Parmenides' Fallacy

---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------  Parmenides' Fallacy COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Parmenides a Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher born in Italy; held the metaphysical view that being is the basic substance and ultimate reality of which all things are composed; said that motion and change are sensory illusions (5th century BC) SOURCE | ABOVE http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/Parmenides ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- SOURCE | BELOW Forbes Margie Warrell Contributor Book:  Stop Playing Safe http://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2013/03/19/the-parmenides-fallacy-are-you-ignoring-the-cost-of-inaction/  EXTRACTS / SUMMARY Bad situation indecision = stuck with status quo hoping things get better (but they get worse) Human beings are neurologically wired to: over-estimate the size of risks under-estimate our ability to handle them downplay the costs of inaction "... by choosing not to make a change or take a chance ... you can wind up incurring steep costs, in ways you can’t possibly foresee from where you are right now" [ REFERS TO ] "Professor Philip Bobbit from the University of Texas has even given a name to the human tendency to assume the present situation will remain the same. He calls it ‘Parmenides Fallacy,’ after the misguided Greek philosopher who argued that the world was static and that all change was an illusion." result:  "drives us to stick with the status quo – even one we dislike" "Parmenides Fallacy serves as a reminder to not to kid ourselves; choosing to do nothing..." SOURCE | ABOVE Forbes Margie Warrell Contributor Book:  Stop Playing Safe http://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2013/03/19/the-parmenides-fallacy-are-you-ignoring-the-cost-of-inaction/  Margie Warrell Error 404 - page not found http://margiewarrell.com/stopplayinsafe Margie Warrell "an international thought leader in human potential" "professional background in Fortune 500 business, psychology, and coaching" "Her clients include NASA, British Telecom, Oracle, Body Shop, PWC and the Australian Federal Police." "bestselling author, Forbes Columnist  ..." " ... sought out by leading media outlets such as The Today Show, FOX News, CNBC and Al Jazeera, Psychology Today and Wall Street Journal. She is also a regular contributor on Australia’s ABC News Breakfast and Sunrise.    ...  international media outlets from the Wall Street Journal to The Today Show. She is also regular commentator on Australia’s Sunrise and ABC News Breakfast." http://margiewarrell.com/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- SOURCE - BELOW Aakash "I am a speck of dust in this universe, who is going to create a whole new universe someday." http://logically-illogical.blogspot.com/2008/02/parmenides-fallacy.html Parmenides' Fallacy All our decisions are generally based upon the measurement of the future benefits that can be drawn by making that decision. How will it make us better of than what we presently are. This is the fundamental clause in the decision making of most of the managers while making any investment. But what is interesting to note is that the things in the normal circumstances will constantly deteriorate in their own. So, if we don't take any decision then we might be worse off in future than what we are now. So, if the investment is made then it might be that we would be worse off than now but better off than we would have been without it.  [ ... ] SOURCE - ABOVE Aakash "I am a speck of dust in this universe, who is going to create a whole new universe someday." http://logically-illogical.blogspot.com/2008/02/parmenides-fallacy.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- SOURCE - BELOW Opinion, NYT Today's War Is Against Tomorrow's Iraq By PHILIP BOBBITT Philip Bobbitt, a law professor at the University of Texas Published: March 10, 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/opinion/10BOBB.html EXTRACTS ONLY President Bush has again made his case for war against Iraq, and again his primary argument is the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to America. The president's critics are quick to point out that the Central Intelligence Agency and other experts feel that, for the moment, Saddam Hussein is unlikely to conduct terrorist attacks against America. However, they warn us, if an invasion threatens his regime, his agents or his extremist sympathizers might well attack us — possibly even using weapons of mass destruction. So is it really a good idea to press ahead with regime change? Aren't we better off now than we would be if we invade Iraq and risk setting off a dreadful response? These are natural questions, but they are neither logical nor helpful. They are a prime example in our public discourse of what might be called "Parmenides' Fallacy" — named after the Greek philosopher who held that all change was illusion. This fallacy occurs when one tries to assess a future state of affairs by measuring it against the present, as opposed to comparing it to other possible futures. Let me give a famous example of Parmenides' Fallacy in operation. [...] So, as we look to the future, we must stop debating whether invading Iraq will result in our being worse down the line than we are right now. We do not have the option of holding time still — which exposes the biggest flaw in the "Why Rush to War?" argument. The urgency lies in the fact that every day Saddam Hussein stays in power he grows richer, the global terrorist network to which he has access plans further atrocities and (international inspections notwithstanding) the chance of his acquiring nuclear, chemical and biological weapons grows. To avoid Parmenides' Fallacy, the question we must ask is: Will we be better off in the future if we invade Iraq or if we do not invade? [ ... ] We should also consider the future of the Iraqi civilians. Yes, they would suffer the horrors of war in the near term, which for a time would be even worse than life under the sanctions now. But if an American-led intervention succeeded, the country's oil revenues could once again enrich its people, as well as its schools, hospitals and financial institutions. The Iraqis would be much better off after an invasion than they would be living indefinitely chained to Saddam Hussein. For us, though we live in relative tranquillity at present, we will at least be far less badly off in the future if we act now. Parmenides' Fallacy must not paralyze our imaginations, or our will. SOURCE - ABOVE Opinion, NYT Today's War Is Against Tomorrow's Iraq By PHILIP BOBBITT Philip Bobbitt, a law professor at the University of Texas Published: March 10, 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/opinion/10BOBB.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- SOURCE - BELOW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Bobbitt EXTRACTS |  SUMMARY Philip Bobbitt b. Texas, USA distinguished pedigree author, academic, lawyer, and public servant lectured in the United Kingdom best known for work on military strategy & constitutional law and theory Attended: Princeton University Yale Law School Oxford University graduated with an A.B. in philosophy | Princeton University in 1971 president of the Ivy Club and Chairman of the Nassau Lit. 1975 J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was Article Editor of the Yale Law Journal and taught at Yale College at Yale that he met Charles L. Black (1915–2001), who became a mentor to Bobbitt received his M.A & Ph.D. (Modern History) | University of Oxford in 1983 J.D. =  three-year law degree, Doctor Jurisprudence "... word jurisprudence derives from the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study, knowledge, or science of law." In the United States jurisprudence commonly means the philosophy of law." [Cornell Uni - example] Charles Black (professor) American scholar of constitutional law  role in the historic Brown v. Board of Education *landmark USA 1954 case* US Supreme Court declared establishment of "separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional." Impeachment: A Handbook  analysis of the law of impeachment during the Watergate scandal. served in the Army Air Corps as a teacher an associate at Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendl  (now Davis, Polk & Wardwell) professor of law at the Columbia University Law School "... He had the moral courage to go against his race, his class, his social circle." "Black also co-authored The Law of Admiralty with Grant Gilmore .. ... constitutional legal scholar ... "The Law of Admiralty" is one of the most influential law books ever written in a practical area of law. Admiralty is the law of the sea, of shipping and shipping contracts, and is a functional, practical area of international law, in which uniformity of the application of law in ports throughout the world is important, and as a result it has evolved somewhat differently from other areas of federal law. "Gilmore and Black," ... so influential that it is one of the few treatises that federal admiralty and international courts cite almost as though ... a primary source of law ..."