Henry

,

“There are three possible outcomes. An Assad victory. A Sunni victory. Or an outcome in which the various nationalities agree to co-exist together but in more or less autonomous regions, so that they can’t oppress each other. That’s the outcome I would prefer to see. But that’s not the popular view.”

This is very ironic, since I was just coincidentally today reading a transcript covering a conversation between Kissinger and one of his inner clique of Ivy League pseudo intellectuals concerning the imminent and inevitable overthrow of the unpopular Assad regime in Syria.

The conversation took place in April of 1975.

We would note:

Henry Kissinger, as we know, is a self-described Jew. Who the hell knows if he's actually Jewish, I certainly doubt he goes to Temple or goes Shomah Shabbat.

We shall consider him to be nominally Jewish for the purposes of this exercise.

This is in the immediate aftermath of the Yom Kippur War (which Henry Kissinger failed to prevent and succeeded in making far worse - the US went to DEFCON-4 for the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis; President Nixon was largely incapacitated with Phlebitis and Vice President Agnew was in the middle of being framed and removed from office for incorrectly filling out his tax return, courtesy of Elliot Richardson - Kissinger ran the American response to that war, single-handedly), and immediately following the "Arab Oil Embargo" - which didn't originate from the Arabs and wasn't an embargo, and which Henry Kissinger planned and executed with premeditation.

He is talking here of maneuvering Saddam Hussain and his followers into overthrowing the Syrian Ba'athist regime of President Asad, replacing it with something  "more radical" to induce the Israelis (whose Seat of Government is Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem, by international law) to "cooperate".

Remarkable.

Transcript, "Secretary's Principals and Regionals Staff Meeting," April 28, 1975 (Excerpt)
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Department of State Records, Transcripts of Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger Staff Meetings, 1973-1977.

As part of a routine review of world events, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his State Department advisers briefly discuss a recent spate of diplomatic activity coming from Baghdad. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Alfred L. Atherton, Jr. mentions Iraq's nascent attempts at "patching things up" with neighbors and generally "projecting the image of a country that wants to play a very dynamic and accurate [sic] role in the Arab World." Kissinger says this new activity "was to be expected anyway when they cleared [the] Kurdish thing," a reference to the March 1975 preliminary agreement between Iraq and Iran that settled the two countries' border dispute at the expense of cutting off Iranian (and U.S.) support to the Kurds -- with tragic results for the Kurds. Atherton specifically mentions the relatively youthful, 38-year-old Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, as someone who bears closer scrutiny by the United States. "Hussein is a rather remarkable person ... he is running the show; and he's a very ruthless and ... pragmatic, intelligent power."

Partition, he says....

Trouble Brewing.

Partition is, of course an excellent plan, and a complete departure from the Neoliberalism of the New World Order Doctrine. 

Obviously, I'm being sarcastic.

Yes, partition.

Because it worked so well in Ireland, Palestine, Korea, Germany, South Africa, Yemen, Eritrea, India, Pakistan,Poland, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo (some of these are compound partitions), Biafra, Bengal, Chechnya, Dagestan, Katanga, South Ossetia, Armenia, Rwanda, Prussia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Which is to say it's NEVER worked and ALWAYS produced civil war, ethnic cleaning, economic collapse and corporate colonialism.

Oh, and Kuwait. I forgot to mention Kuwait.

When a bunch of BP oil executives and Foreign Office officials get together in London to draw some straight lines around the most abundant and lucrative oil fields in the Southern district of Basra Proinvce in the Old Ottoman Empire in 1960 and pays off the Sheikh of the local nomadic tribe, that isn't a country. It's still the South bit of Iraq, where most of the mineral wealth and access to the sea is.

Kuwait has no right to exist and it's people don't want self-determination. 

They consider themselves Iraqis. Period.

We can only be grateful that he hasn't yet made declared his intentions with regard to Baluchistan.

But knowing Kissinger, the most likely explanation for that is due to a bank account somewhere shared by Kissinger, KSM and Ramsey Yousef.

Or possibly they share the same wallet. Nothing would surprise me.

Common arguments for partitions include:

• historicist — that partition is inevitable, or already in progress [HITLER]
• last resort — that partition should be pursued to avoid the worst outcomes (genocide or large-scale ethnic expulsion), if all other means fail [HITLER]
• cost-benefit — that partition offers a better prospect of conflict reduction than the if existing borders are not changed [HITLER]
• better tomorrow — that partition will reduce current violence and conflict, and that the new more homogenized states will be more stable [HITLER]
• rigorous end — heterogeneity leads to problems, hence homogeneous states should be the goal of any policy [HITLER]

Common arguments against include:

• It disrupts functioning and traditional state entities [LINCOLN]
• It creates enormous human suffering [LINCOLN]
• It creates new grievances that could eventually lead to more deadly violence, such as the Korean and Vietnamese wars. [KENNEDY]
• It prioritizes race and ethnicity to a level acceptable only to an apartheid regime [KENNEDY, LINCOLN, MANDELA]
• The international system is very reluctant to accept the idea of partition in deeply divided societies [KENNEDY]

Nope. Not happening.

I can't see this working either....