Sunday, 21 February 2016

Could a Bomb Blast in Ankara Change the Outcome of the War in Syria?



Global Research, February 20, 2016
CounterPunch 19 February 2016

erdogan-carte
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems to think so. In fact, Erdogan is acting like Wednesday’s explosion in the capital was a gift from God. You see, Erdogan and his fellow Islamists think that if they pin the blame for the bombing on luckless patsy,  Salih Neccar, who has links to the Kurdish YPG, then they’ll be able to convince Washington that the YPG is a terrorist organization. And if they can convince Washington that the YPG a terrorist organization,  then Obama will have to break off relations with the YPG even though the Kurdish militia has been helping the US defeat ISIS in Syria.  And if  Obama breaks off relations with the YPG, then he’ll have to depend more on good old Turkey for his footsoldiers which is just hunky-dory with Erdogan  provided that Washington meet his numerous demands, that is.
So, could a bomb blast in Ankara change the outcome of the 5 year-long war in Syria?
It certainly could, if Obama is stupid enough to fall into Erdogan’s trap. But so far that looks unlikely.
The problem with Erdogan’s rationale is that the Obama administration is not convinced that the YPG is a terrorist organization. Nor are they certain that Neccar is guilty.  More important, the US maintains a crucial alliance with  the YPG in Syria which has helped them recapture strategic cities and territory from ISIS in the northern part of the country. The militia has provided the boots on the ground the US needs to prosecute its war in Syria.  Naturally, they are not going to end a relationship like that without solid evidence that the charges are true.
And there are plenty of reasons to believe the charges aren’t true. For example, the head of the Syrian PYD, Salih Muslim, has not only denied all responsibility for the Ankara bombing, but also stated that neither he nor any of his lieutenants have any idea who the perpetrator is.  (The PYD is the political wing of the YPG)
We have never heard of this person Salih Necar,” said Muslim, after which he added, “These accusations are clearly related to Turkish attempts to intervene in Syria.
Of course, Muslim could be lying, but you have to ask yourself whether or not the bombing achieves its political objectives if the perpetrators deny responsibility?  And the answer is “No, it doesn’t.” So why lie?
Here’s more from the New York Times:
…some analysts questioned the plausibility of (Erdogan’s) accusation, since mounting such an attack would jeopardize the group’s American support.
“These allegations are unfounded — lies with no truth to them,” Redur Xelil, a spokesman for the group said via WhatsApp from Qamishli, Syria.
“We are not enemies of Turkey, and our goal is to fight Daesh inside the Syrian borders,” he added, using an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State. “We have no interest in being enemies with Turkey.”…
“Sponsoring or being involved with car bombings in Turkish cities would break its alliance structure with the U.S. and Russia,” said Michael Stephens, research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security. “Neither of which the P.Y.D.-Y.P.G. wants. In short, the Y.P.G. have nothing to gain and everything to lose by being involved in this.” (“Turkey Blames Kurdish Militia for Ankara Attack, Challenging U.S.”, New York Times)
So who is responsible for Wednesday’s terrorist attack?
While no one knows for sure, many people think the Turkish government itself might have been involved which isn’t too far fetched when you consider that this same administration was implicated in a similar incident in 2014 when the foreign minister (who is currently the Prime Minister) was caught on tape cooking up a false flag operation with the head of Turkish Intel to create a pretext for invading Syria. Sound familiar? (See here for more.)
The fact that the Erdogan administration has been involved in this type of skullduggery before suggests that they might have gone to the well one time too often.. In any event, given what we know of their past,  the members of the Turkish government should, at the very least, feature very prominently on any list of probable suspects.  Add to that the fact that there’s now tons of evidence showing that the government has been arming, training and  funding terrorists in Syria, and the only conclusion a reasonable person can draw is that Turkey is governed by a thoroughly untrustworthy lot of  fanatical miscreants whose spurious accusations should be taken with a very large grain of salt..   Here’s more from yesterday’s Hurriyet:
“Although the PKK and the PYD are denying it, the information from the Interior Ministry and intelligence show that they are behind [the attack],” said Erdoğan, referring to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Democratic Union Party (PYD)…….
“This process will convince our friends in the international community to understand how tight the PYD and YPG’s connection to the PKK is,” Erdoğan said, repeating that Turkey had insisted on the link, submitting documents.”
See? This is all about convincing Washington that they’ve backed the wrong horse. Erdogan wants to muscle-out the Kurds, so he can take their place as place. That way, he can achieve his dream of annexing a 10-by-70 mile-wide strip of Syrian territory just south of the Turkish border that he wants to convert into a “safe zone” to provide a sanctuary for Sunni militants. The plan will prevent the Kurds from creating a contiguous state on the Syrian side of the border and, also, it will help keep open vital supply lines for jihadist allies conducting military operations in other parts of the Syria.
