April 7, 2014

The Faraging of the west’s neocon Warmongers

Nigel farage recently acquired further notoriety amongst britain’s three party establishment and media elite for expressing admiration for president putin’s opposition to the western world’s threat to attack syria because of bashar al-assad’s alleged chemical weapons’ attack on several districts of rebel held damascus. Putin had averted a western military attack on syria that could easily have escalated into a libya type aerial bombardment which might have led to the country’s political, economic and social, collapse and the rise to power of a chaotic mosaic of al quaida warlords. But farage was much too modest about his own political contribution to putin’s great diplomatic success.

After the chemical weapons attack in syria, president obama had requested the help of america’s jewish lobby in pressuring congress into supporting a military attack on syria - and what the jewish lobby wants it almost invariable gets given its critical funding of america’s two main political parties and the overwhelming majority of members of congress. He also sought support from his western allies, particularly of course, obsequious british politicians who praise themselves for leading a strong independent nation when in reality they are just grubby boilermen devotedly working below decks of the united states’ aircraft carrier ‘the british isles’. 

Dave cameron and nick clegg duly recalled members of parliament from their summer holidays to debate the syrian crisis with the objective of gaining support for british involvement in military retaliation against the assad regime. The main question which the leaders of the three main political parties wanted to debate was the degree of british involvement that would be necessary to enable obama to pretend he was leading a global coalition of the willing. However, to cameron’s and clegg’s great shock a majority of parliamentarians refused to support such an attack - even a substantial number of tory mps refused to back their leader. It seemed as if it would have been quite easy for mps to have voted for military action firstly, because most of them were fully paid up members of their parties’ friends of the apartheid state in palestine and, secondly, they could rely on the country’s warmongering neocon media to drown out any political objections from the british public – as blair had done a decade earlier over massive public opposition to british involvement in the invasion of iraq.

So why did so many tory mps vote against yet another bout of military action? The main political beneficiaries of public opposition to the invasion of iraq turned out to be the liberal democrats who, in the general election of 2011, won enough parliamentary seats to enable them to form a coalition with the tories. However, the big beneficiaries of the opposition to an attack on syria would have been nigel farage’s united kingdom independence party who seemed likely to win over considerable numbers of tory voters. Ukip’s rise to political prominence over the last few years has been achieved primarily at the expense of the tory party and its opposition to a military attack on syria would have enabled it to eat even further into the tory vote. Many tory mps feared that farage’s opposition to a war in syria threatened their re-election which, like the lib democrats in 2011, might have enabled ukip to win a share of government at the next general election.

The political effect of british mps refusing to back military action against syria was to bolster the american public’s opposition to an american attack on syria - no matter how limited such an attack was supposed to be. American politicians are elected to congress with the critical help of funding from the jewish lobby but they still need the american public to vote them into office and until the jewish lobby is able to buy the public’s votes in the same way that it buys members of congress then american politicians had little choice but to oppose further, neocon inspired, warmongering. It can be suggested then that ukip’s opposition to a british military attack on syria was the critical factor in preventing the british government from proceeding with such an attack, and it probably also played some role in deterring congressional support for the war.

Western governments seemed doomed to political embarrassment over their failure to win legislative approval to punish bashar al-assad until they were rescued by russia’s president putin who seized the opportunity to defuse the west’s incessant warmongering by pressuring the syrian government into announcing that it would abandon its chemical weapons if the west did not attack the country.

Farage thus played the most critical role in the western world in preventing western governments from launching what would have been the latest in a long list of military interventions. It can be argued that this was ukip’s first major international political triumph. When farage recently praised putin for his handling of the syrian crisis he was not merely highlighting putin’s great act of statesmanship, he was also indirectly reminding the british public that he had played a vital role in creating the political opportunity that putin had used to avert war. He further emphasized the significance of his role in stopping the war by stating that he no longer suspects that president bashar al-assad was responsible for the chemical weapons’ attack thereby implying that if the west had attacked syria it would have done so on similarly trumped up charges that had justified the invasion of iraq in 2003. “The Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, has broken the consensus inside western intelligence by telling the BBC before his Europe debate with Nick Clegg that he believes the chemical attack in Syria last summer was conducted by the Syrian rebels, and not by the forces of the president, Bashar al-Assad.” (Patrick Wintour and Conal Urquhart ‘Nigel Farage claims Syrian rebels carried out chemical attack last summer’ http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/02/nigel-farage-syrian-rebels-chemical-attack April 02, 2014).

