on the West­ern Ana­to­lian coast, as it is in Dam­as­cus, and as impor­tant in Istan­bul as it is in Jerusalem….

In say­ing that this vic­to­ry is as impor­tant in all of these for­mer Ottoman cities, Erdo­gan appar­ent­ly sees him­self as try­ing to reclaim Turkey’s full Ottoman past.

The occur­rence that since 1990 each Euro­pean and Mid­dle East­ern coun­try that expe­ri­enced Amer­i­can mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion in an inter­nal mil­i­tary con­flict or an “Arab Spring” has end­ed up with a gov­ern­ment dom­i­nat­ed by Islamists of the Moslem Broth­er­hood or al-Qae­da vari­ety fits nice­ly with the idea that these events rep­re­sent a return to Ottoman rule. Besides being a polit­i­cal empire rul­ing a ter­ri­to­ry and its pop­u­la­tion, the Ottoman Empire claimed to be a Caliphate with spir­i­tu­al suzerain­ty over all Moslems – those with­in its bor­ders and those beyond. Though it might seem strange at first, the idea of advanc­ing the renew­al of the Ottoman Empire on two tracks – break­ing down the post-Ottoman polit­i­cal struc­ture and pro­mot­ing a Caliphate which Islamists say they long for – is real­ly quite rea­son­able.

Just as the Balkan con­flicts of the 1990s and the “Arab Spring” of the 2010s con­sid­ered in his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive sug­gests that Turkey might be attempt­ing to recre­ate its for­mer empire, con­sid­er­a­tion of the Turk­ish Empire in his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive sug­gests the pos­si­ble part­ner­ship of Ger­many with Turkey in the project giv­en that, from its cre­ation in 1870, Ger­many viewed Turkey with its empire as a most valu­able client and ally. In the view of the lead­ers of Ger­many, Turkey was con­trol­lable through a com­bi­na­tion of eco­nom­ic inter­course, gifts of edu­ca­tion­al oppor­tu­ni­ties, pro­vi­sion of tech­ni­cal exper­tise and admin­is­tra­tive aid, as well as bribes to Turk­ish offi­cials. Ger­many saw influ­ence over Turkey as a means of influ­enc­ing Moslems world­wide for its own inter­ests. Thus as the Ger­man schol­ar Wolf­gang Schwanitz has shown, dur­ing World War I Ger­many employed the Turk­ish Caliphate to pro­mote jihad – riot and rebel­lion – in areas where Moslem pop­u­la­tions were ruled by its ene­mies Rus­sia, France, Britain and Ser­bia.

Yet in the 50-odd arti­cles col­lect­ed in an explo­ration of the aware­ness on the part of Amer­i­cans of a pos­si­ble Turk­ish con­nec­tion with the “Arab Spring,” I found not a sin­gle men­tion of “Ger­many.” Only from a link in one of those arti­cles – to an arti­cle on the Inter­na­tion­al Crim­i­nal Court (ICC) which, with its indict­ment of Muam­mar Gaddafi and issue of a war­rant for his arrest, pro­vid­ed the “legal” basis legit­imiz­ing NATO’s bomb­ing of Libya — which gave the rebels their vic­to­ry and end­ed the Gaddafi regime – did I find men­tion of Ger­many. From that arti­cle, “A Law­less Glob­al Court” by John Rosen­thal (Pol­i­cy Review Feb. 1. 2004 No.123), one learns that the ICC is a project ini­ti­at­ed, pro­mot­ed and, to a con­sid­er­able extent, fund­ed by Ger­many. Giv­en this, the idea that the ICC serves Ger­many’s pur­pos­es is com­mon sense. Through the ICC con­nec­tion, Ger­many’s pro­mo­tion of the “Arab Spring” is clear. Yet it is nev­er or almost nev­er men­tioned. This silence calls for expla­na­tion.