The Obama administration was sympathetic to this plan at one time, but Russia’s entry into the war in late September changed everything. Now the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), Iranian Quds Forces and Hezbollah are closing in on the Turkish border which has dashed any chance Turkey might have had to seize and hold Syrian territory without a direct confrontation with Russia, which Washington definitely does not want.  Bottom line: Washington has adjusted its strategy to the new reality on the ground while Turkey and the Saudis are still grasping at straws thinking the war can be won.
Sealing the border is a top priority for Moscow which pins its hopes for ending the war largely on its ability to stop the flow of Sunni fighters crossing over from Turkey.  According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:  “The key point for the ceasefire to work is a task of blocking illegal trafficking across the Turkish-Syrian border, which supports the militants.  Without closing the border it is difficult to expect the ceasefire to take place.” (The ceasefire is scheduled to begin on Friday)
So Russia is going to persist in its plan to close the border regardless of what Turkey does. At the same time, it has tried to signal to Turkey that if it goes ahead with its plan to invade Syria, there will be hell to pay. Check this out from Today’s Zaman:
A senior Russian official threatened Turkey, saying that it will face Russia and Iran if carries out a ground intervention in Syria….. Russia proved in Syria how powerful its weapons are and showed everybody that it will not hesitate to use them if necessary.”  (“Official: Turkey to face Russia, Iran if intervenes in Syria“)
Interestingly, the Russian foreign ministry delivered another chilly warning early Friday after receiving reports that  “Turkish military vehicles had crossed into an area in Syria controlled by the Kurds and were starting to dig trenches near Meidan Ekbis, a town in Aleppo province…. Dozens of Turkish military vehicles advanced 200 meters into the Syrian Kurdish region in Aleppo province on Thursday.” (ANHA news agency)
According to AMN News: ”
Asked about the implications of any ground incursion into Syria, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters: “We view Syria’s territory as the territory of a sovereign state. Any incursion into the territory of a sovereign state is illegal.” (AMN News)
The question is whether Putin will engage the Turkish military in a full-blown war just to recapture a few hundred meters of Syrian sovereign territory. I expect Putin will let the incident slide and chalk it up to “frustration” on Turkey’s part. If that’s the only victory that Erdogan requires, then it’s a price that’s worth paying. Putin has to stay focused on the big picture, and not get diverted by trivialities.
Of course, if Erdogan plans to push further into Syria, then there’s going to be trouble. After all, Moscow’s hands are tied. The only way it can hope to extricate itself from the conflict in Syria is by defeating the jihadists as quickly as possible, clearing out the hotbeds of resistance, and reestablishing security. If Turkey enters the war, that throws a wrench in everything. The tit-for-tat fighting will drag on for years, and there will probably never be a clear winner. This is exactly what Putin hopes to avoid. So, if Turkey launches an invasion and sends in ground troops, Putin will be forced to strike with everything-he’s-got to see if one, big shock and awe display of raw military power is enough to reverse the trend and send Erdogan’s legions packing. If it doesn’t work, and Turkey digs in, Syria could devolve into the mother of all quagmires, which is why we’re a little surprised that Obama is not pursuing a plan that would draw Turkey deeper into the fray, after all, Washington gains nothing strategically from its support for the YPG. In a way, the alliance makes no sense. Does Washington care about Kurdish aspirations for a homeland?
No. Does Obama want to help Putin clear the area North of Aleppo of jihadists, militants and opposition forces?
Of course not. Then what does Washington get?
Nothing.
An alliance with Erdogan, on the other hand, provides Washington with the footsoldiers it needs to fight its proxy war with Russia. It also creates a situation where Russia could get bogged down for years in a conflict that could drain its resources, undermine morale, and precipitate social unrest at home. Isn’t that exactly what Washington wants?
Indeed, it is, but there’s one glitch to the strategy that obviously has US ruling elites so worried that they have abandoned their support for any Turkish-led invasion into Syria.
What is that glitch?
It’s the fact that Turkish ground troops would require US air-cover and that, in turn, would pave the way for a military confrontation between Washington and Moscow. And that’s why Obama and Co. have scrapped the idea and moved on to Plan B.
So as reckless as one might think US foreign policy is, Washington still does not want to mix-it-up with Russia. We can all be thankful for that.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The Unholy Alliance...


