Foreign Policy Experts: Sycophant Operatives

After 9-11 mainstream media presented many talking heads as "terrorism experts." 14 years later I still fail to see what these supposed credentials really are other than someone who chronicles long lists of names and groups, presenting them in imagery designed to induce mass fear. In addition to the cottage industry propped up in the media of "terror experts," the U.S. features elite servants posing as "foreign policy experts." Similar to the vacuous term "terror expert," "foreign policy expert" implies little more than a worldview filled with sophisticated rhetoric but in practice are sophisticated means used to execute a raw barbarism.  

The current cadre of U.S. foreign policy profess godlike wisdom and pathos to speak on behalf of humanity and determine under what conditions regime changes are needed...for the greater good of course. Their possessing these unique gifts of intellect and judgement means they are never wrong regardless what the results show to everyone else. Blood, carnage, humanitarian disasters, failed states, and mass refugee crises only demonstrates the depravity of the targeted regime. But, if these crises weren't occurring before regime change efforts began, then laymen may ask were those regimes that evil? These "foreign policy experts" reassure us with a resounding YES!!!! In other words, isn't their justification sounding very similar to a tautology? Yes but unlike us mortals, this elite class of "foreign policy experts" are exempt from making casual arguments.

The Arab Spring in Syria that erupted into full scale war shows good examples of these "foreign policy experts'" mindset. The U.S. State Department in 2011 issued an official Press Statement proclaiming two major factors stopping the Syrian masses march toward democracy: Assad's oppression and their democratic movement being co-opted by an opportunistic al-Qa'ida:

By opting for the use of force against its own people, the Assad regime has created the circumstances that attract the violent extremists of al Qa’ida, who seek to exploit civil strife for their own purposes. The sooner the political transition to a post-Assad Syria begins, the better it will be for the Syrian people and the region. [1].

The State Department here made a questionable causal argument by stating Assad's use of force against his people caused popular anger, creating moral and political cover that al-Qa'ida exploited to promote its own jihadist agenda. Reality, though, undermines this narrative. The aforementioned U.S. State Department Press Statement was made by a neocon queen Victoria Nuland. Once again the pathos of these regime changers warrant our questioning their commitment to serving humanity. Nuland's advocacy of  another regime change under false pretenses is heard in her now infamous phone conversation with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during which she directed an expletive toward the E.U. Nuland's stating "The sooner the poltiical transition to a post-Assad Syria beings...." suggests Assad's downfall is a fait accompli. Nuland serving in the U.S. State Department presupposes preferences for diplomacy. But, the major media outlets refuse to waste time analyzing possible diplomatic solutions. Instead, they prefer to condition everyone to accepting a deposed Assad as a precondition for Syria developing viable democratic institutions. 

Another foreign policy "expert" who agrees with Nuland that deposing Assad is a necessary step to developing democracy in Syria is Frederic Hof. He served as the "special adviser for transition in Syria," which equaled the rank of ambassador. Hof explains with elegant simplicity how Assad if deposed will unleash:

grassroots democracy would then flourish thanks to “hundreds of local councils” and “a vast network of civil society organizations — the kinds of voluntary professional associations that undergird Western democracies.” [2] 

So al-Nusra, Al-Quaeda, ISIS etc will upon overthrowing Assad disarm and become coalition parties comprising a viable parliamentary system? Just like al-Nusra did in Libya right?

Another such "expert" is Susan Power, current U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., who resorts to subterfuge in order to make an unsubstantiated causal link between Assad's abuses and the surge of terrorists into Syria:

I infer from her comments that U.S. support for opposition groups that began as early as 2005 and six years before the Arab Spring erupted had no destabilizing impact on Syria whatsoever? 2005 was a pivotal year for the U.S. regime change establishment's relations with Assad. On February 14, 2005 former prime minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated. The regime change establishment promptly accused Assad. Of course their confidence in his guilt enabled their ignoring petty details like empirical evidence. Their pathos establish self-evident truths too strong to be refuted by diversions like forensics.

These "experts" blame Assad for Syria's tragic war, and for the Al-Quaeda opposition plunging this nation further into an abyss causing over 200,000 deaths. Are they right that Assad is solely responsible for the radicalization of the opposition? Not according the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report obtained by Judicial Watch that has earned much attention. They state in their report that :

AQI (Al Quaeda In Iraq) SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA….. AQI CONDUCTED A NUMBER OF OPERATIONS IN SEVERAL SYRIAN CITIES UNDER THE NAME JAISH AL NUSRAH (VICTORIOUS ARMY) [3].

Therefore, the combination of the U.S. supporting opposition groups as early as 2005 and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) stating that Al-Quaeda supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning weakens claims that the crisis in Syria simply resulted from Assad's actions.

Foreign policy experts like them show no understanding of the world that if acted upon would help construct a post-empire geopolitical order. Their expertise is not much more than a willingness to assert the U.S. as an indispensable nation, which is another way of saying hegemony. If a regime opposes this hegemony, these "foreign policy experts" resort to constant demonizing of such leaders (Hussein, Qaddafi, Assad, etc). They launch demonization campaigns knowing that if those fail to weaken fatally the targeted regime, the empire will use military means (its own or via proxies) to overthrow them. In this environment their being "foreign policy experts" means they slap glossy and progressive sounding rhetoric to cover their empire's barbarism. Some signs show these experts and their empire they dutifully serve are being exposed.        

[1]. Nuland, Victoria. Department Spokesman, Office of the Spokesperson. Press Statement. "Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusra Front as an Alias for al-Qua'ida in Iraq." December 11, 2012. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/12/201759.htm

[2]. Marshall, Jonathan. "Neocons Blame Obama for Syria." Consortium News. September 11, 2015. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/11/neocons-blame-obama-for-syria/

[3]. Declassified document. pgs. 297-93 (291) JW v DOD and State 14-812 May 18, 2015. Judicial Watch. http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/