Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I agree in general with the flow chart, but I don't think it explains Libya or (to a lesser degree) Syria. Both these states were under Bush the lesser becoming clients. Doing Americas torture, collaborating with keeping refugees out of Europe in exchange for (at least in Libya's case) surveillance tech and money (some of which returned as kick-backs). Liberalising the economy, sending the leader's sons to London for education etc.

So according to the chart they were at "J", were you end up if you are neither a client nor an enemy, and is being groomed as a client. At some point they were kicked over to "R" (with a bit of "Q"). And to get there you need to be an enemy. So at some point, budding clients were shuffled over to the enemy column, through no apparent action from the clients. With the "successful" result in Libya being a perfectly predictable (given Afghanistan and Iraq) end result of prolonged civil war with the economic collapse, refugee crisis and assorted horrors.

And that is where I get stuck. Is destruction of these states an intended goal? But that is nuts from an imperial perspective. Why would any paranoid leader trust the US henceforth? If selling out doesn't earn a retreat in Monaco, a fat Swiss bank account and a dynasty for the kids, but instead you and yours are hunted down, then why sell out?

Of course, incompetence is always a possibility, but both of these happened mainly during the rather competent Obama administration.

Competing government factions is also a possibility, but I have not found much indication of competition on whether to attack, only on how.

There's always arms sales and the need for conflict for promotions etc. And of course wacky political theories within the establishment, like domino theories.

But still, it's hard to see the logic here. The flow chart illustrates this by not really representing such an illogic move.

by fjallstrom on Fri Jun 1st, 2018 at 11:36:59 AM EST
The diagram isn't intended to explain any one client state's policy formulation. It isn't intended to represent or evaluate any one client state's sovereign competencies.

It is a simplified "decision tree" model of US rules to evaluate any foreign event dependency on US imperial cooperation. Conditional tests (boolean results, Y/N) prescribe US action at any given point in time. But all event "branching" begins with one question (Is the country a client state?) and terminates at the US desired outcome: That is control of a state's domestic and foreign policies to serve "American Empire" (pink boxes).

Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Angola are all children of the US "enemy state" branch of so-called clients. All have entertained communist domestic and foreign policies since WWII. They didn't "move." US/NATO Cold War aggression repeated "foreign policy" events.

NODE N: Angola 1975, Afghanistan 1979-91, Syria 2011, (US) "support of insurgent forces"
NODE R: Afghanistan 2001 +17, Libya 2011 +7, Syria 2014 +4, (US) "aid to armed opposition forces"

All of them have attempted over the period to avert destruction --or appease the US-- by varying degrees of bribery, occupation, ingratiation, and "collaboration"  and have failed. a/o today. What's odd isn't US-designated "dictator" paranoia, it's the number of so-called clients like Lebanon that are missing.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sat Jun 2nd, 2018 at 06:13:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
NODE 7D: Columbia 2000,"Advising role" | 7E: Liberia 1992, "Military support (if possible)
NATO Comes to South America: Colombia Becomes Alliance's Official Partner 2018
Colombia joins Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand, and Pakistan -- other nations also listed as "partners across the globe" or "global partners," but none of them in Latin America. The areas for cooperation include improvements to the combat capabilities of the Colombian military, good governance, military education and training, the security of sea lanes, cyber security, and ways to combat terrorism and organized crime. A partnership agreement with NATO was reached a year ago (May 2017) after the Colombian government concluded a peace accord with FARC, a former terrorist group that has since become a respectable political party.
There is a backstory to the announcement about Bogota being granted official NATO status. Last month, six South American states, including Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia, suspended their memberships in UNASUR, the anti-US bloc, to express their dissatisfaction with Bolivia's leadership, thus rendering the SADC irrelevant.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Sat Jun 2nd, 2018 at 06:33:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series