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Black_%28professor%29 ---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------  Consitutional Law - Philip Bobbit "... believes that the Constitution's durability rests, in part, in the flexible manner in which it can be and has been interpreted since its creation. ... Bobbitt asserts that all branches of government have a duty to assess the constitutionality of their actions. 'Constitutional Fate' is a commonly used text in courses on constitutional law throughout the US." Government Service - Philip Bobbit extensively in government, for both Democratic and Republican administrations 1970s, he was Associate Counsel to President Carter  Senior director for Critical Infrastructure & senior director for Strategic Planning - Bill Clinton's presidency worked with Lloyd Cutler on the charter of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Lloyd Cutler Intelligence Commission served as White House Counsel during the Democratic administrations of Presidents Carter and Clinton Feb 2004 Lloyd Cutler  appointed to Iraq Intelligence Commission (IIC) IIC = independent panel tasked with investigating US intelligence surrounding the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the allegations that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction Counselor for International Law at State Dept during George H. W. Bush administration served at National Security Council as director for Intelligence Programs National Security Council (NSC) principal forum re national security & foreign policy US President, National Security Advisors, + Cabinet officials { = part of Executive Office of President of USA} Founded by Harry S Truman 1947 - by NATIONAL SECURITY ACT b/c "felt that the diplomacy of State Dept was no longer adequate to contain the USSR" - - - Intent:  coordination & agreement among: Navy Marine Corps Army Air Force Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)  {also created in the National Security Act, 1947}  & other instruments of national security policy Function: ASSIST ON NATIONAL SECURITY & FOREIGN POLICY The Shield of Achilles - Philip Bobbit " ... 900-page work that explicates a theory, verging on philosophy, of historical change in the modern era, and a history of the development of modern constitutional and international law." "...  patterns in the (mainly modern European) history of strategic innovations, major wars, peace conferences, international diplomacy, and constitutional standards for states. Bobbitt also suggests possible future scenarios and policies appropriate to them." "The Shield of Achilles generated much interest in the diplomatic and political community.  Public officials who follow Bobbitt's works include: the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair ... the former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, who referred to Bobbit's book in a 2004 address to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute." Terror and Consent (2008) "... the Wars for the Twenty-first Century, which applied many of the ideas of The Shield of Achilles to the problems of wars on terror." " ... Senator John McCain praised the book as "the best book I’ve ever read on terrorism ..."  "... Henry Kissinger called Bobbitt, "perhaps the most important political philosopher today."  Tony Blair wrote of Terror and Consent:  "It may be written by an academic but it is actually required reading for political leaders."  David Cameron, the leader of the Tory party in the UK  put it on a list of summer reading for his parliamentary colleagues in 2008.  ---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------  In Terror & Consent, Bobbitt argued that the only justification for warfare in the 21st century was to protect human rights ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- The Garments of Court and Palace  " ... 2013, Bobbitt published a study of Niccolo Machiavelli entitled The Garments of Court and Palace: Machiavelli and the World That He Made. " "...  argues that only by understanding The Prince as one half of a constitutional treatise on the State (the other being Machiavelli's Discourses) can we reconcile the many otherwise contradictory elements of his work." [emphasises] " ... what he describes as Machiavelli’s reification [reification =error of treating something which is not concrete -eg an idea - as a concrete thing] of the state as an entity with its own reality that is not to be identified with the personal power of the prince. "... especially worth emphasizing in view of the fact that the term state is so often used ... as little more than a synonym for government." "... Bobbitt has already stressed in The Shield of Achilles how much is lost if we refuse to conceptualize the state as a distinct apparatus of power, and he now points to Machiavelli as the originator of this line of thought." "... 2004 Prospect Magazine named him One of Britain's Top 100 Public Intellectuals.  ... writes essays, typically on foreign policy, published in The New York Times, and The Guardian." SOURCE - ABOVE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Bobbitt ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- ASIDE Davis, Polk & Wardwell founded in 1849 multiple name changes international law firm HQ NYC described as:  "Tiffany's of law firms" Revenue:  $975 million (2013) John W. Davis former US Solicitor General |  1924 Democratic presidential nominee US Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education represented South Carolina  |  in defence of racial segregation Davis developed close ties between the firm and: J.P. Morgan companies Guaranty Trust Company Associated Press International Paper firm represented numerous clients in the financial crisis of 2007-2008 lead counsel to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York {U.S. Treasury’s $250 billion bank capital purchase program} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Polk_%26_Wardwell ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- ꕤ

CANADA - Secret Saudi Arabia Arms Deal

SOURCE http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-assured-details-of-saudi-arms-deal-would-stay-under-wraps/article26105853/ Harper assured Saudi Arabia details of arms deal would stay under wraps STEVEN CHASE OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail Published Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2015 3:00AM EDT Last updated Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2015 6:26AM EDT Ottawa is contractually obliged to keep secret the details of a controversial $15-billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia – a transaction that Stephen Harper personally assured the country’s monarch will be guaranteed by the Canadian government, documents say. Foreign Affairs e-mails obtained by The Globe and Mail under access-to-information law indicate the Saudis have made excess publicity about the sale of armoured fighting vehicles a deal-breaker. Officials were scrambling behind the scenes in January, after media coverage of the arms deal, to determine the consequences of publicly releasing the terms of the Saudi contract. Aliya Mawani, a Canadian diplomat based in Riyadh, the capital, told Foreign Affairs colleagues on Jan. 21 that “we [the government] would be breaking the terms of the contract” with Saudi Arabia if details were made public. “The contract is under a Canadian government guarantee in terms of fulfilment,” Ms. Mawani wrote in a Jan. 21 exchange with colleagues on why Ottawa couldn’t make the terms public. “This was confirmed in writing by our Prime Minister in his letters to the King,” she said, speaking of Mr. Harper and the late Saudi King Abdullah. A cloak of secrecy surrounds this agreement, first announced in 2014, with Ottawa refusing to divulge any substantial information on the vehicles Canada is selling to the Saudi regime – or how it justifies the sale to a nation known for human-rights abuses. A federal agency responsible for sales to foreign military, Canadian