THE RED FLAG ON PRIVATIZING THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN & RETURNING THE WORLD BACK TO THE 19TH CENTURY

The United States is going backwards into what Robert I. Weiner terms "The Long 19th Century: 1789 to 1917" because 1789 was the point at which the masses and modern nationalism first presented themselves, in Europe's most powerful country--France--while 1917 was the point at which the 19th-cenury Eurocentric world order collapsed, with the Bolshevik victory in Russia and American entry in World War I."  Erik Prince's desire to privatize the War in Afghanistan, the appointment of Sam Brownbeck as the "Protestant Pope"/Office of International Religion assigned to the State Department (thus fulfilling the Right-wing religionists dream of the pre-Reformation power of a pope and Catholicism—over women’s bodies—children’s education—mandatory prison sentencing), Steve Bannon's belief in William Strauss and Neil Howe's futuristic prophecy in The Fourth Turning (1997), and Bannon's influence as Chief Adviser to President Trump.  This boards-evil for We, the people, especially when Howe declared on YouTube that we are now metaphorically in the 1930s.

Presently the only political-legality standing between the privatization of the War in Afghanistan and its re-colonization is Article I. Section. 1. And Section. 8. of the Constitution.  Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.  Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To declare war ... and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.  To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two Years.

However what is more alarming is that the War in Afghanistan is morphing into a religious crusade in terms of the original Western Crusades for Christ--which has no toleration for Islam.

As --Gordon Livingston states in How to Love: "What the world needs now may indeed be love, sweet love.  Personally, I'd settle for a little more tolerance.  Most of what we suffer from, most of what we fear and feel threatened by these days are people operating under the belief that they belong to a group that has a corner on the truth about human existence.  And this "chosen" status requires them to covert or kill those who disagree.  It makes no difference to a true believer that one's convictions about how to live and what deity to worship are largely an accident of birth and require no evidence beyond some book of doubtful authorship.  This is called "faith," and the conflict it fosters may yet be the death of us all."

Lothrop Stoddard in The Rising Tide Of Color Against White World-Supremacy posits that Islam's warlike vigor has impressed men's minds ever since the far-off days when its pristine fervor bore the Fiery Crescent from France to china.  But with the passing cycles that fervor waned, and a century ago Islam seemed plunged in the stupor of senile decay.  The life appeared to have gone out of it, leaving naught but the dry husks of empty formalism and soulless ritual.  Yet at this darkest hour a voice came crying from out the vast Arabian dessert, the cradle of Islam, calling the Faithful to better things.  The puritan reformer was the famous Abd-el-Wahab, and his followers known as Wahabees, soon spread over the length and breadth of the Mohammedan world, purging Islam of its sloth and rekindling the fervor of olden days.  Thus began the great Mohammedan Revival.

That revival, like all truly regenerative movements, had it political as well as its spiritual side.  One of the first things which struck the reformers was the political weakness of the Moslem world and its increasing subjection to the Christian West.  It was during the early decades of the nineteenth century that the revival spread through Islam.  But this was the very time when Europe, recovering from the losses of the Napoleonic Wars, began its unparalleled aggression upon the Moslem East.  The result in Islam was a fusing of religion and patriotism into a "sacred union" for the combined spiritual regeneration and political emancipation of the Moslem world.

Of course Europe's material and military superiority were then so great that speedy success was recognized to be a vain hope.  Nevertheless, with true Oriental patience, the reformers were content to work for distant goals, and the results of their labors, though hidden from most Europeans, was soon discernible to a few keen-sighted white observers.

The Mohammedan peoples of the East have awakened to the manifold strength and skill of their Western Christian rivals; and this awakening, at first productive of respect and fear, not unmixed with admiration, now wears the type of antagonistic dislike, and even of intelligent hate.  No more zealous Moslems are to be found in all the ranks of Islam than they who have sojourned longest in Europe and acquired the most intimate knowledge of its sciences and ways.

Mohammedans are keenly alive to the ever-shifting uncertainties and divisions that distract the Christianity of today, and to the woeful instability of modern European institutions.  From their own point of view, Moslems are as men standing on a secure rock, and they contrast the quiet fixity of their own position with the unsettled and insecure restlessness of all else.

Europe drills the Moslem to be a soldier who will ultimately turn his weapons against her; and she sends her missionaries to awaken in the ulema the proselytizing evil.

