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

FTR #879 Further Update on Pan-Turkism, Islamism and the Earth Island Boogie

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained here. [1] The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by late spring of 2015. The new dri­ve (avail­able for a tax-deductible con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more) con­tains FTR #850 [1].  

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE [2].

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [3]

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [4].

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE [5].

This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment [6].

[7]

Ottoman Empire

Intro­duc­tion: As the title indi­cates, this broad­cast con­tin­ues analy­sis of the grow­ing con­flu­ence of Mus­lim-Broth­er­hood dom­i­nat­ed Islamism and Pan-Turk­ist ele­ments, this against the back­ground of the mount­ing hos­til­i­ties over­tak­ing the region.

These events are also man­i­fest­ing them­selves in the Euro­pean por­tion of the Earth Island, par­tic­u­lar­ly in Ukraine. (See the links in the “Progam High­lights” sec­tion.)

(For back­ground on this com­pli­cat­ed dynam­ic, see–among oth­er programs–FTR #‘s 710 [8]720 [9]723 [10], 737 [11]819 [12], 862 [13], 863 [14], 878 [15].)

We begin with a short quote from Zbig­niew Brzezin­s­ki, read by Eliz­a­beth Gould in FTR #872 [16]. Brzezin­s­ki is quite open about the util­i­ty of using Islamists to desta­bi­lize Rus­sia and Chi­na.

Next, the pro­gram begins by not­ing that the Turk­ish shoot-down of a Russ­ian Su-24 appears to have been an instance of the Turk­ish air force pro­vid­ing air cov­er [17] for the Turk­men mili­tia and ele­ments of the al-Qae­da-affil­i­at­ed Nus­ra Front, who are part of the so-called “mod­er­ates” enjoy­ing the sup­port of the West and its allies [18] in the region, includ­ing Turkey, Sau­di Ara­bia and Qatar.

The region con­trolled by the Turk­men has become the focal point for al-Qae­da-affil­i­at­ed Nus­ra Front fight­ers and ISIS com­bat­ants as well. There appears to be a degree of over­lap and syn­the­sis of the ISIS forces with the Nus­ra and Turk­men fight­ers.

Next, we revis­it a very impor­tant, rel­e­vant arti­cle [19] by Cor­nell Uni­ver­si­ty pro­fes­sor Robert Kaplan.

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! [20]

In FTR #‘s 710 [8]720 [9]723 [10] 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 [21] seek­ing a return to the glo­ry days of the Ottoman Empire.

(We should nev­er fail to note that the areas of activ­i­ty in the dynam­ic high­light­ed here are areas that are rich in nat­ur­al resources–fossil fuels, in par­tic­u­lar. The petro­le­um-rich Cau­ca­sus and coal and petro­le­um resources of Xin­jiang Province in Chi­na are note­wor­thy in this regard.)

Kaplan notes a pat­tern that is of more than pass­ing inter­est: ” . . . . 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. . . .”

Weigh­ing the oper­a­tional his­to­ry of the Grey Wolves, we con­clude the pro­gram with a re-broad­cast of FTR #59 [22], not­ing that the orga­ni­za­tion had func­tioned as the Turk­ish com­po­nent of Oper­a­tion Stay Behind. This was a NATO oper­a­tion that cre­at­ed under­ground cadres to fight any left-wing gov­ern­ment that may have come to pow­er in one of the orga­ni­za­tion’s mem­ber nations. With the Grey Wolves hav­ing served as an under­ground exten­sion of the NATO order of bat­tle, we should eval­u­ate their activ­i­ties in the con­text of the Earth Island “op” appar­ent­ly under way.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: 

1a. We begin with a short quote from Zbig­niew Brzezin­s­ki, read by Eliz­a­beth Gould in FTR #872 [16]. Brzezin­s­ki is quite open about the util­i­ty of using Islamists to desta­bi­lize Rus­sia and Chi­na.

1b. Next, we note that the Turk­ish shoot-down of a Russ­ian Su-24 appears to have been an instance of the Turk­ish air force pro­vid­ing air cov­er for the Turk­men mili­tia and ele­ments of the al-Qae­da-affil­i­at­ed Nus­ra Front, who are part of the so-called “mod­er­ates” enjoy­ing the sup­port of the West and its allies in the region, includ­ing Turkey, Sau­di Ara­bia and Qatar. (“Air cov­er” refers to com­bat air­craft neu­tral­iz­ing ene­my air threats to ground forces. This should not be con­fused with “air sup­port,” which refers to com­bat air­craft act­ing in sup­port of ground forces against their opponents–serving, in effect, as “air­borne artillery.”)