Commercial Corporation, is actually the “prime contractor” for the transaction even though it is General Dynamics Land Systems Canada in London that manufacturers the vehicles. Records obtained by The Globe offer a great deal of insight into Ottawa’s role in brokering the transaction, which supports more than 3,000 jobs in Canada. In another government e-mail exchange in January of 2015, Brigette Walenius, deputy director with Foreign Affairs' Middle East-Maghreb Commercial Unit, cited General Dynamics officials who spoke of a “confidentiality clause in their contract with the Saudis” and how Riyadh “could terminate [the] contract if too much info is released.” Nonetheless, senior Canadian officials were delighted at the deal behind the scenes, e-mails show. Mr. MacDonald, Canada’s envoy in Riyadh, gave Ottawa early notice that the deal was coming together as far back as 2012. In an October, 2012, e-mail with the subject line “GDLS lands the Big One,” Mr. MacDonald informed Foreign Affairs staffers, referring to General Dynamic Land Systems. The Canadian ambassador ends this e-mail with a jubilant expression “Gotta LOV the LAV!” but not before sketching out some bare-bones details. He wrote that General Dynamics “have been chasing” the contract since 2009 and it’s a boon for the plant in London, Ont., because the company’s work on LAVs for Canada’s mission in Afghanistan was wrapping up as the Canadian combat mission ended in 2011. These new orders will “replace the decline from Canada’s Afghanistan withdrawal,” Mr. MacDonald said in his e-mail. The ambassador wrote that the LAVs “are going to be ‘fully loaded,’” that they would be the “most advanced ever made” and that delivery would start 38 months after the contract was signed and last another 108 months, or nine years. A separate January 21, 2015, e-mail from an official in Foreign Affairs’s export-control division said documentation received from General Dynamics to date suggests the vehicles could possibly include turreted LAVs “equipped with automatic firearms.” The Canadian government is nevertheless taking care to play down the Saudi connection. In one case, Foreign Affairs appeared to have struck references to Saudi Arabia from speaking notes prepared for a cabinet minister’s media event at the request of the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC), which is handling the LAV deal. An official from the government agency previewed speaking notes for Minister of State Lynne Yelich before a January 9 media event to celebrate a Saskatchewan-based company’s role as a sub-contractor in the LAV sale. “Thanks for letting me know what the speaking notes are,” Lina Seto, then a CCC official, wrote Foreign Affairs. She asked for “the removal of one of the mentions of the buyer country,” adding this was “important to the supplier,” meaning General Dynamics. “We are sensitive to the Saudi Arabia references, due to confidentiality,” Ms. Seto explained in an e-mail to Foreign Affairs on January 7, 2015. A final version of these speaking notes obtained by The Globe under access-to-information law contains no reference to Saudi Arabia as the buyer. Several years ago, the Conservative government in Ottawa refocused international relations to make “economic diplomacy” in service of private industry the centrepiece of Canadian foreign policy. SOURCE http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-assured-details-of-saudi-arms-deal-would-stay-under-wraps/article26105853/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Canada has dispensed with democracy, transparency, and accountability, in favour of "economic diplomacy" IN THE SERVICE OF PRIVATE INDUSTRY. Wow. This is huge. Canada is a corporate dictatorship. This article illustrates why the press generally, why whistleblowers, and why whilstleblower publishers/journalists like WikiLeaks, are so important to keeping government open, accountable, representative and therefore closer to democratic than government would otherwise be, were those in government permitted to run their own show, without question. ꕤ

Intel & Surveillance News

US vows to help #Philippines in intel gathering / oldest US ally in Asia no specifics re support see Territorial dispute South China Sea #China claim Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei + Taiwan have overlapping claims http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/08/26/1492532/us-vows-help-philippines-intel-gathering MacDonald, Dettwiler & Associates Lttd /MDA CA$3.9 million contract with National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency http://softwaredev.itbusinessnet.com/article/MDA-to-provide-operational-enhancements-for-information-solution-to-support-flight-operations-at-airports-4038599 other MacDonald, Dettwiler & Associates Lttd /MDA  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDonald,_Dettwiler_and_Associates National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency combat support agency, under USA DOD & intelligence agency US intel comm GEOINT NGA credited by WH military officials for providing info re Op Neptune's Spear 2011 / bin Laden #Serbia National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency cause of #NATO Bombing of Chinese embassy in Belgrade / CIA argues otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geospatial-Intelligence_Agency USA military - DRONES Spent last decade amassing over 7,000 surveillance drones / some size of birds / others as big as as jetliners Drone technology = USA spy planes will be phased out starting in 2018 Without US ground troops in Iraq and Syria, #USA commanders rely on airborne #surveillance more than ever before Iraq war - USA had plenty fighter pilots - low on aerial surveillance re what happening ground / long distance pilots on amphetamine paste Over decades, U-2 spy plane claimed lives of 30 pilots / many have nearly crashed after suffering decompression sickness Russia U-2 spy plane shot down over Soviet Union in 1960 / capture of pilot Francis Gary Powers / traded for Soviet spy 1962 It is after satellites could be relied upon for remote control that drones could be used for surveillance. US Airforce trained: x18 U-2 pilots trained 2014 x57 ground-based pilots for Global Hawk (drone) [ looks like drones are the go ] DRONES = cost about half what the U-2 spy planes cost per flying hour to operate Global Hawk = drone http://www.latimes.com/nation/great-reads/la-na-c1-spy-plane-pilot-20150826-story.html Potomac Advocates (PRASAM) PRASAM, intel community's 'official' lobbyist grabbed lion’s share of USG lobbying 4 intel community /subsription http://www.intelligenceonline.com/government-intelligence/due-diligence/2015/08/26/prasam-intelligence-community-s--official--lobbyist,108088706-ART More Potomac Advocates http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000036775 Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc provides war fighter solutions and security related services engineering, Information Technology services and war fighter solutions primarily for US National Security priorities services include command, control, communications, computing, combat systems, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (c5ISR), weapon systems lifecycle support, military weapon range and technical services, network engineering services, advanced information technology services, security and surveillance systems, and critical infrastructure design and integration services. http://www.americantradejournal.com/kratos-defense-security-solutions-inc-short-interest-update-2/657949/ #Canada Surveillance Police surveillance camera goes up in East Vancouver neighbourhood / gang violence issue http://www.news1130.com/2015/08/25/police-surveillance-camera-goes-up-in-vancouver-neighbourhood/ #Surveillance Windows 10 heralds a future in which the cloud rules and computers snitch on us by default default / automatic sharing of data the new normal — from your voice & typing patterns to unique machine ID s/ track & target #surveillance By default, users of Mac OSX & Ubuntu Linux transmit local search terms to respective companies + third parties http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/8/when-surveillance-is-a-feature-not-a-bug.html #AmericanAggression masked as deterrence to 'Russian aggression' USA send F-22 Raptors to Europe European Reassurance Initiative $985 million in overseas contingency operations USA funding - 2015 current fiscal year. http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-08-25/us-will-send-f-22s-europe-bolster-allies-deter-russia Understanding Indications & Warning Efforts Of US Ballistic