While global powers bickered over Syria, it was all smiles and warm handshakes for the "Israeli" delegation at the Munich Security Conference, held in Germany last week.

The "Israeli" War Minister, Moshe Ya'alon, used the occasion to brag about Tel Aviv's efforts to deepen the Sunni-Shiite divide, while expressing "Israel's" readiness to supply Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf with nuclear weapons.

"We see signs that countries in the Arab world are preparing to acquire nuclear weapons, that they are not willing to sit quietly with Iran on the brink of a nuclear or atomic bomb," Ya'alon told fellow defense ministers on the last day of the conference.

But he did not stop there. Ya'alon went on to confirm - as if confirmation was needed - that the "Israelis" held a number of clandestine meetings with Persian Gulf monarchs.

"Iran is the bad guy for us and for the Sunni regimes. They are not shaking hands [with Israelis] in public, but we meet in closed rooms", Ya'alon said.

The director at the Institute for Gulf Affairs and expert on Saudi affairs, Ali al Ahmad, is not surprised.

"It's not a secret. I've known about this for decades; these meetings have been going on since the 90s," said al Ahmad.

One of these intimate, behind ‘closed doors' meetings was held just last month when the "Israeli" Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz, who also happens to be Netanyahu's point man on all matters related to Iran's nuclear energy program, reportedly met with a number of Arab monarchs during a secret trip to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.

According to "Israel's" Channel 2, Steinitz discussed 'shared concerns' with Arab officials - or in other words, ‘bad guy' Iran.
It was reported in November of last year that "Israel" was planning to open a diplomatic mission in Abu Dhabi that would be officially accredited to the International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], which is based in the UAE capital.


But while all of this is great news for the "Israelis", the Arab monarchs are not quite eager to shout it from the rooftops - at least not yet.

So when Moshe Ya'alon wrapped up his speech in Munich, Saudi Arabia's Prince Turki al-Faisal, who was also attending the discussion, made an intervention.

"Handshakes with "Israelis" have not helped the Palestinians much," al-Faisal said in reference to the Arabs' ‘support' for the Palestinian cause.
The exchange that followed between the two - during which Ya'alon claimed that there was no connection between the "Israeli" occupation of Palestine and the current regional turmoil - was amusing at best.


As he concluded his speech, al-Faisal then proceeded to contradict his initial statement by extending his hand and shaking Ya'alon's.
Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon shakes hands with Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal
The warm greeting, in which the two appear to be congratulating one another on a great performance, was later posted on Ya'alon's Twitter page, along with the following caption: "Meeting with Saudi Arabia's Turki al-Faisal at Munich."

According to al Ahmad, "when the British divided the region they facilitated the creation of three states that were meant to endure the ages; Saudi Arabia, Jordan and "Israel". Without the two Arab states, "Israel" would not exist either. Today this is a symbiotic relationship, they survive together and if one fails it endangers the others."

But today the century-long, uninterrupted rule by the Saudi royal family is facing existential challenges. Bankrolling terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq, while failing to attain their geopolitical goal of ousting President Bashar al-Assad, Riyadh has also been bombing its southern neighbor Yemen for nearly a year, but is no closer to reinstating the puppet regime of Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi.

In their latest article, titled 'Start Preparing for the Collapse of the Saudi Kingdom', Sarah Chayes and Alex De Waal warn that, "Saudi Arabia is no state at all. It's an unstable business so corrupt to resemble a criminal organization and the US should get ready for the day after."

Washington, which always used the Saudis as a counterweight against Iran, appears to have already prepared for the ‘day after'. The Americans have signed off on the Iranian nuclear agreement, abandoning plans for a direct military intervention in Syria to topple the Damascus government, and leaving the Saudis fuming.

Enter the 'unholy alliance'.

Al Ahmad thinks that Riyadh now enjoys the full backing of the Israelis and their global assets.