The proselyting power of Islam is extraordinary, and its hold upon its votaries is even more remarkable.  Throughout history there has been no single instance where a people, once becomes Moslem, has ever abandoned the faith.  Extirpated they may have been, like the Moors of Spain, but extirpation is not apostasy.  This extreme tenacity of Islam, this ability to keep its hold, once it has got a footing, under all circumstances short of downright extirpation must be  born in mind when considering the future of regions where Islam is today advancing.

Erik Prince (in his background with Blackwater Security) is a modern-day Knights Templar determined to carry-on the Christian Crusade in the Asia.  John Robinson in Dungeon, Fire And Sword: The Knights Templar In The Crusades (1991) defines Knights Templar.  Robinson declares that the Knights Templar is a military monastic order that was organized in the aftermath of the First Crusade when a small band of knights took vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to dedicate their entire lives to the protection of pilgrims to the Holy Land.  At first they just guarded the pilgrim roads to Jerusalem, but over the years they grew to become the largest standing army in the Christian kingdom.  They took their name from their headquarters in a captured mosque built on the site of the ancient Temple of Solomon, on the Temple Mount in the Holy City.  Their selfless dedication earned the approval of all Christendom.

The Templars operated under the personal protection of popes so long as the struggle for the Holy Places of Jesus Christ continued, as it did for almost two hundred years.  Over twenty thousand military monks fought and died in the sacred quest.  Even a number of the order's grand masters died on the battlefields, where the Knights Templar crossed swords with Turks and Kurds, Arabs and Egyptians.

As Christians were forced out of one walled city after another, and eventually out of the Holy Land altogether, the Templars were the last to leave.  Once the Crusades were lost, the Templar purpose was lost, although much of the order's wealth remained.  With their own coffers drained through incessant wars, Christian monarchs looked at the Templar treasure with envy, but none with more greedy than Philip IV of France, who colluded with Clement V, a French pope under his control to bring down the Templar order.

To put the Templars in a crusading context it is necessary to fit them in with the people and politics of the Middle East, the men they fought with and the men they fought against: the Armenians and Georgians, the Druze of Lebanon and the Azeri Turks of Azerbaijan.  Familiar men are there: Richard the Lion Heart of England, St. Louis of France, Frederick Barbarossa of Germany.  Even St. Francis of Assisi is there, as he joins a crusading army in Egypt--neither the first nor the last to believe that a reasonable man can bring peace to the Middle East in friendly discussions.  Marco Polo arrives to ask for holy oil from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to take as a gift to Kublai Khan.  In his travels across the Kurdish lands north of Mesopotamia, he observes "fountains" of black oil coming from the ground.

The Mongols turned loose by Genghis Khan arrived, after cutting a bloody path across modern Iran, Iraq, and Syria.  They were finally stopped by an Egyptian army on the west bank of the Jordan River.  The defeat motivated the Mongols to send ambassadors to a Christian alliance against the Muslims.  They asserted a great influence on the Crusades, but not as much as the Egyptian Mamelukes who had stopped them, nor as much as the most memorable Muslim leader of them all, the Kurdish Sultan Saladin.

Our story calls for an understanding of the beliefs and the structure of the Templars' Muslim enemies.  The First Crusade at the end of the eleventh century succeeded largely because of conflicts between Muslim factions that called themselves Sunni and Shiite.  The new Templar order had to learn the make-up of the Muslim world as it took up residence in the AL-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount.

It is important to bear in mind that a full understanding of the Templar order cannot be achieved by seeing it only as a part of the major Crusades.  Those great invasions involved multinational armies with twenty thousand to a hundred thousand men, forces to which the Templars could provide welcome assistance and even guidance, but in which a few hundred knights, no matter how dedicated, could not be the principal military factor.  It was in the long years between those crusades that the standing army of Knights Templar came into their own.  Then they were the strongest military force available to hold the Muslim enemy at bay, which they did through the defense of their castles, direct engagements in the field, and diplomatic missions to the Islamic courts.  Crusaders were military pilgrims, who came to fight and go home.  The Templars were military monks, committed to remain in the Holy Land to consolidate the gains, or to clean up the mess, after the Crusaders had fulfilled their vows and then sailed away from the scene of their triumphs or tragedies.

Finally, if we are saddened a bit by the unfolding realization that ancient ethnic rivalries and prejudices are still not laid to rest after centuries of conflict, we can at least reflect on the unbridled brutality of that feudal age and take comfort in the fact that we have indeed come a long way.(?)

