Obama Is to Blame for the Refugee Catastrophe;
We Urgently Need A Coalition Against ISIS!
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche
This article appears in the September 11, 2015 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Sept. 4—The worst refugee disaster since the end of World War II, in which millions of people are on the run from war, bestial terror gangs, hunger, and disease, is not the result of regional processes in the Middle East or Africa, but rather of a deliberate policy by Barack Obama, David Cameron, NATO,and the European Union (EU). If this obvious fact does not lead to a change in policy, the flow of desperate people trying to escape death by going to Europe will swell to many more millions. According to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR), there were already 60 million people, worldwide, in flight by the end of 2014, before the recent explosion.
The Washington Post announced self-righteously on September 4, under the headline "Europe's abdication," the moral and legal abdication of "European Christian culture," since it is meeting the refugees with "indifference, contempt, or the cold hostility of barbed wire and racism." What the paper covers up, with typical media-spin, is the fact that it was President Obama,—and Bush and Cheney before him,—who caused the devastation of the greater part of the Middle East and North Africa, and thus the resulting refugee catastrophe, through a whole series of wars which were built on lies; and through the two administrations' deliberate and intentional support for al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and ISIS, in order to overthrow the elected governments of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, one after the other.
Gen. Flynn Spills the Beans
In an unprecedented interview with the television network Al-Jazeera on July 31st of this year, General Michael Flynn, the former head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, accused the Obama Administration of intentionally—and not as a result of miscalculation—backing the ISIS organization, knowing full well that the intention of ISIS was to build an "Islamic caliphate" on the territory of Iraq and Syria. Even earlier, in May, a memorandum of the DIA from 2012 was made public due to a lawsuit by the organization Judicial Watch. It contained an analysis which found that the U.S. supply of weapons from Qaddafi's arsenal to the Syrian rebels would encourage their intention to establish an Islamic caliphate. Lt. General Flynn stressed that the policy of the White House was not an oversight, but a deliberate intention.
Gen. Flynn had been forced to resign from the post of DIA chief, after the reports produced under his authority had prompted the U.S. Chief of Staff Martin Dempsey to call off the planned U.S. military strike against Syria in September 2013 at the last moment, in a successful intervention against Obama.
In November 2012, Turkey had officially asked NATO for help, supposedly for protection against the Syrian Air Force which posed no serious threat to Turkey at that time. In response, the foreign ministers of the 28 NATO states approved the deployment of Patriot missiles, with the participation of Holland and Germany. Earlier, then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had already ordered the relocation of two Patriot units to Turkey. The Defense Secretary stressed explicitly that the missiles were expected to be used exclusively for the defense of Turkey, not to establish a no-fly zone over Syria.
But this was precisely the intention behind Erdogan's action. Erdogan, like the U.S. government, wanted to eliminate Assad, and to this end had supported various rebel groups in Syria, while attacking the only effective fighting force against ISIS by bombing the Kurds.
The mere presence of the Patriot missile defense systems in the Turkish province of Hatay was a major factor that enabled the al-Nusra organization, which is associated with al-Qaeda, to gain control of the province of Idlib and parts of Aleppo province, north of the city of Aleppo in Syria. In fact, the radar systems of Patriot missiles ranged far beyond the Turkish-Syrian border and prevented the Syrian Air Force from fighting the advancing jihadists. This obviously corresponded to Erdogan's intention,—when he requested the NATO air defense,—to establish a no-fly zone in Syria, under which the IS could operate with impunity. How could the military have overlooked that?
Russians Corroborate the Charge
The same view as that of General Flynn,—that the Obama Administration had deliberately built up ISIS, and therefore is responsible for the refugee catastrophe,—has now also been expressed by the head of the Russian Republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov. His father, the former president of Chechnya Akhmad Kadyrov, fell victim on May 9, 2004 to a bombing for which the Chechen Islamist rebel leader Shamil Basayev had claimed responsibility. Earlier, the American National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a source of funding for "color revolutions" around the globe, had provided handsome contributions to radical Islamists, who, during the two Chechen wars in the '90s, had already tried to establish an Islamic caliphate!