"They have the same approaches and the same enemies. They are cooperating on many different levels. Now the Saudis have the support of the Zionist lobbies, from the economists in the US to the bureaucrats at the UN, all of them working in tandem to label and dehumanize the victims of Saudi aggression, essentially justifying murder," al Ahmad said.
The Turks and "Israelis" have been the only ones who could not be publicly shamed into not supporting terrorist groups in the region while openly targeting forces engaged against factions like Daesh.

The Saudis appear eager to join their ranks, announcing plans earlier this month to deploy ground troops in Syria.

But statements by Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Ankara increasingly reek of desperation, as Moscow's military support for Damascus, Hizbullah and Iran, coupled with Washington's waning influence, completely alters the regional balance of power.

Amid the desperation, Turkey is openly waving the Daesh flag, so it should come as no surprise if the "Israeli" flag is raised above Riyadh, Abu Dhabi or Doha.
Source: al-Ahed News
20-02-2016 | 09:31

Related articles
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Syrian Army Regains More Areas in Lattakia & Aleppo, Crushes Terrorists

The Syrian Arab Army went ahead Saturday in its crackdown against Takfiri terrorists organizations in different Syrian regions, destroying their positions and dens.
Lattakia
The army restored security and stability to two villages and a number of sSyrian armytrategic points in the northern countryside of Lattakia, a military source said on Saturday.
The two villages are Ain al-Qantara and Mahshaba, which are located in the surroundings of the strategic Kensabba town that came under the army’s control two days ago.
Other areas including Rweiset al-Kitf, Rweiset Taloukshi and Rweiset Wata al-Sindianeh and a number of strategic points are now in the army’s hands.
The source told SANA that the operations in those areas were carried out in cooperation between the army units and the popular defense groups and were preceded by intensive firing at the terrorists’ remaining positions.
Later, the explosive devices and mines planted by the terrorists were removed.
The army’s air force then continued airstrikes in the surrounding areas, destroying al-Nusra Front (Qaeda branch in the Levant) sites in Kebaneh village near Kensabba town.
Aleppo
Army units restore security and stability to villages of Treikiyeh, al- Zaalaneh, Balat and Tal Alam and forced ISIL terrorists out of the Thermal Power Station and the surrounding areas in the eastern countryside of Aleppo.
Earlier, several positions and vehicles for ISIL terrorists were destroyed in army airstrikes in the villages and towns of Maskaneh, al-Shimawiyeh and al-Madiouneh and in al-Bab city in the eastern and northeastern countryside of Aleppo.
In the meantime, army units inflicted losses upon al-Nusra terrorists in Fah and Souran villages in the northern countryside.
Army operations in the southwestern and western countryside resulted in destroying fortifications of terrorists in the villages of al-Buwabiyeh, Shuweihneh and Abu Shailam.
In Aleppo city, several vehicles and mortar launchers for the terrorists were destroyed in al-Rashidin and al-Lairamoun areas.
Homs
The army’s air force conducted a series of sorties targeted positions of ISIL and al-Nusra terrorists in the countryside of Homs during the past 24 hours.
Several ISIS sites and vehicles transporting terrorists were hit in the surroundings of al-Qaryatain city and to the south of al-Mahasseh area in the southeastern countryside of the province, according to the military source.
ISIL terrorists in al-Buseiri area, located on Palmyra international highway, also suffered heavy losses in the airstrikes.
Gatherings of al-Nusra terrorists were targeted by the air force in the villages of Teir Maala, al-Jassemiyeh and al-Ghajar and Talbiseh town in the northern countryside of Homs.
Idleb/Hama
A site and a vehicle for “Jund al-Aqsa” terrorist organization, which pledged allegiance to ISIL, were hit in army airstrikes in al-Tamaneh town in the southern countryside of Idleb.
Five terrorists were killed and 11 others were injured as a result, a military source told SANA on Saturday.
Gatherings of terrorists and several of their vehicles were also targeted in Kafr Sinjeh in the same countryside.
The army’s air force also targeted a gathering of vehicles for Jaish al-Fatah terrorists in Abu al-Duhour area in the east southern countryside of Idleb. The vehicles were destroyed in the airstrikes, according to the source.
In the northern countryside of the neighboring Hama province, the air force hit gatherings of terrorists from al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham Islamic Movement in Kafr Zita town.
35 terrorists from Jaish al-Fatah were killed in army airstrikes on their hideouts in al-Latamneh, Atshan and Hur Bnafso.
Terrorists from al-Nusra operating in Hur Bnafso, al-Rawdeh and Talaf villages in the southern countryside suffered heavy losses in army airstrikes.
The terrorist organizations acknowledged on their social media pages the death of what they identify as the leader of the central force of Ahrar al-Sham Islamic Movement who is named Sulaiman Adel Shanat.
Quneitera/Daraa