“Facts Back Rus­sia on Turk­ish Attack” by Gareth Porter; Con­sor­tium News; 11/30/2015. [17]

The Unit­ed States and its NATO allies offered a rit­u­al of NATO uni­ty after Turk­ish offi­cials pre­sent­ed their case that the shoot-down of a Russ­ian jet occurred after two planes had pen­e­trat­ed Turk­ish air­space. The Turk­ish rep­re­sen­ta­tive report­ed­ly [30] played a record­ing of a series warn­ing the Turk­ish F‑16 pilots had issued to the Russ­ian jets with­out a Russ­ian response, and U.S. and oth­er NATO mem­ber states endorsed Turkey’s right to defend its air­space.

U.S. Defense Depart­ment spokesman Colonel Steve War­ren sup­port­ed [30] the Turk­ish claim that 10 warn­ings had been issued over a peri­od of five min­utes. The Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion appar­ent­ly expressed less con­cern about whether Russ­ian planes had actu­al­ly crossed into Turk­ish air­space. Col. War­ren admit­ted [31] that U.S. offi­cials have still yet to estab­lish where the Russ­ian air­craft was locat­ed when a Turk­ish mis­sile hit the plane.

Although the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion is not about to admit it, the data already avail­able sup­ports the Russ­ian asser­tion that the Turk­ish shoot-down was, as Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin assert­ed, an “ambush” that had been care­ful­ly pre­pared in advance. The cen­tral Turk­ish claim that its F‑16 pilots had warned the two Russ­ian air­craft 10 times dur­ing a peri­od of five min­utes actu­al­ly is the pri­ma­ry clue that Turkey was not telling the truth about the shoot-down.

The Russ­ian Su-24 “Fencer” jet fight­er, which is com­pa­ra­ble to the U.S. F‑111, is capa­ble of a speed of 960 miles per hour at high alti­tude [32], but at low alti­tude its cruis­ing speed is around 870 mph [33], or about 13 miles per minute. The nav­i­ga­tor of the sec­ond plane con­firmed [34] after his res­cue that the Su-24s were fly­ing at cruis­ing speed dur­ing the flight.

Close analy­sis of both the Turk­ish and Russ­ian images of the radar path [35] of the Russ­ian jets indi­cates that the ear­li­est point at which either of the Russ­ian planes was on a path that might have been inter­pret­ed as tak­ing it into Turk­ish air­space was rough­ly 16 miles from the Turk­ish bor­der – mean­ing that it was only a minute and 20 sec­onds away from the bor­der.

Fur­ther­more accord­ing to both ver­sions of the flight path, five min­utes before the shoot-down the Russ­ian planes would have been fly­ing east­ward – away from the Turk­ish bor­der.

If the Turk­ish pilots actu­al­ly began warn­ing the Russ­ian jets five min­utes before the shoot-down, there­fore, they were doing so long before the planes were even head­ed in the gen­er­al direc­tion of the small pro­jec­tion of the Turk­ish bor­der in North­ern Latakia province. In order to car­ry out the strike, in fact, the Turk­ish pilots would have had to be in the air already and pre­pared to strike as soon as they knew the Russ­ian air­craft were air­borne.

The evi­dence from the Turk­ish author­i­ties them­selves thus leaves lit­tle room for doubt that the deci­sion to shoot down the Russ­ian jet was made before the Russ­ian jets even began their flight.

The motive for the strike was direct­ly relat­ed to the Turk­ish role in sup­port­ing the anti-Assad forces in the vicin­i­ty of the bor­der. In fact, the Erdo­gan gov­ern­ment made no effort to hide its aim in the days before the strike. In a meet­ing with the Russ­ian ambas­sador on Nov. 20, the for­eign min­is­ter accused the Rus­sians of “inten­sive bomb­ing” of “civil­ian Turk­men vil­lages” and said there might be “seri­ous con­se­quences” [36] unless the Rus­sians end­ed their oper­a­tions imme­di­ate­ly.

Turk­ish Prime Min­is­ter Ahmet Davu­to­glu was even more explic­it [37], declar­ing that Turk­ish secu­ri­ty forces “have been instruct­ed to retal­i­ate against any devel­op­ment that would threat­en Turkey’s bor­der secu­ri­ty.” Davu­to­glu fur­ther said: “If there is an attack that would lead to an intense influx of refugees to Turkey, required mea­sures would be tak­en both inside Syr­ia and Turkey.”

The Turk­ish threat to retal­i­ate – not against Russ­ian pen­e­tra­tion of its air­space but in response to very broad­ly defined cir­cum­stances on the bor­der – came amid the lat­est in a series of bat­tles between the Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment and reli­gious fight­ers.

The area where the plane was shot down is pop­u­lat­ed by the Turk­men minor­i­ty. They have been far less impor­tant than for­eign fight­ers and oth­er forces who have car­ried out a series of offen­sives in the area since mid-2013 aimed at threat­en­ing Pres­i­dent Bashar al-Assad’s main Alaw­ite redoubt on the coast in Latakia province.