The Church of Rome engaged in two major struggles for papal supremacy, one with Christian rulers of Europe and the other with the Greek Orthodox Church embraced by the Byzantine Empire centered at Constantinople, which did not recognized any biblical justification for a pope.  Its chance came when the Byzantines appealed to Rome for military assistance to hold back the encroaching Turks.  The pope could solve two problems at once by sending the militant nobles away from Europe to rescue Byzantium, an act certain to cause the Greek Church to recognize the supremacy of the Roman, under the religious banner of a great Crusade to rescue from the Muslims the Holy Places sacred to the memory of Jesus Christ.  That was the beginning of the Crusades, in the eleventh-century atmosphere of faith, avarice, and antagonism.

PRIVATIZING THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

Report: Trump Administration Wants To 'Outsource Afghanistan To Mercenaries'

4:51

Steve Inskeep asks Mark Perry of The American Conservative about his article that says some in the Trump administration want to use more contractors in Afghanistan.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

Military contractors outnumber soldiers in Afghanistan almost 3-1. They do a lot of the back-office work of warfighting. The question now is whether their role could expand under the Trump administration.

Mark Perry wrote about this in The American Conservative, and he's in our studios this morning. Thanks for coming by, sir. Good morning.

MARK PERRY: Good to be here.

INSKEEP: So the headline on your article is "Bannon And Kushner" - close presidential advisers - "Bannon And Kushner Want To Outsource Afghanistan To Mercenaries."

PERRY: Yes.

INSKEEP: What's the evidence for that?

PERRY: Well, there was a meeting with Bannon and Erik Prince and Steve Feinberg, who are promoting this proposal.

INSKEEP: I guess we should mention Erik Prince, also close to a lot of these people. And he's got a background at Blackwater, which was a private military contractor...

PERRY: A private contractor in Iraq and a very controversial figure.

INSKEEP: And Steve Feinberg is a friend of Prince and also close to the president.

PERRY: That's right, head of Cerberus International and DynCorp, which has a very large footprint in Afghanistan.

INSKEEP: A very large footprint doing what sorts of things?

PERRY: Logistics, supply - they also train Afghan police. They provide services to American troops, but they also provide security. And of course...

INSKEEP: Meaning some of them carry guns?

PERRY: Absolutely. And under this proposal, more of them would carry guns. And a lot of the fighting and training of the Afghan army would be contracted to private contractors. It's a very controversial proposal, but it was promoted by Prince and Feinberg to the White House. Mr. Trump apparently liked the proposal and wanted it to be considered for the new Afghanistan strategy, which is what's happening.

INSKEEP: What is the case for using private contractors instead of U.S. troops? Why would that be a good idea?

PERRY: Well, the case that's being made by the two proponents is that it's cheaper. It really takes combat out of the hands of American soldiers. It takes the conflict off the front pages.

INSKEEP: Off the front pages - what? - because we, collectively, are presumed not to care as much about contractors as about...

PERRY: Well, Americans - American men and women wouldn't be coming home in body bags who wear uniform. This would be a wholly owned subsidiary, a corporate contract for private gain.

INSKEEP: Some of them might not even be Americans, I suppose.

PERRY: That's right. In Yemen right now, where corporate contractors are running the war, a lot of them are Colombians. They're for-hire guns. And it's a controversial proposal. But at least on the face of it, it has a certain appeal - could be cheaper, takes the politics out of the Afghanistan War. It lowers the temperature on the Afghanistan conflict. And this is what's being promoted.

INSKEEP: Well, let's talk about why it's controversial, though. There are questions about whether the laws of war apply to contractors the same way, whether they can be held accountable the same way, whether they are trained in the way that we would expect American troops to be trained. And finally, you seem to be laying out a scenario where people close to the president of the United States, making this decision, might be profiting from the decision because they're connected to companies that might be involved.

PERRY: Well, there's no mistaking. This is all about profits for the corporations that would be contracted to the U.S. government to run the Afghanistan War. And it's also true that the Uniform Code of Military Justice would not apply to these contractors.

We're seeing this now. Again, I bring up Yemen. We're seeing this now in Yemen, where, you know, it's a terrible humanitarian catastrophe, in part because contractors are fighting the war instead of regular troops, contractors from each and every side. It's a catastrophe. And this is why it makes it controversial, especially in the Pentagon. And across the national security establishment in the United States, there are a lot of people are opposed to this.

INSKEEP: I'm glad you mentioned the Pentagon. What kinds of things specifically do you hear from military officers when you discuss with them this proposal for a larger role for contractors?