Ramzan Kadyrov recently told the press that he was in possession of information indicating that the former CIA chief and commander of the coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, had personally recruited the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, to work on behlaf of the United States. As the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on September 2, the same Petraeus is now proposing to woo away members of the al-Nusra Front—the al-Qaeda offshoot—and use them against the IS. The current head of IS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who, according to Kadyrov, is an asset of Petraeus, had previously been the founder of al-Nusra.
White House/Pete Souza
This madcap suggestion by Petraeus clearly launches another chapter in the unending saga of the American policy that began as early as 1975 with Zbigniew Brzezinski's plan to play the so-called "Islamic card"—at that time against the Soviet Union—and to train Afghan Mujahideen to fight the Soviets. That's where these insane policies began, and since then, the United States,—and of course, the British,—have trained a continual series of "good rebels," which are then deployed for regime change against sovereign states. The "good rebels" then become terrorists who turn against their trainers; the trainers then launch military strikes and drone attacks against them, which in turn produce more terrorists, against whom one must then recruit new "good rebels" who again turn against their trainers as terrorists, etc., etc.
This chain of events has continued now for 40 years and has not only transformed Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and much of sub-Saharan Africa into a hell; the ultimate goal is regime change in Russia and China. And that's a policy that would lead, with absolute certainty, to the third and final world war.
Go the Root
It will not be sufficient to treat the symptoms of this crisis. Of course, it is important to take action against the gangs smuggling illegal immigrants. But as of now the police and judiciary, as Der Spiegel headlined, are "absolutely stretched to their limits." Again, one must go at the roots of the problem.
For example: The smugglers in Libya, who send desperate people from Africa to their deaths in ridiculous boats on the Mediterranean Sea, are the same people whom Obama brought to power in his campaign against Qaddafi. The war correspondent for the Italian newspaper Il Giornale, Gian Micalessin, reported in the April 20 issue that the Obama Administration-backed government of the "Fajr Libya" ("Libyan Dawn") in Tripoli controls the smuggling of human beings across the Mediterranean. "Fajr Libya" is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was used by Obama and the Saudi Wahhabis to brutally eliminate Qaddafi. Today this grouping has a firm grip on human trafficking from Sudan, Chad, and Niger, and pockets between 800 and 1500 euros per refugee.
Of course, it is absolutely necessary to ensure that these refugees receive the aid to which they are entitled under the Geneva Convention. We have to really integrate them into the work force and society. But much more is needed. The hideous spectacle that the EU has provided in this crisis, inter alia, with their ongoing sanctions against Syria—and thus against the Syrian civilian population—demonstrates that an alliance that exists only on the basis of a monetary union and the interests of the banks, and is otherwise only the regional branch the Anglo-American empire, is worth absolutely nothing if real challenges emerge. We must draw the conclusion that we need a different Europe—one that has a vision and a solution for the problems that are now manifesting themselves in the refugee crisis.
The Sept. 3 military parade in Beijing demonstrated in a unique way that the strategic cards have been reshuffled. China and Russia have forged a close alliance, and the strategic superiority of the United States has been called into question by the Dongfeng-21D ("East Wind") missile, which was presented at the parade as a means for combatting aircraft carriers. These missiles, flying at ten times the speed of sound, cost only one twelve hundredth of the cost of the American aircraft carrier which they can neutralize.
It's time for Germany and the other nations in Europe to adjust to the prospect of a win-win cooperation between sovereign states on this planet, and cease to be the mindless lap-dogs of governments in Washington, which don't care about the interests of the American people, or even, in the slightest, the interests of Europeans. If we want to solve the refugee catastrophe, we have to seize this crisis as an opportunity to give Germany and Europe a completely new orientation.