Missile Defence – Analysis http://www.eurasiareview.com/26082015-understanding-indications-and-warning-efforts-of-us-ballistic-missile-defense-analysis/ Surveillance / Militarised Police #Baltimore police Coming Storm 'Stingray' Surveillance by Police http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/08/youre-going-to-hear-a-lot-more-about-police-use-of-stingray/402283/ USA Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act | CISA concerns re proposed Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act ie - nature and volume of private data about users being funneled to the government (and intelligence agencies) by companies who opt to participate in the information sharing scheme contemplated by the law https://www.justsecurity.org/25475/cisa-surveillance-law-xss-attack/ USA - Surveillance Act (FISA) electronic surveillance under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) fed appeals court upheld sentence http://www.startribune.com/federal-appeals-court-upholds-women-s-prison-sentences-in-terror-case/322843851/ Military Drones Market to Reach $11 Billion by 2021 From $3 Billion in 2014 http://www.aviationpros.com/news/12106991/military-drones-market-to-reach-11-billion-by-2021-from-3-billion-in-2014 Ghostery privacy extension / Ghostrank Ghostery privacy extension http://www.extremetech.com/internet/212476-is-it-safe-to-use-the-ghostery-privacy-extension ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Random surveillance articles.  Bit of a mixed bag that's thrown up some military stuff.  Mostly just skimmed. The ballistic missiles article could be interesting, as it's a bit hard to apply lessons of history to present day strategy, without knowing anything about today's military capabilities.  That might be a reading list article.  Not sure I'll get there.  Swamped with all the earmarked stuff I think might be a good read.  Not enough time in the day for all this stuff.  lol The US proposal for companies to share info with government and spy agencies is about as totalitarian as it gets. ꕤ

The Great Game - Part II

PART 2 The Great Game - Part II EXTRACTS | SUMMARY SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Lord Curzon Viceroy of India show of strength =  naval tour of the Persian Gulf coast 1903 Lord Lansdowne, then Foreign Secretary warned off Britain's adversaries: "... we should regard the establishment of a naval base or of a fortified post on the Persian Gulf by any other power as a very grave menace to our interests and we should certainly resist it with all the means at our disposal." President Jimmy Carter recently (1980)  made a remarkably similar pronouncement about the Persian Gulf Britain naval power base far from Asia where & how could bring strength to bear upon adversary that is moving from interior of the great Eurasian land mass (ie Russia) Need to bring political objectives in line with RESOURCES + STRATEGIES Post Napoleonic Wars = beginning of British & Russian rivalry = Britain & Russia - two remaining Great Powers in world, it appeared = different kinds of power = Britain: new kid on the block: greatest maritime & commercial power world has ever seen = Russia: giant empire of TRADITIONAL type - LAND ARMY overshadowed all other land armies in world Not clear how they could go to war Scale of strategic objectives of Britain did not match its power Had Russia been as militarily as effective as thought, no way for wealth + fleet to have stopped Russia in interior Eurasia BRITISH WEALTH - SUBSIDISES CONTINENTAL ALLIES Wealthy British subsidise continental allies to do much of their land fighting for them in the Napoleonic & other European wars but could not apply same slippery strategy in Asia: "rotting Islamic empires that were their allies in Asia lacked the fighting power to do the job" BRITISH UPSETTING ALLIES: "London to incite them into fighting losing campaigns from which Britain had no ground forces to extricate them would weaken rather than strengthen the British cause" [ Depends on how you look at it?  If your allies are battered fighting lost cause you have set them up to fight (while you remain unscathed on the sidelines), the allies might be upset ... but they're also surely weakened while you are strengthened?  ] Russo-Persian War of 1826-28 Britain failed to defend Persia PERSIA - BRITAIN DOES NOT DEFEND UNRELIABLE ALLY British inaction reportedly fully justified' = Persia had started war = 1814 mutual defence agreement obligated Britain to defend Persia ONLY against aggression Shah concluded that Britain was an unreliable ally = in effect Persia went over to the Russian side BRITISH ECONOMIC STRENGTH - COMPETITORS Britain's economic strength was great *but competitors existed by second half 1800s France Italy Germany able in large part to supplant Britain in the financial & commercial life of Islamic world BRITISH STRENGTH WAS NETWORK OF SPIES ALL ACROSS ASIA Britain maintained a network of representatives and intelligence agents all across Asia reportedly: "network was able to play a role in helping to deter or stop the Russian advance" CONSTANTINOPLE - MAX. PRESSURE POINT Constantinople was Britain’s strong point From Constantinople British warships could enter the Black Sea & with impunity bombard coast of the Crimea, as was done in Crimean War BUT: if the Russian forces then withdrew from the coast into the interior, there was little that Britain could do Britain: could land troops on shore as an invasion force = but small expeditionary force of this sort could not conquer vast land mass of Russia (Napoleon & his forces failed) CRIMEAN WAR - RUSSIAN STRATEGIC BLUNDER BRITISH & FRENCH ALLIED Russians failed to retreat when the Crimean War invasion took place. Bad move. allowed the allied powers, despite their own abysmal military performance, to inflict a shattering defeat on Russian Army Russia's strategic blundering that had made victory in the Crimean War possible Back to Asia: "unless against all odds such blunders were repeated, it would be difficult if not impossible to project Britain's power into the areas where Britain proposed to contain Russian expansionism" Salisbury = brilliant diplomacy success = averted Britsh (navy power) taking on Russia (land powewer) in Asia 1878 War fever Britons whipped up martial enthusiasm with Jingo song in their music halls Salisbury = won Britain's greatest victory at the Congress of Berlin by sheer force of intellect "Great Britain won a bloodless victory with a music-hall song, a navy of museum pieces, and no land forces at all ... without a reliable continental ally" BRITISH OVER-CONFIDENCE 1878 victory weakened the effectiveness of British policy in the long run. Led British public to believe that they could play a great role without: expense or exertion reform of navy creating an army finding an ally Early 1900s showed Britain, not possible to run sucessful foreign policy (ie agressive foreign policy?) on the cheap BOER WAR = exposed the weakness of Britain's military resources + lack of preparedness RUSSIA - RAILWAY NEARS INDIA Russian railroad construction in Asia = close enough to India so that threat of invasion finally plausible Sir Halford Mackinder = the prophet of geopolitics outlined implications of some of the changes that had occurred in the world 1. development of the railroad / other means of rapid land transportation = transformed the relationship between sea power and land power = formerly navy made a country's armed forces mobile = speed of railroads gave the advantage to land powers operating on interior lines, for they were able to concentrate their forces by sending them rapidly along the straight line which constitutes the shortest distance between two points = seagoing adversary must sail all around the circumference and arrive at the field of combat too late Mackinder noted: = Russia occupied pivot area controlling the Eurasian continent ("where most of mankind lives") = this pivot area was INACCESSIBLE to Britain's kind of power = Mackinder message: Britain had placed her bet on yesterday while Russia had placed hers on tomorrow. RUSSIAN-BRITISH BIPOLAR ORDER - CHALLENGED BY RISE JAPAN, GERMANY + UNITED STATES switch of direction from 1800s objectives for Britain: = Rise Japan, Germany & USA, transformed structure of world politics, making what had been a bipolar world into a multipolar one In this new world, Britain weakness exposed in: Boer War Russia Russo-Japanese War 1905 Revolution fear of Russia was an idea that belonged to "the pre-Germanic age. [ Walter Bagehot ] 1907 Britain & Russia TREATY = composed their differences in Asia = Tibet was neutralized = Afghanistan - Russia not interested (left control of its external policy to Britain) = Persia was divided into three zones Russia taking over the substance of Persia Britain taking over Persia sea-coast Historians mostly say, effect = "Game was over" [ So the key is: Iran / Afghanistan? ] 'Game over' not entirely true, according to David Fromkin / article: Brits claim: Russians went beyond what was allowed under the Persian terms of the treaty not reporting all violations, b/c fear of affect re Anglo-Russian alliance against Germany RUSSIAN WITHDRAWAL Following Russian Revolution, Russia disappeared from the areas in contention for about 4 decades [ ... so we're talking until late 1950s ] Russia willingness to abide by 1907 agreement, therefore not put to the test By time Soviets arrived on scene, Brits leaving = again, not put to the test USA has taken over British position re INFLUENCE + INTEREST in Middle East & South Asia Russian intentions unresolved HISTORIANS on Russia latter half of 1900s: = Russian policy in Asia essentially defensive = Russia put pressure on Britain re Afghanistan, the Pamirs and Tibet was to keep British from attacking the Russians once again in the Black Sea ***** BLACK SEA WAS (IS?) KEY ***** Asia - diversion strategy, also (according to Curzon - and agreed on by historians): keep Britain quiet in Europe = by keeping her employed in Asia British fear of Russia invasion of India was baseless >> occasional Russia distraction in region to prevent British attack on them in Europe Furthermore, Russia of the time, lacked tools for successful India invasion, ie: financial resources transportation facilities capabilities to develop supply routes maps (re hitherto uncharted sections of Central Asia) Even after Russians developed capabilites, India invasion by Russia rationale = unclear, except as "counterbalance a British move against Russia in some other part of the world British fears = irrational [Or just the usual propaganda and no fear, really?] Historian's take: "... lasting hostility between Britain and Russia was based on a quite unreal fear in each of the other's supposed aggressive intentions" USEFUL REMINDER ** how often Russian strength has been exaggerated and Russian intentions misunderstood ** how much of the time Russia acts out of mistaken fear of our intentions rather than out of aggressive intentions Russia may not have intended to engage in expansionism as against British interest but, author argues: " ... czarist empire engaged in expansionism as against the Islamic Asian regimes on the Russian frontier, and intended to do so" "By definition this is expansionism." " ... in the context of nineteenth century opinion this was not a policy for which the Russians necessarily had to apologize." BRITISH EXPANSIONISM "New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States were frequently cited as examples of successful expansionism that served the cause of civilization." [Served the cause of civilisation? Try: imperialist expansion. lol] Expansionist mindset  - Theodore Roosevelt "The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages, though it is apt to be also the most terrible and inhuman. The rude, fierce settler who drove the savage from the land has all civilized mankind under a debt to him. American and Indian, Boer and Zulu, Cossack and Tartar, New Zealander and Maori-in each case the victor, horrible though many of his deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people. . . . it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races." [Theodore Roosevelt |  The Winning of the West (1889–1896), Roosevelt's frontier thesis ] "For the United States to conquer or occupy everything in its way, until it had filled out a continent and created a commonwealth that stretched from one ocean to the other, was a national destiny that seemed manifest. There was no reason for the Russians to think that their destiny was any less clear." RUSSIA Russian Imperial Chancellor, Prince Gorchakov, 1864 " ... need for secure frontiers obliged the Russians to go on devouring the rotting regimes to their south. He pointed out that "the United States in America, France in Algiers, Holland in her colonies-all have been drawn into a course where ambition plays a smaller role than imperious necessity, and the greatest difficulty is knowing where to stop." [ to be continued ... ] SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Still enjoying the article. Almost finished. Must break. Kitchen calls. lol ꕤ

EXTRACTS |  SUMMARY The Great Game in Asia Foreign Affairs - 1980 issue SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia Nineteenth century | 1800s Britain obsessed by the fear other European powers to take advantage of political decay of Islamic Asia *scramble for the easy pickings First: France Then: Russia (concern re southward march of Russian empire) Early 1800s - Constantinople of strategic concern to British Focus shifted to Persia, Afghanistan & Himalayas b/c Czarist armies overran Central Asia Last quarter 1800s assumption: great war / final showdown b/w Britain & Russia inevitable Alleged history of Russia attempt to move into Afghanistan, Iran & other neighbouring countries Alleged British agenda to stop Russia from doing so without war between the two the above claim likened to supposed US rationale to 'contest Russian expansion in much the same battlefield" The phrase "the Great Game" found in papers & quoted by a historian of First Afghan War Writers re 'Great Game' refer to either: activities of rival intelligence services; or in the broader sense, to describe: Anglo-Russian quarrel about the fate of Asia (as used in article) Great Game arose from a complex of disagreements b/w Britain & Russia 1791 British PM William Pitt opposed czarist annexation of Ochakov, a strategic port town (of Ottoman Empire) Rivalry forgotten: Napoleon Britain & Russia both fought 1815 aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, British 'fears' of Russia began to revive RUSSIA - LAND Then: Russia appeared to be the strongest land power in the world RUSSIA - SEA since the reign of Peter the Great Russia: planned to also be great maritime power Foreign observers: see Russia military strength through magnifying glass: exaggeration of Russian strength gave rise to exaggerated fears Most unrealistic: fear that Russians would march across Asia to attack the British position in India [  Playing on unrealistic fears & exaggeration of Russian strength also  = CIA tactic 1980s (I think it was  - Reagan era ) ...  and the current claims of Russian aggression etc ... same ploy  ] *Originally this had been Napoleon's idea *Napoleon noted: British power established in distant region = British vulnerability: *lines of communication *lines of transportation long & especially subject to disruption Napoleon persuaded Czar Paul of Russia to swoop on lines British communication & transportation to attack British in India *British in India Russian armies pulled back when Czar Paul died Road to India was not attacked. Russia unable to exploit Britain's vulnerability Previously Russia southward expansion into Asia = no relation / threat to British imperialist interests = grand dukes of Moscow campaigns of expansion into Asia CENTURIES before Britain arrived in India = late 1800s frontiers Russia marched upon, were very distant from Indian border British fear was Russian expansion would takeover of Constantinople & the Ottoman Empire / but no concern End of 1820s Russia 'abusing prerogatives' arising from military strength by annexing additional territories from Ottoman & Persian Empires British alarmed begin to see this as threat to British interests in India [ The 'abusing prerogatives'   angle sounds like another pretext for Western aggression, to me  |  See current claims of 'Russian aggression in eastern Europe for same rhetoric  ] 1800s propaganda campaign: Books appeared in England discussing the Russian threat to India. 