‘The U.S. Helps Reconstruct the Ottoman Empire’

Each of these United States military interventions occurred in an area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire, and where a secular regime was replaced by an Islamist one. So far, the German policy of keeping hidden its leadership role in its attempt to reconstitute the Ottoman Empire has succeeded.

Since the mid-1990s the United States has intervened militarily in several internal armed conflicts in Europe and the Middle East: bombing Serbs and Serbia in support of Izetbegovic’s Moslem Regime in Bosnia in 1995, bombing Serbs and Serbia in support of KLA Moslems of Kosovo in 1999, bombing Libya’s Gaddafi regime in support of rebels in 2010. Each intervention was justified to Americans as motivated by humanitarian concerns: to protect Bosnian Moslems from genocidal Serbs, to protect Kosovo Moslems from genocidal Serbs, and to protect Libyans from their murderous dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Other reasons for these interventions were also offered: to gain for the United States a strategic foothold in the Balkans, to defeat communism in Yugoslavia, to demonstrate to the world’s Moslems that the United States is not anti-Moslem, to redefine the role of NATO in the post-Cold War era, among others.

Each of these United States military interventions occurred in an area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire. In each, a secular regime was ultimately replaced by an Islamist one favoring sharia law and the creation of a world-wide Caliphate. The countries that experienced the “Arab Spring” of the 2010s without the help of American military intervention, Tunisia and Egypt, had also been part of the Ottoman Empire, and also ended up with Islamist regimes.

In the United States most discussions of the military conflicts of the 1990s in the Balkans and the “Arab Spring” of the 2010s do not mention that the areas involved had been part of the Ottoman Empire; these included Turkey, the Moslem-populated areas around the Mediterranean, Iraq, the coastal regions of the Arabian Peninsula and parts of the Balkans. In the areas that experienced the Arab Spring Turkey’s role in every instance has been to support the rebels and quickly recognize them as the legitimate government of the country in upheaval.

Turkish leaders do make the connection between the conflicts in the Bosnia, the “Arab Spring” and the Ottoman Empire. Harold Rhode, an American expert on Turkey, has reported:

[President of Turkey] Erdogan’s recent [2011] electoral victory speech puts his true intentions regarding Turkey’s foreign policy goals in perspective. He said that this victory is as important in Ankara as it is in the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sarajevo, under Ottoman times, an important Ottoman city; that his party’s victory was as important in a large Turkish city Izmir, on the Western Anatolian coast, as it is in Damascus, and as important in Istanbul as it is in Jerusalem….

In saying that this victory is as important in all of these former Ottoman cities, Erdogan apparently sees himself as trying to reclaim Turkey’s full Ottoman past.

The occurrence that since 1990 each European and Middle Eastern country that experienced American military intervention in an internal military conflict or an “Arab Spring” has ended up with a government dominated by Islamists of the Moslem Brotherhood or al-Qaeda variety fits nicely with the idea that these events represent a return to Ottoman rule. Besides being a political empire ruling a territory and its population, the Ottoman Empire claimed to be a Caliphate with spiritual suzerainty over all Moslems – those within its borders and those beyond. Though it might seem strange at first, the idea of advancing the renewal of the Ottoman Empire on two tracks – breaking down the post-Ottoman political structure and promoting a Caliphate which Islamists say they long for – is really quite reasonable.

Just as the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s and the “Arab Spring” of the 2010s considered in historical perspective suggests that Turkey might be attempting to recreate its former empire, consideration of the Turkish Empire in historical perspective suggests the possible partnership of Germany with Turkey in the project given that, from its creation in 1870, Germany viewed Turkey with its empire as a most valuable client and ally. In the view of the leaders of Germany, Turkey was controllable through a combination of economic intercourse, gifts of educational opportunities, provision of technical expertise and administrative aid, as well as bribes to Turkish officials. Germany saw influence over Turkey as a means of influencing Moslems worldwide for its own interests. Thus as the German scholar Wolfgang Schwanitz has shown, during World War I Germany employed the Turkish Caliphate to promote jihad – riot and rebellion – in areas where Moslem populations were ruled by its enemies Russia, France, Britain and Serbia.

Yet in the 50-odd articles collected in an exploration of the awareness on the part of Americans of a possible Turkish connection with the “Arab Spring,” I found not a single mention of “Germany.” Only from a link in one of those articles – to an article on the International Criminal Court (ICC) which, with its indictment of Muammar Gaddafi and issue of a warrant for his arrest, provided the “legal” basis legitimizing NATO’s bombing of Libya — which gave the rebels their victory and ended the Gaddafi regime – did I find mention of Germany. From that article, “A Lawless Global Court” by John Rosenthal (Policy Review Feb. 1. 2004 No.123), one learns that the ICC is a project initiated, promoted and, to a considerable extent, funded by Germany. Given this, the idea that the ICC serves Germany’s purposes is common sense. Through the ICC connection, Germany’s promotion of the “Arab Spring” is clear. Yet it is never or almost never mentioned. This silence calls for explanation.

Later, I did come across an explicit reference to Germany’s role in it — specifically in the war against the Assad regime in Syria — in John Rosenthal’s article “German Intelligence: al-Qaeda all over Syria” in the online Asia Times ­­­­­­­­­­­­ — which reports that the German government supports the rebels and their political arm, the Syrian National Council (SNC), against Assad; that the German government classified [made secret] “by reason of national interest” the contents of several BND (German foreign intelligence) reports that the May 25, 2012 massacre of civilians in the Syrian town of Houla, for which Assad has been blamed, was in fact perpetrated by rebel forces; and that “the German foreign office is working with representatives of the Syrian opposition to develop ‘concrete plans’ for a ‘political transition’ in Syria after the fall of Assad.” So far the German policy of keeping hidden its leadership role in the attempt to reconstitute the Ottoman Empire seems to have succeeded.