The Takfiri terrorist organizations acknowledged on their pages on the social networking websites that 18 of their members were killed in the countryside of Quneitra and Daraa over the past three days including a number of their leaders.
Damascus countryside
The army’s air force intensified strikes against positions of Jaish al-Islam terrorists in Eastern Gouta in Damascus countryside during the past few hours.
The source stressed that a number of sites and vehicles transporting terrorists and carrying weapons were destroyed in the towns of Bait Nayem and Otaiya, located in al-Nashabiyeh area in Douma.
Deir Ezzor
The army’s air force targeted in sorties, conducted during the past 24 hours, positions and movements of ISIL terrorists in al-Mrei’iyeh village in eastern Deir Ezzor.
The source confirmed to SANA that a number of sites and vehicles equipped with heavy machine guns were destroyed in the airstrikes, in addition to the death of many terrorists.
Source: Agencies
20-02-2016 – 17:38 Last updated 20-02-2016 – 17:38


Related Videos

Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

VIDEO: Battle to Liberate Kinsabba [Latakia countryside]


Age-restricted video (requested by uploader).
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Europol: Up to 5000 Militants Returned from Syria, Walking Freely in Europe

Europe’s top police chief said that between 000 and 5,000 EU citizens returned to the continent from fighting in Syria and Iraq and pose a “completely new challenge.”
“Europe is currently facing the highest terror threat in more than in a decade,” Rob Wainwright, Europol’s director, told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung daily, warning of the real possibility of ISIL or other terror groups attacks in Europe.  

up to 5000 Militants Returned from Syria, Walking Freely in Europe
“We can expect ISIL or other religious terror groups to stage an attack somewhere in Europe with the aim of achieving mass casualties among the civilian population,” he said, noting that the risk of attacks by individuals has also not diminished.

However, Wainwright refused to link the unprecedented increase in the terror threat with the ongoing refugee crisis. He refuted the widespread assumption that terrorists are infiltrating Europe under the guise of asylum seekers.

"There are no concrete indications that terrorists are systematically using the stream of refugees to come into Europe undetected," Wainwright said.

Last month, former UK Defense Secretary Liam Fox expressed concern that Takfiris could sneak into the EU among asylum-seekers. Southern European countries through which they travel “have no idea whether these people are genuine refugees or asylum seekers, or economic migrants, or terrorists operating under the cover of either,” he said.

These worries were substantiated after the German domestic intelligence service confirmed in February that it had received more than 100 tip-offs alleging ISIL militants had arrived in the country pretending to be refugees. The news prompted further debate on EU migration policy.

Source: Websites
20-02-2016 - 12:15 Last updated 20-02-2016 - 14:52

Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Europe's foreign policy being determined by the USA controlled NATO wild card