PERRY: Well, it was very interesting. After my article appeared, I received calls the same day from senior military officers. They said Mark, Mark - this is dead on arrival. This isn't going to happen. It's just too controversial. Nobody at the Pentagon likes these contractors. They caused us a lot of problems in Iraq.

On the other hand, that same day a few hours later, I received calls from people in the intelligence services, especially in the retired set, a very powerful, influential group, who said this is still very much alive and being debated, and it could happen.

INSKEEP: Does the CIA also use contractors in the field?

PERRY: The CIA does use contractors in the field. But it's a much smaller - let me say, a much smaller footprint. And they do it very, very quietly. It's not at all overt. And they depend on their own military assets more than they do contractors.

INSKEEP: OK. Well, Mr. Perry, thanks very much for the insight. Really appreciate it.

PERRY: My pleasure.

INSKEEP: Mark Perry is a regular contributor to The American Conservative magazine.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. http://www.npr.org/2017/07/20/538251461/report-trump-administration...

Steve Bannon and Donald Trump are encouraging Erik Prince to take over the War in Afghanistan on a "market-basis."  Bannon desires this because of his belief in William Strauss and Neil Howe's futurism in The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy--so much so that he made a film heavily influenced by the book. 

Wrapped up in his desire to rescue Western Civilization and its myths from the infidels, all of whom are peoples-of-color and non-Christians, except for African Americans, who can be disregarded because they, as Bannon was taught in Eurocentric history-class, have no history outside of slavery.  The Fourth Turning to him represents the Crusades where the West/Europe ruled the known world and Christianized it, that is except for parts of the East, or what Lothrop Stoddard calls, "Land of the Brown Man," in The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy (1923).

AFGHANISTAN IN THE CROSS HAIRS

Stoddard writes about the enormous area of white settlement or control prior to World War II, the regions under non-white governance bulked small indeed.  In Eastern Asia, China, Japan, and Siam; in Western Asia, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Persia; in Africa, Abyssinia and Liberia; and in America the minute state of Haiti: such was the brief list of lands under non-white rule.  In other words of the 53,000,000 square miles had non-white governments and nearly two-thirds of this relatively modest remainder was represent by China and its dependencies.

The brown world, on the other hand, felt the impact of the white tide much earlier and was politically overwhelmed.  The so-called "independence" of brown states has long been due more to white rivalries than to their own inherent strength.  One by one they have been swallowed up by the white Powers.  In 1914 only three: Turkey, Persia, and Afghanistan survived, and the WWI sent them the way of the rest.  Turkey and Persia have lost their independence, however they may still be painted on the map [in colonial colors], while Afghanistan has been compelled to recognize white supremacy as never before.  Thus the cycle is fulfilled, and white political mastery over the brown world is complete.

CAN ERIC PRINCE BECOME THE LAWRENCE OF AFGHANISTAN?

Erik Prince, unlike the majority of Americans understands world history, and how propaganda persuades people that Western Civilization and Christianity are one and that they are "Balm of Gilead" that soothes the sin-sick-soul of the East.  This is the soul of Neo-colonialism.  To understand Prince's confidence in his plan to both privatize the War in Afghanistan and pacify its Islamic tribal populations, one must read Jack Woddis' Introduction to Neo-colonialism (1967) as regards colonized India.

 

India's South-Central Asia location makes it a primary case-study in Western colonization.  Jack Woddis writes, "The modern colonial system matured at the end of the nineteenth century as a consequence of the change from free competitive capitalism to monopoly capitalism or imperialism."  Colonialism enabled the imperialist powers to rob the colonial peoples of their land and labor as the means of production was controlled by the colonizer.

 

"For practically everyone, apart from a privileged few, the colonial system became an object of hatred."  However, colonialism requires "the complete political and economic domination of the colony by imperial power, and could never have been maintained if not for the alliance which the imperialists were able to establish with a stratum of society within the colony.  In the Dacca and Chittagong division of Bengal, with a population of 17.5 million, there were in 1907 only 21 British covenanted civil servants and 12 British police officers.  Thirty years later whole provinces in India were administered by a handful of British, assisted by Indian troops and police under the command of British officers."

 

This feat was accomplished by divide and rule/conquer, and to main native populations in "a state of pass-ve-inertness, of obedience to existing rulers and acceptance of prevailing shibboleths, rules traditions.  Divide and rule, the playing off of one nationality, tribe, or religion against another, became an essential characteristic of colonialism, especially on the part of successive British Governments.  In this way they hoped to cut off the colonial peoples from the enlightening and liberating ideas of freedom, democracy, national independence and, still more important, socialism, which since the Russian revolution of 1917, became a veritable nightmare to every colonial administrator in the world," [similar to previous and present CIA operations in Latin America (Venezuela and Brazil) to "restore" democracy].