Each U. S. military action in Europe and the Middle East since 1990, however, with the exception of Iraq, has followed an overt pattern: First there is an armed conflict within the country where the intervention will take place. American news media heavily report this conflict. The “good guys” in the story are the rebels. The “bad guys,” to be attacked by American military force, are brutally anti-democratic, and committers of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Prestigious public figures, NGOs, judicial and quasi-judicial bodies and international organizations call for supporting the rebels and attacking the regime. Next, the American president orders American logistical support and arms supplies for the rebels. Finally the American president orders military attack under the auspices of NATO in support of the rebels. The attack usually consists of aerial bombing, today’s equivalent of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’ gunboat which could attack coastal cities of militarily weak countries without fear of retaliation. The ultimate outcome of each American intervention is the replacement of a secular government with an Islamist regime in an area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire.

Why the government of the United States would actively promote German aims — the destruction of Yugoslavia (both World Wars I and II saw Germany invade Serbia) and the re-creation of the Ottoman Empire — is a question that needs to be answered –http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3728/germany-new-ottoman-empire

Similarly, the foray into Libya had NOTHING to do with protecting the population, under the nauseating refrain of humanitarian imperatives, but everything to do with empowering the Brotherhood Mafia and its offshoots, R2P (Responsibility To Protect) gobblygook aside – https://adinakutnicki.com/2013/04/29/solving-benghazigate-via-its-underlying-calculus-will-illuminate-bostons-jihad-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/. Most significantly, its policy author, Samantha Powers – an anti-semitic reprobate and anti-American too – will now front for Obama Inc. as its UN rep!

Thus, it is imperative to understand what animates this “new found” thrust for the Ottoman Empire, not from Euro and Turkish vantage points, but from Washington’s perspective. In this regard, Obama Inc. is not only assisting the Turks, but also playing quarterback for Germany. And while Germany has their own interests in “controlling” the Muslim populations through Turkish/Ottoman rule, it is increasingly clear that the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood in Washington, as well as throughout the Mid East, has become more than a central “interest” for Obama Inc. and other Washington players.

So travel from point A to point B and Washington’s current handiwork in Mid East fires become more than self revealing. And while Robert E Kaplan is mostly spot on, this blog differs with one of his main contentions, ” The countries that experienced the “Arab Spring” of the 2010s without the help of American military intervention, Tunisia and Egypt, had also been part of the Ottoman Empire, and also ended up with Islamist regimes.” The opposite is entirely the case and the evidence is more than overwhelming, as contained within the above commentary, ‘Coming Full Circle: The Planned Empowerment of The Muslim Brotherhood Mafia Via Egypt.’ 

NOT to be lost in translation, none of the above could take place without the Islamist-in-Chief’s fealty to taqiyya, exquisitely described by this blogger’s associate, Prof Paul Eidelberg, and his ever incisive analysis – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Eidelberg.

‘Taqiyya, the Art of Dissembling’

Professor Paul Eidelberg

No one should be surprised, let alone shocked, by the scandalous and probably criminal behavior of various members of the Obama administration. Nor should anyone be amazed by the laxity and probably criminal irresponsibility of Team Obama vis-à-vis the “penetration” of the government by Muslims, including members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a widespread terrorist organization whose documented ambition is to subvert the United States to facilitate the global ascendancy of Islam.

What else should one expect given two well-known facts: Mr. Obama is not only animated by the doctrine of moral relativism, but in seeming contradiction to that doctrine, he is a self-professed Muslim who has publicly and unabashedly exalted—in his words—the “Holy Quran,” a creed that exemplifies absolutism!

It should be stressed, however, that Islam also fosters taqiyya, the art of dissimulation. As Professor Y. Harkabi, a former director of Israel military intelligence has indicated, mendacity is “second nature” to Muslims. This mendacity is concealed by another eastern talent, the art of ingratiation. Arabs excel in this art.

A sociologist of Arab birth notes that “The Arab changes his identity with little reluctance. With Asians he is oriental, with people from the West he is occidental, with the old societies he is a traditional man, with the new a modern.”^[1]

An American journalist observed that Egyptian President Abdel Nasser “was an engaging man to meet. He was equally endowed with natural charm and cunning, and he used his charm advantageously. His visitors were immedi­ately at their ease. He was the incorruptible puri­tan revolutionary who never lost the simplicity of his tastes or the naturalness of his manners; the autocrat who disliked elaborate formalities and used the relaxed approach of democracy.”^[2]

Secretary of State William Rog­ers experienced the same ingratiation in his meeting with Nasser’s successor Anwar Sadat. As he later said of that meeting: “We felt at ease in each other’s company.” Sadat constantly referred to Rog­ers, whom he had met for the first time, as “Bill.” When Kissinger replaced Rogers, he became “dear Henry” just as quickly.^[3] The American media hailed him as a man of peace. Forgotten was his cunning attack on Israel in the Yom Kippur War.  But thanks to his mastery of taqiyya, the avuncular pipe-smoking Sadat recovered the Sinai without firing a single shot.

Since Barack Hussein Obama was raised as a Muslim, who to this day exalts the “Holy Quran,” did his preceptors produce in this rather mysterious man another master of taqiyya?

What more needs to be said?