1829 British PM, Wellington corresponded with President of the India Board about re invasion route Russians might follow (to attack India) if Russians move into Afghanistan From then, propaganda chorus: body of opinion in Britain that saw in every Russian move in Asia a threat to Britain's interest in India - no matter how far-fetched British Imperialism | India Indian Mutiny = British develop fear that mere threat of a Russian attack would encourage Indians to rise up & expel the British 1830 Lord Palmerston = bcm British Foreign Secretary = long career, shaper of British foreign policy = advice: Britain should have neither perpetual friends nor perpetual enemies Palmserston strategy = traditional British policy of upholding territorial integrity of Ottoman & other Islamic rulers in Asia against encroachment by any European powers *practice = from encroachment by Russia Islamic Asia = used by British as a vast buffer against 'Russian expansion' Purported rationale: fear if Asian regimes collapsed struggle b/w outside powers for valuable pieces to lead to general European war LAUGHABLE WESTERN PROPAGANDA 1832 Great Britain moved further in direction of democracy, by enactment of a Reform Bill that somewhat enlarged the franchise Russia - 1830s and 1840s brutal repression of popular revolts in Poland, Hungary and elsewhere "moved further in the direction of establishing herself as the world's chief enemy of freedom" PRETEXT for BRITISH AGGRESSION "ideological differences" between Russia & Britain = an increasing cause of friction [ One's 'superior' ideology or moral stance is always a good pretext for aggression.  lol ] RESULT OF 1800s propaganda: "Britons in ever greater numbers came to object to Russia not merely for what she did but for what she was." Russophobia soon outgrew particular political differences b/w two countries = cause in its own right of Britain's pretext | public agenda: "Britain's determination to stop Russian expansion in Asia" Undeniable factor determining British policy thru much of 1800s = "an antipathy toward Russia which soon became the most pronounced and enduring element in the national outlook" *economic factor assumed genuine significance LOL ... check out this propaganda: "British presence was established in Islamic Asia for strategic national security reasons" TRADE patterns of trade began to develop trade patterns gain significance over time Following: 1838 - Anglo-Turkish Trade Treat 1846 - repeal of the Corn Laws Ottoman Empire trade Ottoman Empire Turkish market = Britain’s 3rd best export in world Russia designs on Ottoman Empire threat to British ECONOMIC + POLITICAL interests Turkey an open market for British manufacturers Russia = high tariff barrier, excluding British goods = Russia 'enemy' on FREE-TRADE GROUNDS BRITISH TRADE - SEA POWER southern sea-coast of Asia configuration = narrow stretches of land & water = can choke off traffic to British @ number of points = Britain (as sea power) - vital to hold ENTIRE COASTLINE in FRIENDLY hands Russia effort to take Persia @ sea-coast threat to British commerce & powerful position Mid-1800s - x9 Claimed Reasons for British opposition to Russian Expansion into Asia 1. Upset of 'balance of power' - Russian European ascendency 2. Russian invasion of British India 3. Russian 'threat' = threat of India revolt against Britain 4. Russian expansion = to cause Islamic regimes to collapse 5. strengthen "chief enemies of popular political freedom" [ LMAO ... pure propaganda ] 6. strengthen a people whom Britons hated 7. threatened to disrupt big British trade with Asia & PROFITS 8. strengthen sort of protectionist, closed economic society ... "which free-trading Britain morally disapproved of" [LMAO ... more propaganda ... British want freedom to pillage | no question of morals in this | it is all about profit of powerful - profit for elites] 9. threaten the line of naval communications upon which Britain's commercial and political position [ie threat to British elite imperialism] Further reason (10) added toward end 1800s by: Lord Salisbury British Foreign Secretary & Prime Minister REPUTATION PRETEXT Lord Salisbury "observed that England would have to stop Russia from acquiring Constantinople because, having made such an issue of it for so long, England would lose her reputation as a formidable power if she finally yielded the point" FURTHER (11) reason - early 1900s: * discovered that there was OIL in the areas that Russia threatened oil possession = military and economic importance Britain vs Russia struggle raged from one end of Asia to other for almost 100 years Principal battlefields: Ottoman Empire Persian Empire khanates of Turkestan in Central Asia mountainous areas - eg Afghanistan (that stretch around the frontier of India) BRITISH IMPERIALISM SCREWED RUSSIA Crimean War (1853-56) Congress of Berlin (1878) Britain secured Constantinople and the Straits Britain undid results of Russian wartime successes against Turkey Britain - defending the Persian Empire PERSIAN GULF COAST * Russia did not exploit Persian hegemony to establish Persian Gulf coast position b/c fear of British reaction MORE PROPAGANDA "Britain salvaged at least her minimum security needs" First half 1800s - decades of fighting, Russia: = conquered Transcaucasus frontier = made final annexations of Georgia: Circassia and parts of Armenia and Azerbaijan By turn of century (ie 1900s ?): Russian hegemony in Persia was almost complete Last half 1800s - Russia conquest of Central Asia: khanates of Khiva, Bokhara and Kokand in western Turkestan Turkoman tribal region (then called Transcaspia) *no British protest British violent reaction = any hint of Russian interference on 'areas of frontier' India BRITISH INVASION x2 - Afghanistan: pretext: presence of Russian agents (in area adjoining India) 1838-42 - First Afghan War 1878-80 - Second Afghan War of 1878-80 Russia encouraged Persia to move against Afghanistan result: 1838 - First Afghan War (above) 1856-57 - Anglo-Persian War 1885 - Penjdeh crisis = Russia border patrols reach Afghan frontier = Britain & Russia almost go to war Pamirs Pamirs: "roof of the world" mountain pass invasion of India vulnerability point Russians get there first turn back the British expedition 1895 to compromise Russians kept the line of the frontier but British were given the mountain passes [ I do not understand who got what ] HIMALAYAS - FOREIGN AID Tibet 'Russian intrigues' Dalai Lama sought to throw off last vestiges of Chinese authority reported contacts b/w Russians + Dalai Lama in 1900 and 1901 Russian aid and establishing Russian influence 1903-04 Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon dispatched a British mission = mission fought its way to Lhasa, Tibetan capital = Dalai Lama fled = British control established [ so a 'mission' must be armed forces ] "What was so especially frightening about the Russian expansion in Central Asia was its persistence and seeming inevitability." [lol ... more propaganda ... it is the British who are imperialists in region] ** "Russians were constantly fighting on their frontiers, against mountain and desert tribesmen if not against regular armies." KEYS WORD HERE: ON RUSSIAN FRONTIERS "to secure the frontier against attack" gradual encroachment over the course of many decades must have seemed to contemporaries to be a series of separate conquests Russians seemed constantly to be pushing outward 1840 a Russian campaign to conquer Khiva met with disaster because Khiva was too far away and the logistical support 1873, Khiva fell to Russians {improved strategy} RUSSIAN REGIONAL GAINS Russians brought in logistical support, built roads and railroads, and organized themselves in such a way as to facilitate their going on to conquer the next adjoining territory. NOTE: "this was not done in pursuance of some overall master plan for the conquest of Asia" BUT: "to the outside world it bore the aspect of the carrying out of such a program" [Probably due to anti Russia propaganda] 1830s - British PM Lord Melbourne brings out the map showing Russian expansion & urging alarm LETTER 1933 Jawaharlal Nehru, future PM of India {to daughter Indira, future PM also} re traditional rivalry between Russia vs Britain in Asia Nehru wrote that " ... the possession of India especially brought the British right up to the Russian frontier, and they were continually having nightmares as to what Tsarist Russia might do to India." AMERICANS ARE REPEATING THIS 'TO RUSSIAN FRONTIER' GAME in UKRAINE (in particular) 1800s - Britain rounded out her position in India by the conquest of = Sindh and other frontier areas = "forward policy" of conquering Afghanistan = maintenance of a network of representatives and intelligence agents all across Asia THUS British India-related activities as taking place on, in Nehru's words, "the Russian frontier" = Russians bound to see them as a dangerous series of acts of aggression. British did not see them that way [or did not acknowledge ... lol] ------- "What the British government did see-and the British public did not-was how Britain, in its struggle against Russia, could support the independence and territorial integrity of regimes such as the Ottoman and Persian Empires, which were cruel and unjust, denying their subjects even the most elementary of human