Lat­er, I did come across an explic­it ref­er­ence to Ger­many’s role in it — specif­i­cal­ly in the war against the Assad regime in Syr­ia — in John Rosen­thal’s arti­cle “Ger­man Intel­li­gence: al-Qae­da all over Syr­ia” in the online Asia Times ­­­­­­­­­­­­ — which reports that the Ger­man gov­ern­ment sup­ports the rebels and their polit­i­cal arm, the Syr­i­an Nation­al Coun­cil (SNC), against Assad; that the Ger­man gov­ern­ment clas­si­fied [made secret] “by rea­son of nation­al inter­est” the con­tents of sev­er­al BND (Ger­man for­eign intel­li­gence) reports that the May 25, 2012 mas­sacre of civil­ians in the Syr­i­an town of Houla, for which Assad has been blamed, was in fact per­pe­trat­ed by rebel forces; and that “the Ger­man for­eign office is work­ing with rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Syr­i­an oppo­si­tion to devel­op ‘con­crete plans’ for a ‘polit­i­cal tran­si­tion’ in Syr­ia after the fall of Assad.” So far the Ger­man pol­i­cy of keep­ing hid­den its lead­er­ship role in the attempt to recon­sti­tute the Ottoman Empire seems to have suc­ceed­ed.

Each U. S. mil­i­tary action in Europe and the Mid­dle East since 1990, how­ev­er, with the excep­tion of Iraq, has fol­lowed an overt pat­tern: First there is an armed con­flict with­in the coun­try where the inter­ven­tion will take place. Amer­i­can news media heav­i­ly report this con­flict. The “good guys” in the sto­ry are the rebels. The “bad guys,” to be attacked by Amer­i­can mil­i­tary force, are bru­tal­ly anti-demo­c­ra­t­ic, and com­mit­ters of war crimes, crimes against human­i­ty, and geno­cide. Pres­ti­gious pub­lic fig­ures, NGOs, judi­cial and qua­si-judi­cial bod­ies and inter­na­tion­al orga­ni­za­tions call for sup­port­ing the rebels and attack­ing the regime. Next, the Amer­i­can pres­i­dent orders Amer­i­can logis­ti­cal sup­port and arms sup­plies for the rebels. Final­ly the Amer­i­can pres­i­dent orders mil­i­tary attack under the aus­pices of NATO in sup­port of the rebels. The attack usu­al­ly con­sists of aer­i­al bomb­ing, today’s equiv­a­lent of the nine­teenth and twen­ti­eth cen­turies’ gun­boat which could attack coastal cities of mil­i­tar­i­ly weak coun­tries with­out fear of retal­i­a­tion. The ulti­mate out­come of each Amer­i­can inter­ven­tion is the replace­ment of a sec­u­lar gov­ern­ment with an Islamist regime in an area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire.

Why the gov­ern­ment of the Unit­ed States would active­ly pro­mote Ger­man aims — the destruc­tion of Yugoslavia (both World Wars I and II saw Ger­many invade Ser­bia) and the re-cre­ation of the Ottoman Empire — is a ques­tion that needs to be answered.

“In Rebel Ter­ri­to­ry (IV)”; german-foreign-policy.com; 5/23/2013. [3]

In light of the recent Syr­i­an gov­ern­men­t’s mil­i­tary suc­cess­es, the Ger­man gov­ern­ment seeks to sta­bi­lize rebel con­trolled areas in north­ern Syr­ia. While demands for a com­pre­hen­sive arms buildup for rebel mili­tias are becom­ing loud­er, the Ger­man Min­istry of For­eign Affairs is posi­tion­ing aid orga­ni­za­tions to inter­vene. Aid orga­ni­za­tions, such as the Ger­man Agro Action, are — in prin­ci­ple — sworn to neu­tral­i­ty and non-par­ti­san­ship, how­ev­er, at the demand of the Ger­man gov­ern­ment, they are tak­ing up activ­i­ties in regions under rebel con­trol, aimed at “win­ning hearts and minds” in favor of the rebels. Because this is in clear vio­la­tion of Syr­i­a’s sov­er­eign­ty, an influ­en­tial Ger­man dai­ly has char­ac­ter­ized this mis­sion as “human­i­tar­i­an inter­ven­tion with­out a UN man­date” — “not with tanks and infantry but with trucks and devel­op­ment aid work­ers.” Ger­many is pro­mot­ing insur­gents also in areas under Islamist con­trol. . . .