Charles Lis­ter, the British spe­cial­ist who was vis­it­ing Latakia province fre­quent­ly in 2013, not­ed in an August 2013 inter­view, “Latakia, right up to the very north­ern tip [i.e. in the Turk­men Moun­tain area], has been a strong­hold for for­eign fight­er-based groups for almost a year now.” He also observed that, after Islam­ic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL or Daesh) had emerged in the north, al-Nus­ra Front and its allies in the area had “reached out” to ISIL and that one of the groups fight­ing in Latakia had “become a front group” for ISIL.

In March 2014, the reli­gious rebels launched a major offen­sive with heavy Turk­ish logis­ti­cal sup­port to cap­ture the Armen­ian town of Kessab on the Mediter­ranean coast of Latakia very close to the Turk­ish bor­der. An Istan­bul news­pa­per, Bag­cilar, quot­ed a mem­ber of the Turk­ish parliament’s for­eign affairs com­mit­tee as report­ing tes­ti­mo­ny from vil­lagers liv­ing near the bor­der that thou­sands of fight­ers had streamed across five dif­fer­ent bor­der points in cars with Syr­i­an plates to par­tic­i­pate in the offen­sive.

Dur­ing that offen­sive, more­over, a Syr­i­an jet respond­ing to the offen­sive against Kessab was shot down by the Turk­ish air force in a remark­able par­al­lel to the down­ing of the Russ­ian jet. Turkey claimed that the jet had vio­lat­ed its air­space but made no pre­tence about hav­ing giv­en any pri­or warn­ing. The pur­pose of try­ing to deter Syr­ia from using its air­pow­er in defense of the town was obvi­ous.

Now the bat­tle in Latakia province has shift­ed to the Bayir­bu­cak area, where the Syr­i­an air force and ground forces have been try­ing to cut the sup­ply lines between vil­lages con­trolled by Nus­ra Front and its allies and the Turk­ish bor­der for sev­er­al months. The key vil­lage in the Nus­ra Front area of con­trol is Salma, which has been in jihadist hands ever since 2012. The inter­ven­tion of the Russ­ian Air Force in the bat­tle has giv­en a new advan­tage to the Syr­i­an army.

The Turk­ish shoot-down was thus in essence an effort to dis­suade the Rus­sians from con­tin­u­ing their oper­a­tions in the area against al-Nus­ra Front and its allies, using not one but two dis­tinct pre­texts: on one hand a very dubi­ous charge of a Russ­ian bor­der pen­e­tra­tion for NATO allies, and on the oth­er, a charge of bomb­ing Turk­men civil­ians for the Turk­ish domes­tic audi­ence. . . .

2. We then review 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! [20]

In FTR #‘s 710 [8]720 [9]723 [10] 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 [21] seek­ing a return to the glo­ry days of the Ottoman Empire.

Fol­low­ing the turn to the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood [38] (for­mal­ized dur­ing Bush’s sec­ond admin­is­tra­tion grow­ing out of the pro­found GOP links [39] to the Broth­er­hood and the al-Taqwa milieu) we wit­nessed the cen­ter piece of this oper­a­tion–the so-called Arab Spring [11]. The Boston Marathon bomb­ing [40] appears to be “blow­back” from this oper­a­tion, with FBI appar­ent­ly hav­ing cut across ele­ments of the covert oper­a­tion [41] men­tioned above.

T [42]he Fetul­lah Gulen orga­ni­za­tion [42] 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 [11] (record­ed on 4/2/2011.):

The Robert E. Kaplan post epit­o­mizes the argu­ments we’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 [61] in the con­cate­na­tion that Kaplan presents. Detail­ing the evo­lu­tion of the Under­ground Reich [62] 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 [63] and com­mit­ting polit­i­cal sui­cide in the process, this should be rel­a­tive­ly easy to accom­plish.

“The U.S. Helps Recon­struct the Ottoman Empire” by Robert E. Kaplan; The Gate­stone Insti­tute; 5/29/2013. [19]

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.

3. Weigh­ing the oper­a­tional his­to­ry of the Grey Wolves, we repeat FTR #59 [22] (April of 1997), not­ing that the orga­ni­za­tion had func­tioned as the Turk­ish com­po­nent of Oper­a­tion Stay Behind. This was a NATO oper­a­tion that cre­at­ed under­ground cadres to fight any left-wing gov­ern­ment that may have come to pow­er in one of the orga­ni­za­tion’s mem­ber nations. With the Grey Wolves hav­ing served as an under­ground exten­sion of the NATO order of bat­tle, we should eval­u­ate their activ­i­ties in the con­text of the Earth Island “op” appar­ent­ly under way.

The arti­cle com­pris­ing much of the dis­cus­sion can be found here [64].