This article by Alistair Crooke provides an interesting summary of US-Russia relationship and the drive by many in the US foreign policy establishment to increase tensions with Russia.

In Syria, the US

• wants its Islamist allies, led by al Qaeda, to control Aleppo
• This would take a major population center out of government control and provide leverage to oust Assad
• al Qaeda would be turned loose on the citizens of Aleppo
• This failed due to Russian military actions, but the US still wanted al Qaeda protected as they are the strongest anti-Assad force in the area
• the September deal with Russia seems to have the US agreeing to allow al Qaeda to be separated from the “less radical” jihadies and targeted

Is the US Establishment drive to demonize Russia about the US election?

“Which brings us to the complex question of the current demonization of Russia by the Cold War Bloc (which includes Hillary Clinton) in the U.S. presidential election campaign.

Gregory R. Copley, editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs has described the situation as one in which the U.S. Establishment is deliberately and intentionally “sacrificing key bilateral relationships in order to win [a] domestic election,” adding “in my 50 odd years covering the US government, I have never seen this level of partisanship within the administration where a sitting president actually regards the opposition party as the enemy of the state.”

In short, the stakes being played here – in demonizing Russia and Putin – go well beyond Syria or Ukraine. They lie at the heart of the struggle for the future of the U.S.”

A connection between Syria and Ukraine?

“And Kiev too is deploying along the entire borders of Donetsk and Lugansk. (A description of the military escalation by Kiev can be seen visually presented here).

Is Poroshenko’s U-turn the American “revenge” for Russia’s “win” in Syria – to heat up Ukraine, in order to drown President Putin in the Ukraine marshes? We do not know.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has boasted: “I think I tend to be in more direct conversation, for longer periods of time with the President [Poroshenko], than with my wife. (Laughter.) I think they both regret that (Laughter).”

Is it possible that Biden was not consulted before Poroshenko made his annual address to the Rada? We do not know, although within 48 hours of Poroshenko’s making his Rada address, Defense Secretary Ash Carter was in London, recommitting to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as he signed a “bilateral partner concept” with the Ukrainian defense minister.”

Of course, it must always be kept in mind that none of this is in the interest of the American people who finance it all.

Why is the US govt going out of its way to hide the involvement of Saudi Arabians in the murder of US citizens, and why is it going out of its way to hype the threat from Iran and Syria?  It’s doubtful that it has much to do with protecting American citizens.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/911-commission-saudi-arabia-hijackers?CMP=twt_gu

Foreign policy “experts” have their own agenda, and it isn’t keeping America secure.

From Robert Parry:

“In an April 2, 2011 email, Blumenthal informed Clinton that sources close to one of Gaddafi sons reported that Gaddafi’s government had accumulated 143 tons of gold and a similar amount of silver that “was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency” that would be an alternative to the French franc.

Blumenthal added that “this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.” Sarkozy also wanted a greater share of Libya’s oil production and to increase French influence in North Africa, Blumenthal wrote.

But few Americans would rally to a war fought to keep North Africa under France’s thumb. So, the winning approach was to demonize Gaddafi with salacious rumors about him giving Viagra to his troops so they could rape more, a ludicrous allegation that was raised by then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who also claimed that Gaddafi’s snipers were intentionally shooting children.”

Are “foreign policy elites” incompetent, or might they have another motive than what is commonly believed?  The foreign policy establishment is made up of individuals who produce no product that anyone in a free market would want to buy, so they must rely on the generosity of benefactors for their livings.  Those benefactors, be they governments or businesses that receive money from governments, have their own agendas, and those agendas have nothing to do with the average American citizen, other than to get into his pockets.

Here we read that “foreign policy elites” have advocated one disaster after another, and don’t want to work with a potential president who has openly criticized the results of their decisions and advocacy.  But if they are so obviously incompetent, then why are they still listened to?

Perhaps the people who pay their salaries don’t view them as incompetent or the results of their ideas as negative.  Some clues from today’s news:

Could money play a role in foreign policy, or is it all based on good old American goodness of intention?

Do “foreign policy elites” in the government view their constituents as the American people, or a small, powerful sliver of the American (and other) people?

Another question comes to mind:  why the obsession with Iran, and the protection of Saudi Arabia, which is a much more dangerous and destabilizing force than Iran could ever dream of being?  How many of the “foreign policy elite” are on the Saudi payroll, and how many are on the Iranian payroll?

This old article I found in a Daniel Sanchez piece today has it all:  flytrap theory, which worked, but in the opposite way American strategists thought it would; fight them over there instead of here; building democracy in the Arab world; bring ’em on.  It all seems like a long, long time and hubris ago.

Perhaps the oddest bit of logic from those days was that the U.S. being in Iraq created a target for terrorists other than Israel, a sort of red matador’s cape to distract the bull.  But unfortunately the cape takes the brunt of it until the matador, whoever that was supposed to be, finishes off the bull.  The cape looks as if it was actually the bull, and that bull is leery of returning to the ring this time.

From the Washington Post:
“France and Turkey, in turn, have pushed to establish a no-fly and buffer zone to protect refugees in northern Syria, an idea opposed by the United States, Germany and others. No country in the coalition is eager to send ground troops to Iraq or Syria, despite a shortage of reliable proxy forces in either country to fight the Islamic State head-to-head.”

Why would Turkey want a no-fly zone?  ISIS has no planes.  Turkey and France have been pushing for the no fly zone since 2011.  Turkey thought this would limit Syria’s military options, allowing the Turkish-allied Muslim Brotherhood in Syria to take over the government, which would in turn limit the Kurdish drive for sovereignty.  It hasn’t turned out that way, but Turkey hasn’t shifted its strategy.