NATO and the Bananazation of Western Europe

By Joan Roelofs | CounterPunch | February 19, 2016
shutterstock_344966537 

The wars of NATO are well-publicized but NATO as an institution remains in the shadows. Does NATO aspire to be a world government? Why did Western European countries join and why have they remained part of the alliance? It is not an egalitarian organization. The United States dominates every aspect of it. Are these supposedly social democratic countries really democracies, or are they banana republics? The traditional banana republic has democratic institutions, but is controlled by military and financial elites which are vassals of the United States. 
Why NATO was formed is controversial. The official US justification was fear of an invasion by the Soviet Union to promote communism in Western Europe. There was never any evidence that this might happen, but then anything is possible. 
There is evidence that other motives were more important. One was to facilitate the re-arming of Germany by embedding it in a larger military grouping. 
Western European countries were wary of an independent German military establishment. Another was the desire of pro-capitalist elites to prevent domestic socialist or communist electoral or revolutionary victories. This was much more of a threat than a Soviet invasion.
The founding treaty clearly states:
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nationsto settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
The operative part is Article 5:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Members are not required to respond with military force; they can decide how far they want to go. 
NATO, formed in 1949, now has twenty-eight full members: AlbaniaBelgiumBulgariaCanadaCroatia, the Czech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourg, the NetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainTurkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 
However, NATO is a vast empire with an expanding group of full members, plus networks, partnerships, associates, and guests. The Partnership for Peace includes: Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Montenegro, Malta, Moldova, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan. These nations choose from a “menu” how far they want to go with NATO. Options include joint missions, combating terrorism, crisis response in the NATO Reaction Force (NRF), controlling mines and small arms, disaster rescue, war games, and scientific cooperation. 
PfP members aspiring to full membership must have: weapons interoperability (e.g., Eastern Europe countries had to get rid of Russian and old Warsaw Pact arms in favor of Western ones), increase military spending to 2% of the GDP, purge “politically unreliable” personnel from military, defense and security posts, train abroad in NATO military academies, host military exercises, and instruct the officer corps in English for joint overseas operations. 
Other NATO associates are the Mediterranean Dialogue countries: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia; and the Gulf Cooperation Council: Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates. Also, there are cooperating members: Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, Pakistan, Republic of Korea. New Zealand, Mongolia. Informally cooperating are Colombia, Honduras, and El Salvador. 
NATO’s aggressive “out of area” operations, have been multilateral, with willing participation of NATO members. The official military operations have been in Bosnia (1992-1994), Serbia and Kosovo (1999-present), Afghanistan (2001-present), counter piracy off Somalia coast (2008-present), Libya (2011), Turkey defense (2012-present). 
NATO created a global army; the war in Afghanistan was fought by the largest military coalition in history. Finnish and Swedish troops (not full members) have died there; their countries are considering joining NATO. The defeated countries of World War II, which had constitutional provisions and laws against offensive military activity, including sending troops abroad, were also there. Italy and Germany sent troops and Japan provided support services.
NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg said last December:
NATO is playing a key role in the fight against ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) . . . All NATO allies are part of the coalition, the anti-ISIL coalition, and I think it’s of great importance for the coalition that both NATO allies but also many NATO partners are part of the coalition and they can take advantage of the interoperability that we have developed, our ability to work together which we have developed over many years through NATO military operations but also through NATO exercises. So the backbone of the forces in the coalition is provided by NATO and NATO partners.
NATO downplays its military nature and claims that it is simply the “premier organization of democratic nations.” This claim was part of the inducement for Eastern European countries to join. The new idea of both the US military and NATO is that security is no longer a territorial issue­–everything is relevant to it. Any policy of any nation anywhere in the world, concerning economics, human rights, the environment, secession movements, etc., may be a cause of terrorism or create an external threat that needs to be thwarted in advance, by NATO. 
NATO is closely connected to military, political, scientific, and corporate elites. Europe now has a huge military-industrial complex. BAE Systems, the largest military firm, is British owned, and has factories in New Hampshire, US, and many other places. The major Italian arms manufacturer, Finmeccanica, and French, Thales, are heavily government supported. EADS is a conglomerate headquartered in the Netherlands, with main subsidiaries in France, Germany and Spain. The Netherlands has recently announced a purchase of 37 F-35 fighter planes; some part of it is made there. Sweden also has a significant very high tech military industry. 
The European Union is closely enmeshed with NATO. During its formative period, the original nations sent NATO ambassadors to Paris, its early headquarters. They developed a pro-NATO view which often differed from their governments. Currently, the EU executive and NATO both have headquarters in Brussels. 