rights. It was natural to wonder why Britain would risk war to keep in power rulers of whom all civilized persons must disapprove." ------ Palmerston PRETEXT * reform the regimes that Britain supported More traditional attitude: Tory Party & Foreign Office = consider the question of which foreign governments to support in the light of British INTERESTS rather than in the light of moral principles choice b/w deplorable allies and a deplorable adversary choice b/w evils, between a sultan who committed atrocities against Armenians & a czar who committed atrocities against Jews "Moral considerations were inapplicable in such a situation, and to introduce them into the discussion of foreign policy therefore was to mislead." Reportedly, many in Britain at time (as in USA today) = not happy supporting a foreign policy not grounded in moral principle = introduction of moral considerations into foreign policy issues worked against Great Britain 1907 - British Yield Inhabited Persia to Russia = Britain settled her differences in the area = Persians attacked Britain but not Russia, for "tyranny was accepted from the Russians as natural to them, whereas Great Britain was expected to behave in accordance with her liberal traditions." [lol ... or, the Persians simply had a relationship with the Russians ... . because they have regional (and long-standing other associations)  with Russians -   their neighbours.  Thus there is a pre-existing  RELATIONSHIP, which is missing from the British incursions in what is a DISTANT and entirely unrelated region] Russia =  introduction of the moral issue into foreign policy was a source of strength =  rhetoric of liberation to justify her incursions  [hey, that's exactly like the West today ... lol] BRITAIN’S ISSUE real issue = whether Britain could afford to preserve the Islamic regimes of Asia = not in the moral sense but in the political and economic sense REAL PURPOSE = Britain to create buffer zone of these decaying empires = ideal buffer zone because they were too feeble to threaten or to hurt the Great Powers BUT = also too feeble to defend themselves against Russian encroachments = Britain the usurper, becomes Britain the regional the enforcer = drained British resources rather than adding to them By last half 1800s Ottoman and Persian Empire internal challenges govt not viable financial administration fell apart British cabinets failed to supply solution " " failed to persuade Ottoman & Persion govts to take action * British propping up exploited by Ottomans ie know the region key to British - therefore Ottoman exploit for financial gain avoided making reforms resisted demands of foreign creditors & foreign powers felt Britain would be obliged to defend them against enforcement attempt = Britain blackmailed by weak client state = US has same problem in 20th Century (1900s) [and I would say, presently ... lol] BRITISH ARE PISSED that Persia (at Russian instigation) >> moved against British interests in exploiting Afghanistan 'Britain thus was obliged to take military action against Persia' ... 'while at the same time trying to preserve the strength and integrity of Persia as against the Russians' PARADOX - USA above paradox not unfamiliar to USA today as it attempts to decide how to deal with an Iran (ie Persia) ( see: Iran held Americans as hostages )    [ hostages is just a pretext  | |  nations that do not intend war, do not go to war over a few hostages  | USA - look to: rivalry of countries Britain undertook to 'protect' against Russia = how USA should deal with: Greek-Turkish and Arab-Israeli conflicts, while simultaneously shielding against 'Soviet Union' = similar to Britain vs Persia against Afghanistan (both of whom it wanted to 'protect' from Russia) "Attempts by Palmerston and other British leaders to persuade Persia that Russia was her real enemy fell on deaf ears. " [LMAO ... I think I like the Persians] Asian regimes too weak to form a banding against Russia response, says the article. Also a problem of mentality? Or a consequence of weakness? = "In their world the weaker bowed to, instead of combining against, the stronger" Other issue of strengthening client states or would-be client states: = country was willing to stand up for its independence against Russia, it also was likely to stand up against Britain = Afghanistan is such an example ( First Afghan War ) Young Disraeli after the First Afghan War = pointed out that Afghanistan could provide the finest possible barrier against Russian invasion ... if only Britain would stop interfering in its affairs. TIP for imperialist empires: " ... best to leave to a local power the responsibility for defending both its interests and one's own." Defect in this policy = President Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the 1969-73 regional surrogates policy = power strong enough to act in such a capacity is likely to have ambitions of its own [  not sure I understand this  ... So, the down side is anyone powerful enough to act on one's behalf in a region, is also likely to wish to act in their own interests?   ] 1902 - Anglo-Japanese alliance = British alliance "finally contracted in order to defeat Russia in Asia" = freed the Japanese to fight the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 = short run success for Britain = Japan destroyed Russian power in the Pacific BUT = decades later, Japan went on to destroy British power & presence in Pacific Lord Salisbury  | British Foreign Policy Independence Strategy = most reliable policy for Britain / one that she could carry out INDEPENDENTLY without having to rely on others *requires strategic facts in place Britain had those available already & worked towards manifesting remainder of strategic goals to enable independent foreign policy: 1798 = Nelson control of Eastern Mediterranean for British navy = first of series of agreements b/w Britain & local rulers along PERSIAN GULF coast (assumed importance 1800s) Persian Gulf Coat = virtual British protectorate of the entire coastal route to India SUEZ CANAL - EGYPT partly accident / partly design = British occupying Egypt and the Suez Canal = Salisbury also obtained Cyprus from Turkey sold as: it being in TURKEY's interest that British forces should have the use of a location of such strategic importance BUT - Salisbury hopes dashed: = proved impossible to have British officials take charge of the administration AND obtain protectorate over the Ottoman Empire 1880 elections = Gladstone back in power = Salisbury program destroyed = Gladstone - on record as believing that Turks antihuman / washed his hands of the Ottoman involvement = Turks, unable to stand on their own, turned to the new power of Bismarck's Germany as their protector 1885 Salisbury resumed tenure of the Foreign Office = lamented that change (re Turkey) could not be undone = Gladstone's government had given away British influence at Constantinople = Gladstone "They have just thrown it away into the sea ... without getting anything whatever in exchange." while British interests still required that Russian expansion be stopped on the Ottoman and Persian frontiers, London unable to guide Ottoman and Persian rulers, in the interests of Britain BRITISH EMPIRE IN DECLINE By the end of the 1800s = Britain had lost control of elements upon which her destiny as a power in Asia depended eg. were Russia to (then) descend from the interior of Asia upon Persian coast, unclear how Britain (with only her fleet) could counterattack LORD CURZON - VICEROY INDIA [ to be continued ... ] SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Extracts / Summary to help me understand article. Article is written from the Anglo-US perspective. Very interesting. Get a feeling that if you understand history, you can understand the present. Pretty much the same kind of stuff goes on today, as it did at the turn of the 1900s and even earlier than that. It's the same game, same aims, same tricks etc.  lol Article seems to go on forever. I can only take in so much in one hit, because I'm not too bright.  lol Need a break from it. Excuse any typos.  In a rush.  Need to switch task. ꕤ

Afghanistan | Not the Success US Claims

