News reaches the world that the US administration has decided to pull out of Syria , a turning point in the ‘War on Terror’ , which now appears to be in a death spiral . It also points to the fact that the US administration is finally acknowledging that the country itself may have been manipulated and leveraged by both domestic and global power structures .
The political establishment of any country and also by definition its military forces are open to infiltration , misuse and abuse by dark forces who only care about profit and power . Other countries may also have a political or financial agenda in trying to influence their ‘allies’ .
Several countries would wish the slaughter and destruction to continue .
- UK flatly rejects claim by Donald Trump that Isis has been defeated in Syria
- Netanyahu vows to ‘protect’ Israel as Trump says he’ll pull troops out of Syria
- France to Stay in Syria as UK Says Still More to Do Against ISIS
There are those that specialize in playing one bloc against another bloc in a tried and tested dialectic built on baseless existential fear .
All of this does not exclude the idea that there may be a plan B , there usually is .
There is also debate about how far the rabbit hole actually goes . For example , it would seem inconceivable that global power structures such as the Russian and Chinese administrations would let the war on terror consume allies such as Syria & Iran .
Another global dialectic perhaps , a bit like Russian dolls , one hidden within another .
I think this theory gives too much credit to the decision makers , they are not only not as intelligent as they would like us to think , they are actually more stupid than we think . This is based on the assumption that the human factor is intrinsic in global geopolitical strategy .
This is realpolitik , which is described on Wikipedia as follows :
The theory of political realism proceeds from the assumption that states—as actors in the international arena—pursue their interests by practising Realpolitik. Conversely, Realpolitik can be described as the exercise of policies that are in line with accepted theories of political realism. In either case, the working hypothesis is generally that policy is chiefly based on the pursuit, possession and application of power .
I think the description is on the mark , except for assumption that states are the real actors .
Which is simply not true .
Further reading :