For a british politician to express the slightest modicum of admiration for president putin is nigh on unprecedented given that the country’s ruling political, and media, elites have relentlessly heaped wholesale condemnation on putin ever since he started rebuilding his country after the collapse of the soviet empire. “Under continued pressure over his admiration for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, Farage said: "I did admire what he had done over Syria. We were about to go to war in Syria because poison gas, sarin gas, had been used and everybody in London and Washington and Brussels assumed it had been used by Assad. And Putin said: 'Hang on a second, don't be so sure.' It turns out it is more than likely it was the rebels that used the gas. If Putin hadn't intervened we would now be at war in Syria." (Patrick Wintour and Conal Urquhart ‘Nigel Farage claims Syrian rebels carried out chemical attack last summer’ http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/02/nigel-farage-syrian-rebels-chemical-attack April 02, 2014).

Farage is also the only mainstream politician who has drawn attention to the european community’s reckless involvement in the recent violent, right wing putsch in the ukraine “… the role of the EU in the violence in Ukraine...” (Nigel Farage ‘In any armed conflict, why do our politicians rush to support the ‘rebels’?’ http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nigel-farage-in-any-armed-conflict-why-do-our-politicians-rush-to-support-the-rebels-9228311.html April 01, 2014). His failure to point out the critical role of the american neocons in these events is disappointing but no conventional politician or commentator has dared to make such an uncontestable allegation so farage shouldn’t be blamed unduly for this.

Over the last couple of months, nigel farage has suddenly emerged as the only mainstream politician to challenge the implacable neocon consensus of britain’s ruling elite that has resulted in british involvement in so many futile wars of aggression around the world. There must be many people in Britain who in the past would not have considered voting for farage because of his insular domestic policies and his obsession with the european union. But his recent contributions on major international issues might make many rethink their views. He has certainly blown a breath of fresh air into the fetid stench of britain’s ruling political and media elites’ rampant neocon warmongering.

This analysis leads to the obvious question of what proportion of the british electorate is likely to vote for a political party whose domestic policies are mostly regressive but whose foreign policies have suddenly seemed quite progressive. The political and economic damage that ukip’s policies could do to the british people would be far less than that caused by mainstream parties taking further military action anywhere around the world. Given the dominance of neocon belligerence amongst the three main political parties and the british media, it is almost certain they will get involved in another war at the earliest possible opportunity. The british military invasion of iraq inflicted a devastating amount of damage on the iraqi people, especially after a decade of draconian sanctions against the country, but it also had destructive impacts on the british people in terms of wasted resources, wasted lives, and gross moral turpitude. This phenomenon is even more pronounced in america where the country’s physical infrastructure, its housing, schools, roads, rail, energy transmission networks, is crumbling because the country’s ruling neocon oligarchs prefer to spend their country’s vast wealth on waging disastrous wars around the world rather than on improving the lives of their own people. If future british governments continue their neocon warmongering whether against iran or the ukraine or russia, this will inflict further economic disasters on this country, so any damage ukip’s policies might accidentally do domestically would be insignificant in comparison.

Perhaps it might be a little questionable to promote a fringe political party on the basis that in the future it is likely to do less damage to this country than the three main conventional political parties because of their inveterate warmongering. But, what is certain is that ukip deserves greater electoral support for what it has already done – neutralizing the efforts of britain’s ruling neocon warmongers to engage in an illegal military adventure against syria that would have inflicted serious damage on britain’s economic and political interests. Farage critically undermined britain’s trigger happy neocon warmongers over syria, which in turn helped to undermine america’s neocon warmongers, and there seems to be no reason why he shouldn’t continue taking such a stance in the future. For the last two decades or so britain’s neocon oligarchs have been promoting a succession of wars and, at the moment, the only political party which seems capable of curbing their insane and self destructive warmongering is ukip.

For many years farage has been seen as running a little englander party obsessed with the European commission but his opposition to the proposed war against syria, his admiration for putin’s peacemaking over syria, and his questioning of the role played by the european union in fomenting the violent, right wing, putsch in ukraine, shows that he is suddenly emerging as a much more formidable politician who is capable of dealing with major foreign policy issues. He has suddenly grown in political stature by voicing his opinions about foreign policies and britain’s role in global politics. Is it possible that he could win a significant amount of political support in this country by promoting common sensical and nationalistic foreign policies rather than, as he seems to have done in the past, relying exclusively on promoting domestic policies? The more he can do in faraging the country’s psychotic neocon warmongers the better for everyone in this country - not forgetting those who would suffer if this country launched further unwarranted, unjustifiable, illegal and immoral, military attacks on other countries.

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home