. . . . Nev­er­the­less, to assure Ger­man pres­ence on Syr­i­an ter­ri­to­ry, accord­ing to the report, in late sum­mer 2012, the Ger­man For­eign Min­istry turned to var­i­ous devel­op­ment aid orga­ni­za­tions — at first dur­ing the reg­u­lar meet­ings of the Coor­di­nat­ing Com­mit­tee of Human­i­tar­i­an Aid. It is report­ed that, regard­less of the absence of Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment per­mis­sion, these aid orga­ni­za­tions were “asked to become active in insur­gent-con­trolled areas — in spite of inter­na­tion­al law.”[7] In fact, at the for­eign min­istry’s request, sev­er­al Ger­man devel­op­ment aid orga­ni­za­tions are now ille­gal­ly active on the ground in rebel-con­trolled areas of Syr­ia — from Berlin’s per­spec­tive — car­ry­ing out par­ti­san activ­i­ties in sup­port of the insur­gents. Gov­ern­ment func­tionar­ies, such as the GIZ rep­re­sen­ta­tive, sta­tioned in Gaziantep, are not per­mit­ted to car­ry out these activ­i­ties, due to qualms about their ille­gal­i­ty. The Ger­man gov­ern­ment is tol­er­at­ing the even­tu­al­i­ty of long-term loss­es, these devel­op­ment aid orga­ni­za­tions could suf­fer, due to the breach of their oblig­a­tions to neu­tral­i­ty and non-par­ti­san­ship. This vio­la­tion of Syr­i­a’s ter­ri­to­r­i­al sov­er­eign­ty by the aid orga­ni­za­tions’ activ­i­ties is apt­ly described in the report: “What is cur­rent­ly tak­ing place in the bor­der areas, is (...) a human­i­tar­i­an inter­ven­tion with­out a UN man­date: not with tanks and infantry, but with trucks and devel­op­ment work­ers.”

The Islamiza­tion of Syr­ia

Ger­man “human­i­tar­i­an inter­ven­tion” in favor of insur­gents in the Syr­i­an civ­il war is also being car­ried out in areas under the con­trol of Islamist mili­tias. In the sum­mer of 2012, the Ger­man “Green Hel­met” orga­ni­za­tion, for exam­ple, ini­ti­at­ed its sup­port activ­i­ties in the small town of Azaz, in north­ern Syr­ia. It is usu­al­ly claimed that this town is under the con­trol of the “Free Syr­i­an Army,” which serves as the umbrel­la label for var­i­ous groups. How­ev­er, crit­i­cal reports soon exposed that Azaz is, in fact, ruled by “Jihadists and oth­er (...) armed Islamists.” Azaz serves “as a tran­sit hub for armed fight­ers, from var­i­ous coun­tries, seek­ing to wage a ‘holy war’ against infi­dels.” They aggres­sive­ly attack those of a dif­fer­ent faith, includ­ing Yazi­di, liv­ing near Azaz.[8] Recent reports have con­firmed that the Jab­hat al Nus­ra ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion is active in that town. The same report points to the pres­ence of Ger­man Salafists in Azaz.[9] From the per­spec­tive of the Ger­man gov­ern­ment, Ger­many’s “human­i­tar­i­an inter­ven­tion” in favor of the insur­gents of the Syr­i­an civ­il war — moti­vat­ed by geostrate­gic hege­mon­ic inter­ests (german-foreign-policy.com report­ed [10]) — is con­tribut­ing, in cas­es such as Azaz, to the con­sol­i­da­tion of fanat­i­cal Islamist hege­mo­ny.