When information came out about the secret “Gladio” armies, about the thousands of nuclear weapons formerly and some still in Europe, nuclear waste dumps, and testing and use of DU weapons, it became clear that crucial NATO activities are unknown not only to the ordinary citizen, but also to parliamentary representatives and even prime ministers if they are not part of the inner circle. Denmark’s constitution and laws ban nuclear weapons, but they were in Greenland. The complicity of 14 European governments (East and West) in recent renditions of “suspects” was also a surprise to citizens of the greatest democracies. Sweden, not a member (but now a partner), has been secretly aiding NATO since the beginning. 
NATO is building a massive new headquarters suitable for a global empire. Among its diverse activities are grants for many types of science research. Ukraine is now a major grantee in its science program, where a multinational capacity for disaster response is being developed. The multinational telemedicine system can be used for both civilian and military applications. 
Another project studies images and perceptions of NATO among the five Global Partners in the Asia-Pacific region: Australia, Japan, Mongolia, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea. “The project will conduct comprehensive comparative research of elite perceptions and media images of NATO as a global security actor to identify, measure, and raise global awareness, as well as extend knowledge of NATO in the region.” 
The 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to a Turkish NATO funded researcher, Aziz Sancar, who studied the mechanism of DNA repair. Now that everything affects security, NATO sponsors research in women’s reproductive choices, sustainable development, leather tanning effluent toxicity, landscape architecture, and stained glass preservation. Many projects are conducted jointly by teams including NATO member and PfP nationals, facilitating the mentoring of initiates. 
Economic, political, educational, and social activities give NATO a friendly face. Internships at its Brussels headquarters are offered to students of political science, international relations, security studieseconomicsengineering, human resources, information technology, library science, aeronautics, and journalism. It gives grants to environmental and other organizations just like a philanthropic foundation. On the other hand, citizens who protest the “out of area” aggressions are often branded as extremists or simply ignored. 
NATO training includes massive war games, in which all members and many partners participate. For example, in 2013, “Steadfast Jazz,” a live-fire exercise, included partners Ukraine, Finland, and Sweden. 
A network of training institutions exists in Europe, and NATO members are also trained in US military colleges and our great universities. The Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Germany provides combat training, and links European forces with US National Guard units. The Marshall Center for Security Studies, also in Germany, features university-type military training, and like many of the war colleges, educates civilian leaders and potential leaders as well as military personnel. 
Military training throughout the world is an important part of the US empire. The US Department of Defense/State Department joint report to Congress for 2014 states that 52,600 people from 155 nations were trained—but this does not include NATO members, Australia, Japan, or New Zealand, because they are not required for the report. All arms sales are accompanied by training. 
The relationships acquired through training, conferences, seminars, and joint exercises are a source of considerable power, as these experiences help younger people to move up the ladder to civilian and military leadership in their countries. 
Bases are also a source of influence. At one time there were more than 800 in Europe; now it is estimated that there are about 350. Originally, there were hundreds in Germany. Everywhere bases generate economic activity and also enable surveillance and influence, as explained in the fine study by Catherine Lutz, The Bases of Empire. 
Why did Western European nations join and now remain in NATO?
There was the idea promoted that the Soviet Union was poised to invade Western Europe. Its dissemination was aided by close links among the CIA, FBI, and foreign intelligence agencies. The foreign press was complicit, and in addition, the CIA and private foundations created new publications, such as Encounter in London, and others in France, Italy, Germany and elsewhere. Conferences, such as those of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, were held to lure European intellectuals away from socialist and pacifist ideologies. 
Christian Democratic parties—bulwarks against communism and prime advocates of the “Atlantic alliance”—suddenly sprang up in many countries. They had been small entities before World War II; now they became governing parties, with an especially strong hold in Italy. The massive CIA funding to defeat the Italian Communist Party is well documented; there is evidence that similar activities were in place elsewhere in Europe. The NATO countries in turn financed Christian Democratic parties throughout Latin America. 
Occupied Italy and Germany eventually joined NATO; they were already under the influence. In addition, some in those countries regarded membership as a sign of their conversion and redemption: they were with the “democratic” West. Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey were fascist countries, so militarism and anti-communism were natural for them. 
But why the social democratic countries? 
There was fear that Germany might develop an independent military, so embedding any future German army in a US led coalition was reassuring. Besides, the economic costs of each country creating its own high tech military seemed daunting. The UN Charter, which outlawed war, did not forbid national armies or regional alliances. In addition, the officials in the defense ministries of otherwise progressive countries tended to be conservative and believers in armed preparedness. The NATO alliance appeared especially useful in controlling socialist and communist parties within their countries. Those parties generally opposed NATO so had to be countered on that ground alone. 
