Is the U.S. turning into an "Evil Empire"?

In transparent and objective consideration, there can be no doubt that the creation of ISIS, the destruction of Libya, the devastation of Syria, the destabilization of Ukraine, and the deterioration of the relationship with Russia owe to the atrocious foreign policy of the U.S. under the incumbent administration of Barack Obama. While some politicians and pundits seem to be wiser in hindsight and acknowledge the committed blunders, others remain stubborn and unconvinced. Of course, among the latter, Mr. Obama himself, who diverts from his dismal record on foreign affairs by focusing on subordinate problems like global warming and gun control. 

During these disastrous policy decisions, in my blog entries of 2011 (Libya) and 2013 (Syria), I warned against supporting violent and extremist insurgent movements while letting down established heads of state and governing political administrations. Here is what I wrote in August of 2014 after ISIS appeared on the scene and introduced a new concept of radicalized warfare: "If further damage to global affairs ought to be prevented, a swift turnaround is needed to bring American (and Transatlantic, for that matter) foreign policy to its senses. Given Mr. Obama's stubbornness, hubris, and conceitedness, there is little hope things will get better in the two years he has left in office, unless his ignorance and ideological prejudice will be reined in by the Senate, by Congress, and by a significant majority of the American public."

 

This swift turnaround in American foreign policy did not occur; instead, the administration doubled down on its failed policies, heavily protected by the bulk of the mainstream media and supported by significant representatives of the Republican Party in both Senate and Congress. The ever more hardening and downright ridiculous stance of senators John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham should disqualify them for serious foreign affairs business forever. In the place of substantial critique and the building up of public pressure on the Obama administration to reconsider their approach to world affairs, the pernicious propaganda against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin continued and intensified. In depicting Assad as a murderous tyrant and "New Hitler" of the Middle East, the Obama administration propagated regime change under the pretense that Assad had used weapons of mass destruction on his people. The media could only present questionable evidence that the Syrian people needed liberation from their oppressive government and president. Barely a critical word mentioned on the murderous and illegitimate conglomerate of insurgents, who even received financial and material support. 

The Pax Americana the U.S. attempted to impose upon a large part of the world turned out to be an utter failure. But what to do about the chaos in the Middle East, large sections of Africa, the Caucasus, Russia relations, and China? The candidates lining up for the presidential elections do not raise much hope. Whoever watched the recent debates of Republican presidential candidates from an international security and foreign policy standpoint must have been terrified! Among the candidates, the only exception to the incumbent administration's hawkish policy against ISIS was Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who just suspended his campaign and dropped out of the race. The polls' leading candidates - Cruz, Rubio, and even Trump - all espouse a somewhat interventionist stance. With differences in detail, they seem to be willing to continue the past and present Obama policies. 

Who and what could bring the United States to its senses? At long last, who will reject the pernicious post-Cold War foreign policy approach to shape international affairs and implement a global security order exclusively according to American principles and interests? And in the context of the ongoing race for the White House: Where is a president who is not a petty partisan politician, but rather a statesman, acknowledging the legitimate national interests of other global players and, above all, of his country's European allies?

If the U.S. is not able to steady itself from within, it will be on its way to become in reality what the headline formulated as a question. The result most likely being that more or less the entire world will eventually unite to bring down the imperialist Leviathan.

Though this be madness, yet there is method in it!

Shakespeare's aphorism from Hamlet comes to mind when one looks into the state of affairs in global relations. With every day, the evidence becomes overwhelming that what I considered to be the political blunder of a U.S. administration run by a presidential dilettante of hitherto unknown proportions is part of a grand, albeit pathological, globalist strategic design.

The plan appears to aim at a New World Order under the exclusive leadership of the United States. Going back to the Project for the New American Century (P.N.A.C.), a neoconservative think-tank of the late 1990ies, this foreign policy approach has guided U.S. foreign policy in principle ever since. Despite its roots in the Republican party, the Imperialist idea of establishing a Pax Americana, a New World Order enforced and controlled by the U.S., was willfully extended by the governing regime of the Democratic Party under Barack Obama. While slamming the Bush-Cheney administration for the Iraq War and attempting to take military control over the Gulf region, he aggressively continued shaping foreign affairs policies and implementing an international security order according to American interests. Since Obama took office, we could witness the instigation of the Arab Spring by the support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt against President Mubarak, the backing of insurgents in Libya and Syria, and the turning of both nations into failed states. Furthermore, the Obama administration enabled the formation of ISIS and caused the death of tens of thousands of people and the displacement and flight of hundreds of thousands. Those policies drove the world into chaos, thus far unparalleled in our lifetime.
 
However, American imperialism, hiding behind alleged democratic principles and presumed policy necessities, landed one of its probably most sanctimonious achievements in Ukraine by orchestrating a coup d'état against the democratically-elected, albeit allegedly corrupt, government of then-president Yanukovich. By establishing the Washington and Berlin-backed Poroshenko administration in Kyiv, the U.S. and the E.U. drove Ukraine into a fratricidal civil war and severely damaged Ukraine's and Russia's economy. In the usual reversal of cause-effect realities, the mainstream media and the U.S. State Department blamed Russia's aggression and Mr. Putin's expansionism. Since then, the military build-up on the Russian and NATO side has drastically increased, laying the seed for what quite a few commentators consider to be the initial charge for World War III.

From a western and transatlantic alliance perspective, though, a most disturbing development has to be seen in the unleashing of a wave of mass migration from the Middle East's conflict regions toward Central Europe, particularly toward the more developed and geographically conveniently located nations within the European Union. While many speculate where tens of thousands of destitute refugees get the money from to pay people smugglers and traffickers, the suspicion arises that the leading proponents and do-gooders launched a grand strategic design for a New World Order against their allies on the European continent. Ethnic and cultural subversion shall help synchronize and conform to the masses and thereby facilitate (world) governance under U.S. preeminence.

We are confronting new faces of contemporary warfare - mass immigration of people from Muslim parts of the world into countries of Christian provenance; de(con)struction of the cultural and moral fabric of western societies; the advancement of progressive secularism; obliteration of traditional family structures; legalization of drugs.

The quarter-century of post-Cold War (world) order did not see the emergence of a definite geostrategic posture based on traditional territorial scenarios and clear front-lines. Instead, an ever-increasing (world) disorder materialized, pushed by global players' reckless policies that side with the U.S. government and its international dominance goal, unchallenged by other nations or regional powers.

The path to this centralized and quite totalitarian World Order is paved, at the bottom, by the weakening, and, in the long run, dissolution of the nation-state concept. A subject matter that will warrant a comprehensive analysis on its own; one that I will provide in a forthcoming essay.

If there is truth to this rough outline of global affairs, then indeed, the madness does have a method!