Anti-Subjugator

Ok, here's another attempt to get geostrategy out of my head, and into word form so that mortals can understand what is required. My brain has been constantly analyzing threats to myself, the free world, and innocent people in general, for decades. E.g. I wanted to just kill all Australian criminals, to protect their next victim. I could never see the benefit in keeping these people doing harm alive.

First of all, the ultimate goal is rational, humanist, non-subjugating governments, preferably instituted via democracy. Well, when I say "ultimate goal", it's the first step on the way. We still need to merge our countries ala the European Union, and address crime within our countries, standardize etc etc. There's plenty of great things to do, but first we need to free people - WITHOUT jeapordizing our security. How do you do that? The most obvious way is to start by defeating our enemies, which means we can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Foddy's goal appears to be to bring down America, and so, just like the commies before him, spends all his effort complaining about America allying with some friendly despots instead of pushing our allies into our enemy's camp so that America can be defeated. You never heard commies complaining about the Soviet Union's human rights abuses. In actual fact, America is actually on record complaining about Uzbekistan's human rights abuses, which you can see here. It's pretty hard-hitting. And you could even say that the US has made a major error by verbally attacking an ally, when it has enemies undefeated. America is very lucky indeed that it can afford to do this. It does one good thing which is to mention every other country in the world too, even Australia, so that Uzbekistan doesn't get spooked. Regardless, America is on record as saying what it stands for, even if it doesn't have the luxury of being able to fix every problem simultaneously, and certainly doesn't have the luxury of attacking allies.

I thought I had already explained the principles of geostrategy and warfare already, but for some reason it's still too difficult for others to get their head around. So I'll have to do it in many posts to come, and eventually I hope to find someone who can translate complicated strategy into something ordinary people can understand.

Anyway, Foddy has quoted some twit called Craig Murray in a speech he made to the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London in 2004. Let me fisk it.

"How can it advance the war on terror to back a totalitarian dictator who terrorises and impoverishes his own people?"

Exactly the same way that backing the USSR helped us win the war against Nazi Germany.

"If Karimov is part of the "Coalition of the willing", is on "our" side in the war on terror, then that war cannot be the straightforward clash between good and evil which the politicians are selling."

It's more complicated than that. It is indeed a clash between good and evil, just as our war with Nazi Germany was, but in both cases, we managed to rope in other evil people onto our side, to help us actually win. The time to turn on allies is after the current battle has been won. Just as WWII made way for the Cold War.

"It is, in fact, about something else."

It is, in fact, not.

"It is about the advancement of American military power in areas central to the control of oil and gas"

No, it's about the advancement of the entire free world, not just America, across the entire damn world, not just the bit of the world with oil and gas in it.

"US oil and gas interests are served by backing an unpleasant dictator in Tashkent"

But not backing someone similar in Iraq? So regardless of whether we're attacking or supporting someone, it's always for oil?

"willing to give them a dominant position in Central Asia"

No, we're willing to let them sell their oil on the free market. Exactly as we "allowed" the Soviet Union to do. And Venezuela. And come to think of it, every other country with any resource at all.

"just as they are served by toppling one in Baghdad."

And if we do topple the Uzbek dictator, you'll claim that was for oil too. And if we are neutral with a dictator like Turkmenistan, it's only because they've got oil too. I'll tell you who's obsessed with oil. It's YOU. Not Bush.

"This is nothing to do with the advancement of democracy."

It does. If we can replace a dictator with a democracy, and by doing so turn an enemy into a dictator, then we do indeed want democracy. Democracies take no resources to maintain. It's the ultimate goal. You end up with countries like Australia who use their OWN resources to HELP you of their OWN FREE WILL. Regardless, you twerp, YOU should have done it because YOU wanted democracy in Iraq, regardless of what reasons Bush may have had in your fertile oil-obsessed imagination.

"If it were, why has the US government put so much effort into shielding the Uzbek government from criticism in international fora such as the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva?"

Because if you're going to pick on people's human rights, how about starting with countries that are enemies? We had to do the same thing during the Cold War too. When you have a threat in front of you, you do whatever you need to do to keep your allies on board.

"If the US believes that backing Karimov is producing stability in the region, that is a remarkably short-term view."

No, it's a long-term view. In the long-term, we'll have every country in the world allied with the US, and then we can start pointing fingers at allies that aren't up to our standards yet.

"Uzbeks know they are miserable and getting poorer, and their government is deeply repressive and, increasingly, hated."

As did the Iraqis, the Iranians etc etc also. So?

"They are being offered no liberal, democratic alternative."

Just like the Iraqis, the Iranians etc etc also. So?

"Indeed Karimov's propaganda tells them that the system they have now is freedom and democracy, and they don't think much of it."

Just like the Iraqis, the Iranians etc etc also. So?

"The only opposition to Karimov they often encounter is the underground Mosque movement or Hizb-ut-Tehrir."

Which is actually an enemy.

"And terrible torture and persecution increasingly radicalise these groups."

Or the other way around. We didn't get this radicalization under Saddam, so the theory is crap. If you want to pressure the Uzbek government into basically banning Islam altogether to prevent this radicalization, we can discuss that.

"The system is building up towards inevitable violent confrontation."

Just like Iraq, Iran etc etc, that ended up in victory for the dictator, as usual.

"That could be five or seven years away"

Or never.

"but I have no doubt that as things stand at present we are heading for a catastrophic model of regime change."

Just like Iraq, Iran, etc etc. All crap.

"And thanks to US support for Karimov, the result is likely to be anti-Western."

You mean like the Russians loved us after the Cold War because we didn't support their dictator during the Cold War? Time to update your whacky theory. If the Uzbeks don't understand why we can't afford to look too closely at our allies, then just add them to the enemy list.

"The targeting of the US and Israeli Embassies in Uzbekistan shows that we are creating a whole new race of people who hate the West."

No, they're being created by Islamists, who have no interest in helping protect the free world.

"Young Uzbeks are attracted to radical Islam because we are giving them no viable alternative to Karimov."

There is an alternative. Help us defeat the enemies of the free world so that we can eventually get to you. You can help by urging the Uzbek government to declare war on Iran, as the highest priority. The faster we get this over with, the faster we'll be in a position to help you. This is actually THE most crucial thing to understand. If you can understand why it is in YOUR interest, quite apart from the Iranian people's interest, to get America to topple the Iranian dictatorship, then everything else falls into place. The Kurds made exactly the same mistake. It's not time for Kurdish independence yet. We can help the Kurds reach their aspirations at a later date, but there are other problems to deal with. During the 1980s, the Kurds did the wrong thing by fighting Saddam. We were engaged in a war against Iran, and Saddam was our temporary ally, and the Kurds harmed our cause. If they want help from us, they need to ask us what WE want, and what OUR strategy is, and whether THEIR goals can be INTEGRATED into that plan. And they CAN! All they need to do is ASK. We'd LOVE to help the Kurds. But they can't hurt our security, otherwise they will actually be declared enemies. I'd like to say "it's not that complicated", but apparently while it's simple for me to understand, people who haven't been contemplating the problem constantly for decades don't find it simple. And I have so far been unable to come up with a "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Geostrategy including Kurdish and Uzbek aspirations".

"Supporting Karimov is creating, not combating, Islamic fundamentalism."

No, Islam is causing Islamic fundamentalism. If you want to stop it, forcibly convert people out of Islam. And kill those who resist.

"I strongly commend to you this Human Rights Watch publication, Creating Enemies of the State, which documents the brutalising of a society."

I strongly recommend you read my blog and use your brain and stop being an enemy of the free world. I tend to arrange for enemies of the free world to be shot.