Co-option of the native elite was/is important as can be observed in Venezuela and Brazil.  "In India, the steps to encourage the growth of an educated, westernized elite were taken as early as the 19th-century, and the introduction of the Morley-Minot reforms in 1909 ... based on the existence ... of "a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinion in morals, and in intellect, on whose support Britain anticipated it could rely."  These are the Imperial British principles on which Erik Prince will rely in "taming" Afghanistan and destroying ISIS.

 

However like all imperialist, hubris and greed (for profit from the natural gas pipeline that is proposed across Central Asia) prevent Prince, Bannon and Trump from realizing that imperialism/colonialism brought on the worst fear of the West, Communism/Bolshevism.  Lothrop Stoddard warns from 1923 the danger of Bolshevism to capitalism:  "The rulers of Soviet Russia are well aware of the profound ferment now going on in colored lands.  They watch this ferment with the same terrible glee that they watched the Great War (WWI) and the fiasco of Versailles--and they plot to turn it to the same profit.

Accordingly, in every quarter of the globe, in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the United States, Bolshevik agitators whisper in the ears of discontented colored men their gospel of hatred and revenge.  Every nationalist aspiration, every political grievance, every social discrimination, is fuel for Bolshevism's hellish incitement to racial as well as to class war.

And this Bolshevik propaganda has not been in vain.  Its results already show in the most diverse quarters, and they are ominous for the future.  China, Japan, Afghanistan, India, Java, Persia, Turkey, Egypt, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Mexico, and the "black belts" of our own United States: here is a partial list of the lands where the Bolshevik leaven in color is clearly at work.

Bolshevism thus reveals itself as the arch-enemy of civilization and the race.  Bolshevism is the renegade, the traitor within the gates, who would betray the citadel, degrade the very fiber of our being, and ultimately hurl a re-barbarized, racially impoverished world into the most debased and hopeless of mongrelizations.

Therefore, Bolshevism must be crushed out with iron heels, no matter what the cost.  If this means more war, let it mean more war.  We know only too well war's dreadful toll, particularly on racial values.  But what war-losses could compare with the losses inflicted by the living death of Bolshevism stands foremost among those dread alternatives. ...The white world is ill-prepared to confront--the rising tide of color."

NAMING THE ENEMY

Naming the enemy is a point-of-view.  The foreign enemy: To ISIS, the West led by America and the Christianity that he wishes to proselytize, as foreign Crusaders, therefore the enemy.  ISIS com: Taliban has seen Afghanistan withstand Alexander the Great; Napoleon (Bannon's idol); and Russia, deposed, so does not fear the conquest by the US.

While another point-of-view may see the domestic enemy as being more dangerous: the "Kochtopus," an organization of millionaires and billionaires--using right-wing politicians determined to insure that the Obama agenda should fail.  This is the domestic enemy that is more of a threat to domestic democracy than ISIS ever could be.

 

Imperialists' hubris-greed (a natural gas pipeline to cross Central Asia) prevent Prince, Bannon and Trump acknowledging: Imperialism/Colonialism brought on the worst fear of the West: Communism/Bolshevism.

Views: 31

Comment by mary gravitt on August 1, 2017 at 12:40pm

Have we come to a point where we are in constant warfare.  Remember Orwell eternal warfare in 1984.  Bannon-Trump may want this for US.

Comment by mary gravitt on August 17, 2017 at 12:41pm

Don't miss the Friday Meeting at Camp David.  Trump and Pence will seal the deal.  Private War in Afghanistan.  If you have a copy of Moby Dick in will come in handy for your understanding.  Melville knew it all.

Comment

You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon

NEW BLOG POSTS

Wayfaring

Posted by alsoknownas on November 23, 2017 at 8:30am 9 Comments

On the 28th of November, 1991....

Posted by Ron Powell on November 23, 2017 at 2:30am 12 Comments

Trump embarrasses Baron

Posted by Dicky Neely on November 22, 2017 at 8:06pm 3 Comments

Lump of Coal For Christmas

Posted by Robert Young on November 22, 2017 at 11:00am 16 Comments

Minority Report, part the third

Posted by Robert Young on November 22, 2017 at 10:55am 2 Comments

Two Rifles, One Window

Posted by alsoknownas on November 22, 2017 at 7:21am 9 Comments

© 2017   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service