Ongoing support for NATO had the help of the Bilderberg group. This conspiratorial elite first met in the Netherlands in 1954, and consists of the power elite and potential leaders of North America and Western Europe. The group was especially concerned with the threat of socialism or communism from whatever source and was strongly oriented toward the Atlantic alliance. No formal resolutions are made or policies adopted. It is assumed that the members will apply the sense of the meeting in their exalted positions. 
Public opinion in war-torn and impoverished Europe was influenced by Marshall Plan aid, which warmed up attitudes toward the US. A spinoff of the loan program was the repayment in local currency. These funds enabled the US to covertly or sometimes overtly subsidize center and right-wing citizen organizations, political parties, and unions 
One example is the Labour Party of Britain, which was a double threat. Clause 4 of its constitution called for nationalization of major industries, and its mainstream supported the post-war Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and opposed NATO. Secretly, the CIA lavishly funded and promoted a small conservative group in the party, organized around the Socialist Commentary journal. This group believed the Atlantic alliance was needed to forestall a Soviet invasion, and also held that given the “welfare state,” nationalization was no longer required. Those of this persuasion gradually moved into the party leadership. 
Sweden, a neutral country and still not a full NATO member, nevertheless covertly collaborated with the US during World War II. It established a resistance army, to combat a possible Nazi invasion. This was a model for the secret “fall-back” armies which NATO later created throughout Western Europe, including in neutral Sweden and Switzerland. 
Known as the “Gladio” project, the name of the Italian branch, they were presumably to offer resistance to a Soviet invasion. However, later government investigations, in Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland, found them complicit in domestic terrorism, political manipulations, and neo-Nazi activities. The existence of these armies was not known to the public, journalists, or most European politicians until after 1990. 
Sweden cooperated with NATO all along, even though policies enacted during the administration of Prime Minister Olaf Palme forbade any war planning with NATO. The Swedish Security Service, military and intelligence agencies collaborated with the US, and their strong connections in the public broadcasting system gave them great influence over public opinion. Furthermore, the very important Swedish defense industry is intertwined with US military technology, and contrary to public policy, was sending weapons to the US for use in its war against Iraq. In 2009, war games “Loyal Arrow” were conducted by 10 countries in Northern Sweden, as a preliminary move to extend US and NATO military presence into Arctic regions—and confronting Russia in that area. 
Norway would have preferred a Scandinavian alliance, but when this didn’t happen, it joined NATO, and this influenced Denmark and Iceland to follow. The (conservative) Icelandic Foreign Minister had been part of secret talks with the US regarding landing rights and hoped that a NATO installation would dampen the strong communist and socialist movements. Pressure was put on the reluctant public by suggesting that the Soviet fishing fleet near Iceland was really a military force that would occupy Iceland along with a “fifth column” of Icelandic socialists. 
Denmark was reluctant to join NATO, but was persuaded. However, the public and even most political leaders were unaware of the plans for nuclear installations in Greenland that were part of secret agreements. These were illegal and unconstitutional in Denmark. 
The French and Dutch joined, although there was much dissent. Under the leadership of DeGaulle, France opted out of the central command in 1966 and removed foreign occupation of military bases. However, it had its own nuclear armed military, and secret agreements to fight with NATO if trouble came. In 2009, France agreed to resume full membership. 
The Dutch have been particularly unhappy about nuclear weapons, which are still present in Italy, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands and Turkey. Belgium was particularly hard hit economically by postwar developments, so the location of NATO headquarters in Brussels helped to cement attachment. 
With the transformation and dissolution of the Soviet Union, many thought NATO was obsolete. However, the attacks of 9-11 created more enthusiasm. This was dampened by the invasion of Iraq (not an official NATO action) and Afghanistan, which invoked Article 5 on shaky grounds. Nevertheless, 50 nations participated in the Afghan attack, including, as mentioned previously, neutral Sweden and demilitarized Japan. More recent terrorism has revived support for NATO in Europe; France has drawn much closer. 
Some believe that NATO’s activities and its very existence conflict with the spirit of the UN, while others maintain that NATO is an essential operating arm of UN collective security, with knowhow and extensive high-tech weaponry. 
In the classical “banana republic,” the United States controls crucial foreign and/or domestic policies of another nation through ties with its military and intelligence institutions. Only now, there is resistance in the lands where bananas grow, while “social democratic,” “neutral,” and reputedly “pacifist” countries of Western Europe are slipping into bananazation. Ordinary citizens have strong anti-war feelings and continue protesting, yet the military, political, and corporate elites of Europe have increasingly become dependents or confederates of the US military-industrial complex.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!