Directed History of Syrian War?
By Staff News & Analysis - June 08, 2012

Annan floats idea to rescue failing Syria peace plan-envoys … International mediator Kofi Annan will present the U.N. Security Council with a new proposal to rescue his failing peace plan for Syria, where 15 months of violence have brought the country to the brink of civil war, U.N. diplomats said on Wednesday. Annan's proposal for the creation of a "contact group" of world and regional powers comes as the Syrian opposition and Western and Gulf nations seeking the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad increasingly see Annan's six-point peace plan as doomed due to the Syrian government's determination to use military force to crush an increasingly militarized opposition. – Reuters

Dominant Social Theme: Syria must be taken in hand.

Free-Market Analysis: It is surprising to see what we call directed history at work. From Tunisia to Egypt and then Libya and now Syria, Western powers are manufacturing pretexts for wars and toppling governments. Syria is the next to go but probably not the last.

They are working their way up toward Iran, it would seem. The question is why. The larger and even more fascinating question is whether any of this is coincidence.

Nothing about this rash of "youth movements" seems either spontaneous or credible. We've extensively documented the involvement of Washington and especially the State Department in destabilizing Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.

When it comes to Syria, the West is hardly trying to pretend anymore. Hillary Clinton has taken to proclaiming that Syrian President Assad must go. The unfolding war is destined to bring this about.

It is surely not about exploitation but about power. We noticed early on that the countries being destabilized all had secular governments and that the replacements would likely be Islamic-oriented governments.

This fits right into a larger perspective that the power elite is intent on creating tame regimes that will seem to endorse Islamic positions but that at the very top are beholden to Western powers.

This has two positive outcomes from the point of view of the powers-that-be. First, it buttresses the narrative of the "war on terror" by adding considerably to the Islamic political community. Second, at the very top, the West achieves pliability. The regime are beholden to top elites not to their own people.

This creates a Hegelian dynamic that is most supportive of increased East-West tension and thus adds to the control that Western elites exert over their own citizens. An outside threat is the surest and easiest way to increase domestic subjugation.

There is no doubt this is an incrementally initiated strategy. It began apparently in 2005 when the Security Council of the UN abrogated the 400-year-old Peace of Westphalia that announced the inviolability of the nation state.

The UN then substituted for this something called R2P – Responsibility to Protect. There is a very obvious connection between this change and the recent attack on various Middle Eastern and African states. R2P has been constantly and regularly cited.

The Security Council includes five permanent members – the US, UK, China, Russia and France; if R2P was not something that Russia or China sought, the resolution could have been vetoed. Instead it was made into law.

Surely those skilled in statecraft would be well aware of the potential ramifications. This change was significant and those who voted on it would surely have acquainted themselves with the reasons for its passage.

Thus it can be argued that the top men in Russia and China were well aware of the plans that have resulted in the current destabilizations. This conclusion leads us right back to the speculation that wars are often part of what we call "directed history." Here's some more from the article:

Annan will float his proposal during a special session of the 15-nation council on Syria on Thursday, diplomats said on condition of anonymity. The former U.N. secretary-general hopes his new idea can prevent a total collapse of his earlier plan for a truce and negotiated political solution, they said.

The core of the proposal, diplomats said, would be the establishment of a contact group that would bring together Russia, China, the United States, Britain, France and key regional players with influence on Syria's government or the opposition, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Iran.

By creating such a contact group, envoys said, Annan would also be trying to break the deadlock among the five permanent council members that has pitted veto powers Russia and China against the United States, Britain and France and prevented any meaningful U.N. action on the Syrian conflict, envoys said.

It would attempt to map out a "political transition" for Syria that would lead to Assad stepping aside and the holding of free elections, envoys said. One envoy said the idea was "vaguely similar" to a political transition deal for Yemen that led to the president's ouster.

The end result of all this maneuvering and war-craft is likely that of Assad stepping down and the implementation of "free elections."

Such conflicts, as we stated above, are seemingly directed history. They've been planned and implemented meticulously and the big powers are in cahoots when it comes to that implementation. The ultimate goal is world government – a goal elites around the world seemingly share.

After Thoughts

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that many wars are fought with great ferocity by the direct participants while the people at the very top are actually joined together in self-interest and do not share the same enmity. Else why the appearance and expansion of R2P?