An Empire Without a Military Strategy for a Military Strategy Without an Empire

On May 28th, President Obama delivered an important speech stating his
strategic doctrine on the occasion of the graduation of cadets of the
Military Academy at West Point. [1]

Not surprisingly, the President recalled that he kept his promise to
repatriate US troops deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to eliminate
Osama bin Laden. But what he portrayed as a supposedly laudatory assessment
is not one: the GIs returned exhausted from Afghanistan and have fled Iraq
before being expelled by the popular resistance. The exorbitant cost of
these expeditions, over 1,000 billion, has prevented the Pentagon from
maintaining its arsenal. About the death of bin Laden, it is naught but a
fairy tale: Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with the attacks of September
11th and died of illness and was buried in December 2001, as has well
certified the British MI6. [2]

One can only admire the US ability to continue this narration of an
imaginary reality, however contradicted by solid evidence, and to always be
echoed by the Atlanticist media.

In his speech, the president described his country as "the indispensable
nation", both militarily and economically the most powerful. Yet neither of
these assertions is still true. On May 14th, General Martin Dempsey,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged before the Atlantic
Council that US armed forces would definitely be surpassed in 10 years if a
huge upgrade effort were not made ​​right away [3] ; an unlikely effort
given budgetary restrictions. The Pentagon notes that the gap in military
research is probably irreversible. Russian and Chinese Military technology
are now more developed than those of the United States. It is too late to
recover. The apparent superiority of Washington holds only because its
troops are the only ones deployed worldwide. It therefore exists in certain
theaters of operation, but not against Russia, nor against China, which
would win in World War. As for the economy, the majority of consumer goods
consumed in the U.S. is made ​​in China.

On this spooky basis, in the words of the Washington Post referring only to
the relative military weakness of the United States [4], President Obama
announced that his country would not hesitate to intervene abroad when its
direct interests are involved, but would use international coalitions to
address more distant problems. He said that, unlike during the Cold War,
Russia no longer posed an imminent danger, but that the main enemy is
terrorism.

So the accession of the Crimea to Russia doesn’t matter. Washington will not
fight against it though it describes it as an "annexation" and a grave
breach of international law, not hesitating to compare President Vladimir
Putin to Adolf Hitler.

Especially after 13 years of "war against terrorism", Washington claims to
have eliminated a few fanatics who composed the international leadership of
Al Qaeda, but must now face a more serious problem : many affiliated
al-Qaeda groups which have formed almost everywhere in the world.

This "war without end" has the advantage of authorizing everything.
Presenting itself since 2001 as acting in self-defense, Washington has
authorized itself to violate the sovereignty of other states in order to
remove or bombard them, using blackmail at will. To continue this war,
President Obama announced the creation of a "counterterrorism partnerships
fund," of up to $ 5 billion. It will aim to train security forces in allied
states. Who can believe in such a program? Currently terrorists are trained
in the more permanent camps of Al Qaeda, located in the Libyan desert
country occupied by NATO. Meanwhile three Al Qaeda camps are installed in
Şanlıurfa, Osmaniye and Karaman, Turkey, a NATO member [5] country.

Syrians remember the televised confessions of the Emir of Al- Nosra Front
(affiliated to Al-Qaeda) who transported chemical missiles from a Turkish
military base to Damascus Ghouta. According to this man, not only were the
weapons provided to him by a member of the NATO army, but the order to use
them under "false- flag" to justify the bombing of Syria by the United
States came from the US.

13 years after the events of September 11, 2001, who can still believe that
Al-Qaeda is the main enemy of the "indispensable nation", when even Barack
Obama described the elements affiliated with Al-Qaeda as "less capable" than
their parent organisation in his speech at the national Defense University,
May 28, 2013 ? [6]. He said that the danger had become relative and that the
United States should no longer make it the priority.

About Syria, President Obama continued at West Point by stating intentions
to "help the Syrian people stand up against a dictator who bombs and starves
his own people" ( sic). That is why Washington will help "those who fight
for the right of all Syrians to choose their own future" (read: not the
Syrians themselves who vote to elect their president, but only those who are
willing to collaborate with a colonial government made in NATO).

Moreover, why intervene only in Syria? Because "As the Syrian civil war
spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to
come after us only increases. " In other words, after burning Syria, the
United States could be affected by the fire they have lit.

"We will step up our efforts to support Syria’s neighbors — Jordan and Lebanon; Turkey and Iraq — as they contend with refugees and confront terrorists working across Syria’s borders. I will work with Congress to ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators. And we will continue to coordinate with our friends and allies in Europe and the Arab World to push for a political resolution of this crisis, and to make sure that those countries and not just the United States are contributing their fair share to support the Syrian people," he said.

In other words, the White House is having talks with Congress on how to
support the personal ambitions of members of the National Coalition.
According to press reports, Washington could provide military training in
neighboring states and distribute better weapons. Only here’s the rub:

If Washington starts to train and arm Syrian collaborators, it will have to
admit to not having done so on a large scale before and having used
primarily foreign mercenaries as part of Al-Qaeda.

If 250,000 mercenary jihadists were unable to overthrow the Syrian
government over the past three years, how will a few thousand Employees of
Western colonization succeed?

Why would neighboring states, already engaged in a secret war, enter into an
open war against Syria, with the risks involved for them?

Which more sophisticated weapons could be delivered to the employees of
colonialism without the risk of their being used someday against other
targets, including Israeli air superiority?

And last, but not least, knowing that all this has been discussed over the
past three years, what new factor could lead one to believe that these
issues could find a solution today?

Obama’s speech is one of impotence : he boasts of having withdrawn his
troops from Afghanistan and Iraq and killing a ghost that, for the past
decade, still existed only in the tapes of Al-Jazeera. He announces he would
fight the terrorism that everywhere he protects. He declares he will support
the "Syrian opposition" more effectively, but immediately tunes into
Congress - which could not see bombing the country during the chemical
weapons crisis -, confident that it will limit itself to the minimum.

This speech is only a facade of verbiage trying to hide an irreversible
decline. He stunned the audience which understood dreams of conquest are at
an end. Against all odds, less than a quarter of the 1064 graduates of the
Military Academy at West Point applauded the president, while the majority
remained unmoved. The Empire is slowly dying.