EXTRACTS  |  SUMMARY Afghanistan 2015, Jan. - US military handover efffected REMAINING abt 12,000-13,500 foreign troops incl 9,800 U.S. soldiers throughout Afghanistan under post-2014 NATO-led mission 'Operation Resolute Support' NATO new role activities defined: Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) / military cooperation treaty sovereignty and independence constitute little more than a facade Afghanistan remains a country under occupation [political analyst, Yemen] "Afghanistan is no closer to controlling its institutions than Washington is to defeating terror." "inherited a disbanded mercenary army which the state cannot possibly maintain on its own." "NATO has locked Kabul into a financial trap to better assert control and defend its interests in the region." Afghanistan = pawn in The Great Game see (other): http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/33619/david-fromkin/the-great-game-in-asia "war in Afghanistan is to the benefit of foreigners" former Pres Karzai Afghan: strong resentment toward Western powers Afghans ... have come to understand USA as yet another imperialistic power [prior powers: British & Russian] civilian casualties in targeted attacks justified by US as: collateral damage USA footprint of neo-imperial power operates unchallenged March 2012 - US Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales found guilty of killing 16 Afghan civilians rampage No US handover to Afghan authorities “One prime prerogative of all empires is that it is subject to no laws or accountability other than its own, even when it comes to crimes committed on other nations’ soil and against its people,” Greenwald wrote. “One prime prerogative of all empires is that it is subject to no laws or accountability other than its own, even when it comes to crimes committed on other nations’ soil and against its people,” Greenwald wrote. Washington plays Big Brother to impoverished Afghanistan Afghanistan has hand in own demise by developing codependency Afghanistan severely diminished — empty shell no institutional substance very limited economic resources abject poverty plagued by hunger home to billions of dollars  untapped natural resources >> energy + precious minerals economy continues to rely heavily on foreign aid "United States and its allies have instead thrown billions of dollars at the military, prioritizing the development of a mercenary army via private U.S. contractors rather than bank on Afghans to rebuild their state" Afghanistan cannot pay troops’ salaries without help does not own its army foreign powers pay the bills security has deteriorated Afghanistan cannot even feed itself hunger is rampant / yet it is expected to provide for upkeep of mercenary army Despite military handover vulnerable to outside control due to financial destitution corruption, nepotism and political wrangling = issues vicious circle of political dependency belief that solutions lie outside of own borders Afghanistan toss up: Taliban or neo-colonial servitude Afghanistan must revive economy / provide sustainable source of income SOURCE The War Is Over, But Afghanistan Remains Shackled By Neo-Imperialism http://www.mintpressnews.com/war-afghanistan-remains-shackled-neo-imperialism/200553/ ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Mercenaries and other US federal contractors always come out on top.   I'm assuming they're US mercenaries.  *** Greenwald arguing against the US refusal to hand over the soldier (that probably lost the plot), isn't something I'd support.  I wouldn't hand over anybody, for even worse treatment than they'd get in the US.  Imagine the barbaric treatment he'd be subjected to if the Americans handed him over. That was a good article. Resources is probably why the West is there ... that, and whatever the strategic rewards of 'The Great Game' offers ... (I've forgotten ... might have to brush up again on that). *** Checking again they're talking 'inherited' and 'disbanded mercenary army,' that's Afghan militants / mercenaries; but they're also talking:"development of a mercenary army via private US contractors" So they're paying US contractors to train and supervise a mercenary army? US mercenaries win/win. ꕤ

Middle East - Brief Overview | Obama 7 Years, 7 Countries Bombed

Barack Obama: The Nobel Peace Prize Winner Who Bombed Seven Countries U.S. jets are bombing Syria again this month, part of an overall pattern of military expansion during the Obama administration that’s seen military involvement in dozens of conflicts. As the United States renews a bombing campaign against ISIS forces in Syria, it seems like America’s penchant for waging war knows no bounds. During the first seven years of Barack Obama’s presidency, the U.S. bombed seven countries while supporting other destabilizing military actions throughout the Middle East. Here’s a look at these seven countries and the effects of bombing: Afghanistan — Despite the announced “end” of the Afghanistan War, significant U.S. military presence in Afghanistan remains. Drones are a frequent presence in Afghan skies. One strike earlier this month killed 12 people, according to Iran’s PressTV. Iraq — The Obama administration has conducted over 5,000 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in just the past year, David Lerman reported for Bloomberg Business. Despite ongoing U.S. military involvement ,terrorism continues to be a deadly presence in Iraq’s cities. Libya — While the European Union and its allies carried out many of the airstrikes during Libya’s civil war, the U.S. was instrumental in destabilizing that country through both military aid and direct support, especially during the lead up to Gen. Moammar Gadhafi’s overthrow in 2011. Now ISIS is also gaining a stronghold here and the country has been described as a failed state. Pakistan — Drone strikes are also frequent in Pakistan, where the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimated that only 4 percent of the victims could be identified as al-Qaida members. Although drone strikes on Pakistan began under George W. Bush, their frequency has dramatically increased under Obama, RT reported last year.  Somalia — Over 100 U.S. troops have been stationed in Somalia since 2007, Reuters reported last year. In September, the U.S. again carried out airstrikes there, apparently killing Ahmed Abdi Godane, leader of the extremist group Al-Shabaab, which the U.S. claimed was allying with al-Qaida.  Syria — The U.S. renewed its bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria earlier this month, with U.S. war planes taking off from bases in Turkey. Airstrikes were also used in a failed attempt to defend “Division 30,” the failed American attempt to train so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels.  Yemen — U.S. cables revealed by WikiLeaks show that Yemeni officials have allowed airstrikes, which began under George W. Bush, to continue under the Obama administration. RT reported last year: “US bombing raids in Yemen are almost solely carried out by drones and they have been increasing in intensity in recent years. … A report by Human Rights Watch in 2013 analyzed six airstrikes in Yemen carried out since 2009. The organization found that out of the 82 people who died in the airstrikes, 57 were civilians. In all, the U.S. has bombed 14 predominantly Muslim countries since 1980. The death toll from all modern wars in the Middle East may be as high as 4 million dead Muslims and Arabs. Repeated military campaigns have destabilized the Middle East, giving rise to terror groups like ISIS, allowing for sectarianism to blossom, and necessitating further bombing, in what Ron Fullwood, writing for MyMPN, called a “perpetual protection racket.” 2015-08-19 Source http://www.mintpressnews.com/barack-obama-the-nobel-peace-prize-winner-whos-bombed-7-countries/208748/ VIA http://www.global-politics.eu/democraticus/2015/08/25/barack-obama-the-nobel-peace-prize-winner-who-bombed-seven-countries/ ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Thought this was a good quickie overview of military action in the Middle East. I've not read the linked articles.  Might have to skim some of the articles, as I'm not at all familiar with what's going on. Sounds like drone strikes kill more civilians than they do terrorist targets. A hundred troops in Somalia doesn't seem like much. Syria's down for a regime change.  The West, Israel, and the US don't like Assad for some reason.  He's probably Iran and Russia friendly. The US and the West have already demolished Libya (in much the same way they're probably planning to demolish Syria), and the result is more extremists - which is supposed to help destabilise and weaken Syria, I think. Pakistan is 'terrorist central' (well, that's my impression).  Pakistan receives an ENORMOUS amount of military and other aid from the US, and the aid must come with US strings attacked - drones is probably part of the package.  There's a massive amount of resistance in Afghanistan - something's getting blown up all the time.  Five thousand airstrikes in Iraq, in a year, is huge.